- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
Finally! Family-friendly public policy for all Americans on the way
Gotta love the UK Daily Mail. Dismissed as a sensationalist tabloid, it is chock full of hard news, with thorough reportage by gifted journalists. Coverage usually includes eye-catching colour photos revealing things often censored overlooked in “mainstream” outlets. (Such is the power of demography, in the US reporters are advised not to reveal the race of criminal perps. Apparently, they fear folks will turn rabidly racist at the drop of a hat). The Daily Mail just runs photos, secure in the knowledge that “a picture is worth a thousand words.”
Perpetual Trump
This week the Daily Mail ran yet another clickbait headline: “Trump’s common-sense policy to encourage more Americans to have children as birthrate collapses.” Trump encouraging people to have more children? Ever since he descended from the stratosphere of Trump Tower in his famous made-for-TV escalator ride, the word “Trump” in any headline is guaranteed clickbait, spiking interest. Foes and fans alike can’t resist. It’s been ten years with no end in sight.
If President Trump is for encouraging folks to have children, great. This has nothing to do with politics. Pro natalists should accept fellow travellers wherever they turn up. For our Trump-hating readers, even a broken clock is right twice a day. More Trump-tolerant types see through the bluster to make up their minds:
There is growing alarm about the US's fertility rate, which has crashed to an all-time low of 1.6, below the 2.0 level needed for the nation's population to sustain itself.
Among those most concerned about the population collapsing is Trump ally Elon Musk, who has warned that ‘population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming,’ and that declining global fertility rates are ‘not just a crisis, but the crisis.’
Now that US borders are finally being secured and planeloads of illegals are being deported, those seeking to prop up the US labour force to replace the thinning ranks of up-and-comers will face a day of reckoning. Maybe – God forfend – they’ll have to raise wages! What a family-friendly idea!
Sound economic analysis
The Daily Mail piece doesn’t discuss wages. It reports that Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy blasted out a memo headed “ENSURING RELIANCE UPON SOUND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND ACTIVITIES.” The memo provides guidance for the allocation of DOT grants for roads and infrastructure payments:
[T]o the extent practicable, relevant, appropriate, and consistent with law, mitigate the unique impacts of DOT programs, policies, and activities on families and family-specific difficulties, such as the accessibility of transportation to families with young children, and give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average (including in administering the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant program).
How will this encourage young couples to have children? Maybe better roads will make for easier and shorter commutes for workers? Possibly. However, the real significance of this short memo is that federal policy is being made specifically for helping “communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.” That speaks volumes. Could this foretell more family-friendly policies to come? If RFK, Jr. is confirmed, will he follow suit? Will this little memo that has garnered so much attention, along with Trump’s decisive moves elsewhere, set the tone for a family-friendly federal government? Time will tell.
Is this the influence of avidly pro-natalist Elon Musk? He has certainly taken on a high profile. Usually, billionaires make campaign contributions and do their bidding behind the scenes. Like him or not, Musk is out there for all to see, which is remarkable.
Blowback
No sooner had the memo left Secretary Duffy’s office that the howling began. Why?
In 2022, the national marriage rate in the US stood at about six marriages per 1,000 people.
States that exceed that average are primarily in the Southeast and Mountain West, such as Florida, with a rate of seven per 1,000 people, and Utah, with 10 per 1,000.
Additionally, the US birth rate has been falling steadily since the late 2000s, reaching a new low of 55.4 births per 1,000 women as of last year.
But states in the Midwest and South — primarily Republican–led — had fertility rates exceeding the national average, including Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Mississippi and Tennessee, meaning transportation infrastructure there could be due for improvement.
There you have it: The left is crying foul, saying states that traditionally vote Republican are being given preferential treatment under the guise of having higher marriage and birth rates. Colorado Governor and LGBTQ activist Jared Polis responded:
A pothole doesn’t belong to a political party or care if you’re married or not, so it’s disappointing to see that President Trump and his team attempt to block road funding.
Colorado will continue making investments in our roads and transit that are driven by market demand, reduce traffic, and drive economic growth. Donald Trump and his team should work to improve roads, rail, and transit across the entire country for all Americans.
Note the infamous “Trump” word appears twice. It all comes back to the onerous “Orange Man”. I don’t see where this is an attempt to “block road funding.” While the governor otherwise raises legitimate points, there was nary a peep from him opposing DEI-based funding preferences through the years. Pro-family preferences? Why, that’s discriminating against “all Americans.” Give me a break.
