"Pro-Family" In, "Pro-Life" Out

Why the working-class shift in the GOP will lead to new opportunities - and disappointments

“There are weeks in which nothing happens, and then weeks in which decades happen.” – Lenin, supposedly

As much as I might like, there’s no use trying to counter-program the recent developments in U.S. politics – and that’s not even mentioning the increasing likelihood of a candidate swap on the Democratic side of the ticket.

Former President Donald Trump’s selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate may not much change the dynamics of the 2024 election. It is a legacy pick, a move to solidify the G.O.P.’s transformation into a party that prioritizes working-class America at home and abroad. Vance’s acceptance speech Wednesday was a very good introduction to what that could mean in practice.

Indeed, Vance has often represented the positive version of that impulse. He stands out by having embraced not just populist style, but pro-working-class substance. While Trump famously disdains policy details, Vance’s short Senate career has been marked by working across the aisle and doing his homework, rather than sticking to cable news sound bites. Long-time subscribers will remember his proposed swap of electrical vehicle credits for eliminating marriage penalties in the Earned Income Tax Credit – the kind of populism I can get excited about.

If he serves as Vice-President, Vance will be a vocal champion for shifting the G.O.P. in a pro-family direction. He has discussed proposals to reduce the cost of childbirth, talked frequently about the problem of declining fertility, and bucked party graybeards in stating support for the working-class Child Tax Credit expansion earlier this year. His heartfelt response to the pro-life side’s loss in Ohio last year was essential reading. And he’d be a national Republican leader with three young kids at home, a welcome antidote to our nation’s tendency towards gerontocracy.

But he’s not in charge yet, and the man at the top of the ticket has, according to reports, personally directed the softening of conservative commitments to the pro-life cause. As I wrote for the New York Times today, the implications for the future of pro-life activism are dire. The new Republican Party platform calls only for a ban on “late-term abortions,” which constitute 1-4% of all abortion procedures nationwide depending on your definition. For conservatives who have thought of themselves as both pro-life and pro-family, it is clear that political stock in the former is falling even as opportunities action for the latter seems to increase.

It is a political stance that offers potential as well as precarity – after all, we already have one political party that is effectively pro-choice at the national level and stands for creating social spending on families. Previous efforts at bipartisan common ground were often scuttled by abortion and other hot-button cultural issues. If those concerns are ushered to the back seat by a MAGA movement who sees them as “spots on the wall,” it may eventually give space for some bipartisan pro-family initiatives to flourish. One can imagine a future where there is bipartisan hope for family tax benefits, expanding early childhood choices, and supporting parents culturally and economically. That would be a big win.

But us old-guard social conservatives should be forgiven our disappointments. A successful political party shouldn’t need to sacrifice being “pro-life” to be “pro-family” (see the electoral track record of Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Brian Kemp, Gov. Bill Lee, and countless others). And many of us who got into this line of work did so precisely because we see a distinct linkage between those two causes. Defending the family as the institution oriented towards the bearing and raising of children, and standing up for the dignity of each human person regardless of race, class, or status, are core, interrelated principles. Applying them to contemporary politics requires prudence, not cynicism disguised as pragmatism.

Of course politics ain’t beanbag. Arguments need to be made, compromise forged. A Republican Party that embraces the values and interests of non-college educated Americans – who are, after all, less likely to be regular churchgoers than those with a college degree – would need to stake some political capital in order to advance policies that protect the unborn. With the right leadership, it can be done. Here’s hoping that four (or more) years down the road, the leaders of a post-Trump G.O.P. will use their power and influence to enact an agenda that is oriented towards the working-class and authentically pro-life and pro-family.  

Elsewhere

For the New York Times, I argued that pro-life activists should openly criticize the Republican party’s new language on abortion or else face political obsolescence

Kathryn Jean Lopez cites my recent report on pro-life state actions in the wake of Dobbs (National Review Online)…Kate Scanlon reports on criticism of the GOP platform from me and others (Our Sunday Visitor)

Et Cetera

“Flawed FAFSA rollout leads to 11.6% drop in students filling out the college financial aid form” (Chalkbeat) …“A new kind of Republican Party is forming at the RNC” (Politico)…“Trump pivots on zoning, now calls it ‘a killer’ in push for more housing supply” (Washington Examiner)…“No Tax on Tips Act does little for low- and moderate-wage workers” (Center for American Progress)…“How place-based policies can help American workers thrive” (Economic Innovation Group)…“Biden plan requires hospitals to improve maternal care” (Axios)…“We deserve a more nuanced conversation about working moms” (Vox)…Maryland: Pre-K expansion plan is unpopular with child care providers…Virginia: Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed a bill investing about $830 million over two years into the state's early childhood and child care system.

So, how did we all manage the change? What do you miss? What do you want more of? Send me a postcard, drop me a line, and then sign up for more content and analysis from EPPC scholars.