Can Conservatives Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive?

Attacking the left's culture war excesses can't substitute for the lack of a positive economic agenda

In this week’s newsletter:

• The Main Event: Imagining a conservatism that avoids the negativity trap

• Capitol Hill Updates: Republican proposals on child care and IVF

• Et Cetera: Reports, takes, roundups, and two podcast appearances

The Main Event

If there’s one thing that ties most of the modern conservative movement together, it’s the sense that the world is continually heading to hell in a handbasket. We’re slouching towards Gomorrah, bowling alone, surrounded by economic and societal carnage, needing to RETVRN to the legacy of the Founders (or even prior to them) to make America and the West great - or at least good - again. Happy warriors are few and far between, particularly under the banner of conservatism’s current avatar.

Granted, in a world stained by original sin, there’s always going to be something to despair over. But the values and institutions which conservatives rightly champion—family, parenthood, religion, community, etc.—do not benefit by being cast in an excessively partisan or downbeat frame. Attack-dog talking points might win elections, but pitching getting married or having kids as “owning the libs” isn’t likely to work, and could backfire via negative polarization.

Conservatives in general, and the G.O.P. more specifically, would benefit from figuring out a way to - as the song goes - ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive and bring gloom down to the minimum when it comes to the politics of family. That doesn’t come naturally to some of today’s conservative populists.

Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters, 1943. (Source: Wikimedia)

As The Atlantic’s Stephanie Murray recently wrote on Twitter, villainizing the childless is not the same as valuing parents. University of Virginia sociologist Brad Wilcox argued for American Compass this week that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) should help the G.O.P. “turn the spotlight away from the culture-war cul-de-sac framing… and toward a new, bold, and positive agenda for family renewal.” That won’t happen, I’d argue, without giving the left its due - and maybe even paying tribute in the form of light plagiarism.

We can see this in the competing definitions of “pro-parent” being displayed in the vice-presidential undercard of the 2024 election. Say what you will about the tenure of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, whose folksy persona belies a track record of fairly aggressive cultural progressivism. But during his time in office, the state of Minnesota delivered real, material benefits to parents, passing a new child tax credit, paid leave, universal school lunches, and free college tuition for students of low-income and middle-class families.

These policies have their design flaws - work and marriage penalties in the CTC, earnings requirements that tend to leave younger parents out of the paid leave program - but it is inaccurate to say that this wasn’t Minnesota Democrats’ best attempt at helping families, and that it outstrips the offerings from most red states.

Similarly, it is simply not true to suggest that Vice President Kamala Harris is calling for an end to the child tax credit. Congressional Democrats’ partisan blinders certainly made it more difficult to achieve meaningful improvements in the CTC (just as Republican intransigence killed this year’s best hope of a deal). But as a party, the Democrats support broad expansions of social spending on their version of pro-family policies. Republicans can point out the problems in their approach—and they do have real, significant flaws—but should admit they are earnest efforts to address families’ economic needs or improve their circumstances.

Instead, some on the right, like former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, have tried to throw out culture war chaff, dubbing Gov. Walz “Tampon Tim” for his support of a law that required free menstrual products in public school bathrooms. I would wager any feminine hygiene products installed in male restrooms are more likely to be used for Tiger Woods-like pranks than for their intended purpose, and the intentionality with which the bill opens the door (though does not require) for them to be placed in male bathrooms is a sign of progressive gender doctrine taking the reins of state government.

But while state-provided menstrual products in boys restrooms is certainly a waste of taxpayer money, how much focus will that receive versus the broader effort to ensure that teenage girls have the supplies they need? Persuadable voters can tell when politicians are riling them up versus trying to solve a problem. A number of red-leaning states, including Georgia, Ohio, Alabama, and Utah, have passed laws requiring public schools to help their female students access these supplies if needed - highlighting and championing those efforts could help make the criticism of Minnesota’s gender extremism stick.