Change afoot?
Among his limitless transgressions, President Trump said during the campaign that “the family is really the foundation of a prosperous and good society.” That is a shot across the bow in a society marinated in modernism and individualism. Yet all the blather about the new president as bigot and misogynist hasn’t caused him to cave.
But hold on – topping Trump’s horrific pro-family rhetoric, his second-in-command, Vice President J.D. Vance, is even more provocative:
Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us. We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths.
On another occasion JD had the temerity to say:
We owe something to our country. We owe something to our future. The best way to invest in it is to ensure the next generation actually exists. I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.
Pro-family Fascism! “Orange Man” Bad! How bigoted, calling out “anti-child ideology!” Looks like these guys, Trump and Vance, are fashioning a new pro-family narrative.
An earlier essay in these pages was headlined “With Trump and Vance, will American family policy get back on track?” Maybe just that is afoot. There is a Trump Effect, if you will, emboldening pro-family folks in both the US and Europe to push back, especially as they learn that woke narratives pushed by so many publications and NGOs have been funded by the US government, especially via USAID.
An overwhelming majority of pro-family folks voted for President Trump whether they liked him or not. They thought it was time for a change. And with family issues, in fits and starts, that seems to be the case. About time.
Does the US need a pro-natalist, pro-family campaign?
Louis T. March has a background in government, business, and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author, and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.
Image credit: Bigstock
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
mrscracker commented 2025-02-13 14:39:06 +1100If working on site is a requirement for a federal job ,then it is what it is. Employees don’t make the rules. But for many other jobs I think remote work is a good idea for families with young children and it can help boost demographics in rural areas that have been losing population.
At the end of the day it’s a cultural conversation, not a political one. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-13 12:32:18 +1100So you agree that working from home would help with the child-care situation, but also vote for a person who is mandating that people working at home return to the office?
-
mrscracker commented 2025-02-13 01:47:50 +1100Good morning Mr. Mouse. It all depends upon the job description. Some jobs really do require being on site, some not so much.
One of my children works from home & is a state employee. I think often the states can have a better handle on their families’ needs than the federal govt. does. The further you are away from local needs the more out of touch you can become. That’s one of the drawbacks of federal dictates. But there are in fact jobs that are more appropriately based in DC.
This issue is a good conversation to have I think. -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-02-13 00:21:38 +1100“ Remote work from home allows parents to stay home with their children and save on transportation and childcare costs.”
Does that mean you’re against Trump’s return to office mandate for federal workers? Have we finally found something we agree on? -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-12 22:51:57 +1100I believe parents need all the support they can get to raise their families but it doesn’t have to translate into federal assistance.
Things like local zoning laws can be more family friendly. We’re blessed to have very loose zoning restrictions here. Many young couples just park a trailer behind their in laws house when they start out in marriage and that’s all they can afford.
Remote work from home allows parents to stay home with their children and save on transportation and childcare costs.
I prefer seeing what solutions we can first find at the local level. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-12 17:21:30 +1100And parents need financial help to have more children. This, it seems, the GOP is determined to ignore.
-
mrscracker commented 2025-02-12 14:40:38 +1100Yes Mr Bunyan you are right. Love doesn’t pay bills. Parents do.
-
Paul Bunyan commented 2025-02-12 14:38:54 +1100Love doesn’t pay the bills, mrscracker. You can’t show up to the supermarket with a basket full of love and walk out with enough food to feed your family for a month.
If children are really such a blessing, why doesn’t everyone have children until they die or reach menopause? Surely it should be easy to convince women to bear children if it really was that simple.
Despite what Mae Musk says, the poor cannot afford children by making a few sacrifices (not going out to eat, or not watching movies). -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-12 14:18:32 +1100Mr. Fedders, I’m not a particularly ardent GOP fan but women aren’t punished by children. Neither the living ones taking breath or the living ones growing in their mother’s womb. Children are a great blessing and we may never realize just how precious they are until they become sick or in danger.
One of my little grandchildren is very ill and I’ve been worried about him for days. Perhaps you could say a prayer for him? Thank you so much.
Life is precious. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-12 11:17:17 +1100The GOP is full of platitudes, light on action. Their pro-life stance seems to be more about punishing women rather than caring about actual living, breathing children. All of their actions suggest they have zero interest in helping the children of America.
