People still say that the ideal family size includes two or three children, but women are averaging one or two children. That alone is reason to try and make our culture more family-friendly.
Yet when writers, economists, and policymakers acknowledge the current baby bust and suggest we do something about it, a large subset of the commentariat loses their minds.
Many liberal commentators seem to believe that efforts to support families and encourage more marriage and family formation are some sort of evil conspiracy. The nature and aim of the imagined conspiracy differs from conspiracy theorist to conspiracy theorist, and the most recent one is a doozy.
Mike Duncan is a liberal commentator with 126,000 followers on X, and he thinks that what the pro-natalists want is teenage pregnancy.
He thinks “the real game” is to force more teenage pregnancies.
Keep in mind what pro-family, pro-natalist conservatives have been advocating the past couple of years.
Lyman Stone has consistently touted the benefits of child allowances — large cash transfers to parents — and improved parental leave policies. Plus he has championed remote work.
Patrick Brown, likewise, has touted a larger child tax credit and increasing the supply of housing in order to make family formation more affordable.
National Review a couple of years back published a dozen authors advocating an aggressive family agenda.
I published a book this year that touts all sorts of governmental and employer policies and programs that can support families.
Somehow all of this is really about increasing teenage pregnancy? That is a bizarre conspiracy theory. But bizarre conspiracy theories are standard among those who hate the pro-family, pro-baby cause.
Paul Krugman argued that the efforts to reverse the baby bust are simply Christian nationalism or something.
So the economic case for pro-natalism is really weak — so you’re left with some kind of “family values” argument (I mean, look at how fatherhood has mellowed and matured Donald Trump) or, not-so-hidden subtext, the need for more white Christians … 10/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) July 25, 2021
Reporter Lydia DePillis posited that “master-race puffery” was behind pro-natalism.
I wish this were the salient point of all declining-fertility stories — it’s better for the planet and societies can learn to adapt, if only they get over their great-power master-race puffery / Ponzi scheme growth models. https://t.co/ze2OGoxoog pic.twitter.com/DKG8eeVX9d
— Lydia DePillis (@lydiadepillis) May 26, 2021
It’s a bizarre tic and an effort to avoid an uncomfortable topic.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The number of babies born has been falling for 16 years, and the birthrate is at a record low of 1.62 babies per woman — all while the ideal family size still includes 2.7 children on average.
Something about our culture is making it harder for more and more women to achieve their family dreams. Something should be done, and saying so doesn’t make you a racist or a creep.