That goes for pro-natal and pro-marriage efforts as well. A Wall Street Journal piece by Rachel Wolfe and Scott Calvert this week (inadvertently?) showcases the degree to which positions that strike many conservatives as normal have become foreign to mainstream ears. As the New York Times’ Ross Douthat recently wrote, efforts to boost the birth rate often struggle for the simple fact that its loudest proponents tend to be a little - in today’s preferred patois - weird.

And so, politicians may not be the right figures to explicitly lead that particular charge, perhaps opting for quieter ways of boosting fertility by reducing housing costs or policy approaches that enable young adults to launch earlier in life. Likewise, efforts to boost marriage rates are always welcome, but if they are pursued with an explicitly partisan goal in mind, run the risk of backfiring. Too strong an effort to code “married” as “likely to vote Republican” in the public imagination may end up polarizing couples who would have otherwise gotten married away from the institution.

Being pro-family means more than just highlighting the excesses of the left (of which there are many), but offering a positive, compelling vision of what family life is without too heavy a stress on prescription. It looks more like what the demographer Lyman Stone stresses in his interview with the Journal - that for many conservative dads, marriage is much more egalitarian than even a generation or two ago. Or what my EPPC colleague Erika Bachiochi has written on why a fuller understanding of authentic feminism allows women to integrate motherhood and professional fulfillment in a way that other visions can’t. A culture-war-first message around family issues may succeed in preaching to the choir, but struggle to change the minds of those currently uninterested in or opposed to conservative stances.

Republicans still have to monitor the punch bowl; they’ll never win a bidding war on pro-family spending. But parts of the party are ready to expend our limited fiscal capacity in the service of further lowering corporate tax rates or increasing defense spending; the part of the movement that wants a more pro-family America shouldn’t be shy about coupling culturally conservative messages with proactive, prudent, and aspirational approaches to celebrating families economically as well. If they can’t successfully do so, as National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty points out, the left will thrive on painting conservatives as obsessed with gender and identity issues. Accentuating the positive will mean pressing some hot buttons a little less vehemently and highlighting support for families in a way that doesn’t come across as conservative social engineering.

Talking about the goodness of family life and parenthood can sometimes come across as pablum, but it will only be empty if it’s not backed up by non-gimmicky policy ideas. Even at the Heritage Foundation, guardian of limited government conservatism for decades, president Kevin Roberts is publicly talking about the “need to see every issue as a family issue,” and suggesting some new openness to ideas once thought forbidden. Perhaps that will open the door for more Republicans to come to the table with creative ideas.

But there’s no need to dramatically reinvent the wheel; more vocal support of existing ideas would go a long way. The Child Tax Credit remains the best and simplest way of supporting families. Free school lunch programs, so long as they are inclusive of private and parochial schools that want to participate, shouldn’t be off the table. Giving parents more tools to protect their kids online remains wildly popular across the aisle.

A pro-family agenda that is most closely associated with culture war controversies - even if the right is on the correct side of those divides - is going to struggle to make the needed headway. Standing for parents’ rights and against gender ideology should still be part of the conservative playbook, but the emphasis needs to change. Stress the uplifting parts of the conservative agenda by giving the left its due on their pro-family spending ideas and then pointing out the flaws with their approach, rather than trying to change the subject with takes tailor-made for cable TV.

Because while I don’t know exactly what number of tweets about tampons in male restrooms it would take to convince persuadable voters the Republican Party actually cares about the well-being of families in lieu of a substantive policy approach, surely the number must be very, very high.

Capitol Hill Updates

Last week, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) introduced legislation to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG), offering some substantive tweaks the nation’s largest source of child care support for low-income families. The best part of this bill is its emphasis on increasing supply, providing tools for states to expand provider capacity and better support in-home and rural child care providers. It gives states a little more flexibility in determining who is eligible for the program in the first place, encourages them to review their regulatory burdens, and stresses "mixed delivery," an important part of ensuring parental choice in the program. A bill with real bipartisan potential, and worth keeping an eye on.

