National Conservatism's Introduction to the American Public Isn't Going Over Well

J.D. Vance Was a Terrible Pick for Vice President

Donald Trump selected Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) as his running mate a couple of weeks ago. The pick was the definition of political arrogance. It was a sign that the Trump campaign thought the election was largely in the bag. Vance, who is popular with the conservative base, was a way to run up the score with conservatives in traditionally Republican states after President Biden disastrous debate performance and subsequent lackluster media appearances.

Picking Vance was a miscalculation. Although President Biden had insisted that he would remain in the race, the moment he dropped out and Vice President Kamala Harris announced her campaign, the momentum in the presidential race completely shifted away from Republicans to Democrats. Vice President Harris’s campaign has raised more than $200 million since she entered the race, voter registration has surged, and polls have significantly narrowed in key battleground states.

Of course, Democrats need to realize that they’re in a honeymoon phase. There will be ups and downs in the race from now until November 5. Vice President Harris still needs to define herself before Trump defines her, avoid costly missteps that can haunt her campaign, and show undecided voters that she has policy ideas to address the primary issues in the election.

For Republicans, though, the story is different. The Trump campaign is playing defense because of its vice presidential nominee. Vance, who is a political neophyte and author, is one of the poster boys for “national conservatism,” and he has a history of absurd comments that will backfire with the voters Republicans need to win the White House.

Since I can recall “national conservatism” coming on the scene several years ago, I told colleagues and friends that its brand of hardcore social conservatism would drive voters away. Some would say that the economic views of national conservatives could make Republicans appeal more to working-class voters. Even if that were the case (and I’m unconvinced that it is), national conservatism has a limited reach because too many voters will find its social conservative views go too far.

Before going further, let me give a quick remedial lesson on national conservatism. National conservatism, as we know it in the United States, is a strain of populism that focuses on religious-based morality, predominantly rooted in far-right Catholicism, national and cultural identity based on European heritage, and populist economics. National conservatives tend to harshly criticize traditional liberalism and free markets.

During a July 2021 interview, Vance said, “We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too. It's just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children.”

I have to point out here that Harris has two step-children. Buttigieg and his husband have adopted twins. Looking at my own life, I don’t have any children of my own. I have a step-child, who I absolutely adore. Years ago, my ex-wife and I decided that children were out of the cards because that life wasn’t compatible with the one we wanted to live, which, for my part, included a lot of work-related travel. Emily and I have decided that children aren’t possible for us for a few reasons.

Vance recently had the opportunity to clarify his remarks. He didn’t. He again criticized the Democratic Party as “anti-family.” Referring to his July 2021 remarks, Vance said, “Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats.”

Vance said something else that was interesting. While defending his remarks, he explained, “It’s not a criticism of people who don’t have children. I explicitly said in my remarks.”

Eh, Vance doesn’t seem to particularly care for people who don’t have kids. In another 2021 interview, Vance directly advocated for a higher tax rate for people who don’t have children. Some conservatives have pushed back on this to try to change the conversation to the child tax credit (CTC), which reduces the tax liability of families with children, while also noting that those “anti-family” Democrats support expansions of the CTC. His spokesperson said something similar.

The problem is, that’s not what Vance said. In the interview, Vance said, “So, you talk about tax policy, let's tax the things that are bad and not tax the things that are good. If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you've got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don't have any kids. It's that simple."

There’s quite a difference between a tax credit and tax rate. Vance also clearly referred to not having kids as “bad.” It doesn’t end there.

Now, Vance has apparently taken his comments about childless people a lot further than these comments suggest. In a 2020 podcast, he said, “I worry that [people who don’t have children] makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less, less mentally stable. And of course, you talk about going on Twitter – final point I’ll make is you go on Twitter and almost always the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don’t have kids at home.”

Wow. This is crazy talk. But since Vance mentioned Twitter, I’ll note that, in my experience, the stuff Vance has said publicly may seem absurd and even shocking, but it’s relatively common among far-right keyboard warriors, including national conservatives, on social media. It’s misogyny, but it’s what passes for discourse in far-right social media echo-chamber.

Vance also wants to extend votes to children through their parents, which is an absurd suggestion. Most reasonable conservatives I know are supportive of the accessibility of abortion in the instances of rape and incest. Not Vance. Although most conservatives support letting states decide on abortion, he wants a national ban.

Look, I’m just as concerned about America’s birth rates as anyone who understands what’s happening. This is also a problem that has been around for a while. Tax incentives in other countries haven’t boosted birth rates. Increasing immigration levels would help, but it wouldn’t completely solve the issue. Unfortunately, that’s a nonstarter for many conservatives.

The one thing that bugs me about this entire conversation, though, is the assumption that far-right conservatives like Vance make that women exist for one reason—procreation. That’s a misogynistic view that may reflect the reality of the 1950s, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of today.