-
Susan Rohrbach commented 2025-02-11 23:43:07 +1100" Musk is out there for all to see, which is remarkable"
And so is his little boy who he displays everywhere. Little understood is how pronatal means, in Musk case, that he has roughly 11 out of 12 children from the frankentube (IVF), and numerous baby mamas. This is not “the family” that the public is thinking of when they hear Trump waxing “pronatal”. Trump has said he will force insurance to pay for IVF (and this will be for Adam and Steve. mind you, which DJT says is “settled law”). These children from the frankentube are dear children of God, but their (at best) guardians (I won’t say parents) have made them creatures of the state. -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-11 22:45:55 +1100Well Mr. Fedders I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you so much .
You know, speaking as someone who has quite a bit of experience with birth , it’s the natural and successful completion of human gestation. Nature is in charge of that, not the GOP.
🙂
I don’t live in North Dakota but from various recent articles online it appears they are debating where to take the funds from and whether North Dakota should be one of the states where all school lunches are free regardless of family income. There are probably other things being debated as well That’s what happens in state legislatures. I have trouble keeping up with that even in my own state.
I personally don’t think it’s a proper role of schools to feed children. We qualified every year for free school meals but I didn’t participate. I figured if I can’t slap 2 pieces of bread and peanut butter together for my children I have more challenges than low income. But there are in fact parents who may be homeless, addicted, etc. who can’t pack a lunch and no one wants their children to go without. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-11 11:08:41 +1100I think what Mr Mouse is saying is that the GOP is interested in forcing women to give birth for ideological reasons, but they have no interest in that child AFTER they are born. Hence, last year GOP North Dakota lawmakers voted to prevent giving free school lunches to low-income students. These are children who live in poverty, and are often malnourished. It would have been easy, cheap and ‘pro-life’ (of actual children).
Of course, to show just how contemptuous the GOP are of the people, they then voted to increase the amount of money they get to spend on their own lunch. -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-11 06:56:49 +1100Mr. Mouse,
How do we enjoy any social benefits without first being born? -
Anon Emouse commented 2025-02-11 03:09:57 +1100Paul,
GOP is pro birth, not pro life. Once you understand that their positions make more sense -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-10 23:40:21 +1100In a previous life I taught preschool Mr. Bunyan. I have nothing against preschool 2-3 days a week as appropriate to age but it’s an add on. Not a requirement. Pretty much every study has shown that whatever children learn in pre K they would have learned by 3rd Grade anyway.
These days with so few children being born and more only children, a benefit of pre K is for children without siblings to learn how to share attention and get along with others. We took it for granted that’s something learned in the home but today it’s much less the case. -
mrscracker commented 2025-02-10 23:34:32 +1100I understand that remote work from home can be abused by some employees but it also affords parents the ability to stay home with their young children and live in smaller towns and rural areas where housing is more affordable.
Some rural parts of the US are experiencing more birthrates in part because young couples working remotely can afford to live there. No child care expenses necessary.
Fixing the roads isn’t a bad idea though. -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-10 16:55:21 +1100I’m confused. Where is the family-friendly public policy touted in the headline? Are you saying that repairing potholes in roads is going to induce more people to have children? Is this satire?
Lifting minimum wage would help struggling families and may induce them to have more children? Are the Republicans going to do that? Not a chance.
Cheap (or free) and accessible childcare would go a LONG way to helping the birthrate. Are Republicans going to introduce that? Of course.
Indeed, it would be worth watching J.D. Vance’s excruciating response to the very problem of accessible childcare that boiled down ‘grandparents should do it.’
I’m not seeing any actual, sensible, grown-up policy ideas from Republicans that will encourage people to have more children.
This article seems to be more about the author’s HOPE for pro-family policy, not a report on anything that is actually happening. -
Paul Bunyan commented 2025-02-10 15:29:50 +1100Good grief. Have you not noticed the massive cuts the GOP and their cronies are planning to do to Headstart?
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-eliminate-head-start-severely-restricting-access-to-child-care-in-rural-america/
Defunding USAID prevents food from getting to people living in poverty. If people can’t afford to eat, they certainly can’t afford to raise children.
It’s clear that the “pro-family” movement isn’t concerned with making people happy, healthy and productive members of society. They just want to increase the birth rate as much as possible, and if 99% of people live in abject misery, that’s just fine with them. -