Also last week, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) introduced his IVF Access and Affordability Act, which would create a federal tax credit for those seeking out assisted reproductive technologies. Couples could deduct $40,000 in expenses relating to infertility services, and individuals $20,000, from their federal taxes. Set aside the moral arguments made around IVF and the lighter regulatory oversight of the fertility industry in the U.S. compared to across the globe, and the weaknesses of this approach are still evident. Massive tax credits distort the market and call into question the principle of horizontal equity (the couples profiled in the New York Times who opted for IVF instead of trying to conceive naturally, for example, would reap significant financial benefits.) But more importantly, Republicans who consider themselves pro-family should not be offering large federal subsidies to single individuals pursuing parenthood at a time when the benefit of being raised in a two-parent household are, as they say, being recognized more and more. The current IRS regulations hold that only costs and fees attributable to medical care for the taxpayer or their spouse qualify as deductible medical expenses in the case of infertility - a smart distinction. Codifying that interpretation in legislation would be a far better approach for Republican lawmakers concerned about election year attacks to spend their energy on.

Et Cetera

Reports: What do Americans think about fewer people choosing to have children? (Pew Research Center)…A majority of Americans believe IVF is moral, but they are split on the morality of destroying the excess embryos created in the process (Gallup)…A Democratic Cost of Living Agenda (Chamber of Progress)

Pieces: America’s New Political War Pits Young Men Against Young Women (Aaron Zitner and Andrew Restuccia, Wall Street Journal)…States have increased anti-abortion center funding by nearly $500M since Roe was overturned (Shefali Luthra, The 19th)…How insurance is affecting the cost of childcare (Planet Money)…After the end of Roe, a new beginning for maternity homes (Associated Press)…N.J., N.M., Ore., and Penn. will be joining the IRS Direct File program (Julie Zauzmer Weil, Washington Post)…Why Kamala Harris Has A Chance To Make History As A Policymaker (Jonathan Cohn, Huffington Post)…US abortion numbers have risen slightly since Roe was overturned, #WeCount study finds (Associated Press)

Takes: Parenting Alone: The Real Problem with Contemporary Parenting (Lyman Stone, Family Studies)…We Need a National Conversation on Dating, Family Life, and Economics (Josh Hammer, Newsweek)…Kamala Harris’ Abortion Extremism (Ryan T. Anderson, First Things)…With Tim Walz, Kamala Harris May Give Families a Lifeline (Grace Segers, The New Republic)…It's Time to Ease the Financial and Administrative Costs of Childbirth (Amber Lapp, Family Studies)…“Men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion care” (Sec. Pete Buttigieg) 

Roundup: Missouri voters rejected an amendment that would have exempted child care providers from property taxes…Illinois now mandates that health insurers cover all fertility treatments as well as an annual menopause appointment for women…Massachusetts has raised the eligibility threshold for its state child care assistance program from 50 to 85 percent of the median income, and is providing direct grants to providers.

Elsewhere: Congress Drops the Ball on the Child Tax Credit (Newsweek, Aug. 5)

The Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (HR 7024), which died in the Senate last week, wasn't perfect. But it was a unique opportunity to check some boxes with significant appeal on both sides of the aisle. As Congress prepares to deal with the expiration of the Trump-era tax cuts next year, it should rely on some of the ideas in this tax deal, instead of getting distracted by other, less promising attempts at bipartisanship.

Quoted: Why Kamala Harris Has A Chance To Make History As A Policymaker (Jonathan Cohn, Huffington Post)

“It would have to be pretty modest and incremental, but I do think there would be some willingness to say, look, the prices of services in general are rising higher than the pace of inflation, and child care especially is something that hits parents”

Senate fails to advance bipartisan tax bill with poverty-fighting child tax credit (Kate Scanlon, Our Sunday Visitor)

“The politics of an election year meant that a fairly straightforward expansion of the child tax credit to working-class families with multiple kids, plus some business credits aimed at spurring innovation, couldn't make it across the finish line.”

America’s Aging Population And The Pro-Life Movement, with Patrick T. Brown (North Carolina Family Policy Council; transcript)

“There’s a reason for pro-lifers to think about ways to broaden our commitment to life across the spectrum…these are complex generational challenges that are only going to get tougher with declining birth rates.”

Send me a postcard, drop me a line, and then sign up for more content and analysis from EPPC scholars.