Oh sure, blame the childless...

Back in 2016, I read J.D. Vance's memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy," and gave it a favourable review, here and on Goodreads. Even then, I didn't agree with all his ideas, but I thought he had some good points to make, and whatever its broader cultural & political implications, it was, overall, a well-written and compelling personal story. 

I was starting to think maybe I should take that favourable review back, after hearing that Vance was running for the Senate in Ohio as a Republican (and a Trump Republican at that! -- after having some less than complimentary things to say about Trump while promoting his book). 

And then I saw this headline on Twitter, which led me to the full story:  

GOP Senate candidate J.D. Vance blames ‘childless left’ for culture wars

(excerpt -- emphasis mine) 

Ohio Republican US Senate candidate J.D. Vance is taking aim at New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other leaders of the “childless left” for their lack of “physical commitment to the future of this country” — suggesting a radical change in voting rights to combat them.

“Why is this just a normal fact of … life, for the leaders of our country to be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring?” Vance asked Friday at an Alexandria, Va. conference hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, The Federalist reported....

Vance offered a startling solution to what he called the “civilizational crisis”: extra voting power for parents.

“The Democrats are talking about giving the vote to 16-year-olds,” Vance said.

Instead, he said, “Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of the children.”

“Doesn’t this mean that parents get a bigger say in how democracy functions? … Yes,” he concluded.

Of course, Fox News couldn't resist taking up the torch and running with it...: 

Fox News hosts discuss how to ban 'childless' liberals from voting

(excerpt -- emphasis mine) 

Fox News hosts on Sunday promoted the idea that "childless" Americans should not be allowed to participate in society by voting.

The idea was recently floated by Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance...

The hosts of Fox & Friends discussed the merits of the idea that the "childless left" should not be able to vote.

"I think it's an interesting idea," host Will Cain said. "I'm into interesting ideas. Let's think about it. Let's talk about it. He's saying childless leaders are making decisions that are short-term in mind, not focused on the long-term future health of this country because they don't have a stake in the game. Parents have a stake in the game, they have children so give parents a bigger say."

Co-host Pete Hegseth pointed out that fellow co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy would get nine votes because she has nine children...  

 According to Hegseth, a large family is "a reflection of optimism."

If ever there was an example of pronatalism run amok, this would be it. Of course, Vance is just one in a very long line of politicians -- and not just in the U.S. -- who have tried to score points by bashing childless people (especially childless politicians), and I've written about some of them in this blog.  (In fact, I was prompted to collect all the past posts I could find related to politics/politicians and childlessness and tag them with the label "politics & childlessness." You can find them here.)  But this takes the war on childless/free people to an entirely new level.  

I only just read this, and I haven't had a lot of time to mull things over, but here are a few initial thoughts: 

• Do any of these people consider that at least some of the childless people they are so quick to bash for failing to procreate very much WANTED to have children, and that comments like these rub salt in some very deep wounds?  
• Vance specifically singled out Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), as not having children.  
• So far as I know, Harris has never talked about whether she wanted children, although she didn't marry until she was nearly 50, and loves to talk about being "Momala" to her husband's two children by a previous marriage. 
• Buttigieg is gay -- which is not the barrier to family-building that it once was. (I guess Vance has no objection to gay people being parents, then? -- some Republicans most certainly do...)  He's still not yet 40, and has only been married to his partner Chasten Glezman for three (very busy) years. I believe they have mentioned they would like to have a family.  
• AOC is just 31 years old and unmarried. So far as I know, she has not made any definitive statements about wanting or not wanting a family -- although I did find some comments she made about possibly freezing her eggs, and others mulling over the ethics of bringing children into a world facing catastrophic climate change. 
• Apparently Vance did qualify his comments to say that "he was not referring to people who are unable to have children."  But not all the coverage of his remarks that I've seen includes that caveat or makes that distinction.
• Even if you're willing to grant voting rights to people who are unable to have children (gee, how very generous of you...) -- how, I ask, would you make the distinction at the ballot box between parents and people without children -- let alone those who are unable to have children and those who made an active choice not to have children?)  
• If childless people are not allowed to vote (as Fox News hosts propose), will they still be required to pay the taxes that support & benefit parents & children? (No taxation without representation, right?)  
• Do they stop to consider that at least some of those childless voters they are so eager to disenfranchise will be Republicans? (Obviously not.) 
• Vance asks, “Why is this just a normal fact of … life, for the leaders of our country to be people who don’t have a personal and direct stake in it via their own offspring?” Ummm... maybe because balancing family life and a life in politics in the 21st century, especially in the U.S., is incredibly difficult (and current political practices and structures are not particularly family-friendly)?  
  

A quick scan of Twitter, and I found this tweet from columnist/political analyst Kirsten Powers: 

Actually, arguing that the only way you could care about the future of the country is if it affected your offspring is what sounds selfish.  People who are not related to you matter actually.

I'm agree.  

I'm livid.