Purple State Pro-Familism

It wasn’t so long ago that then-gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin rode what felt like a national wave around parents’ rights in education and Covid-era dissatisfactions to a surprising win in the race for Virginia’s Governor’s Mansion. He built a winning coalition of populist rural and exurban voters with suburban parents concerned about education. And for a brief moment, it seemed like some conservatives were going to see success building a “parents’ party.” 

Three years later, that vision is haltingly coalescing into reality. School choice has exploded across red states, and many have embarked on at least modest expansions of their social safety net for expectant mothers. Yet 13 Republican Governors pulled their states out of summer food programs out of an opposition to “welfare.” In Congress, Republicans in the House resoundingly passed a flawed but worthwhile expansion of the Child Tax Credit for working-class families before Senate Republicans tanked it. The Trump campaign rhetorically committed to prioritizing families, but how that will get translated into policy remains to be seen; one of his top advisors was recently seen on CSPAN criticizing the Child Tax Credit. 

Amidst this identity crisis came Trump’s selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate. Some suggested he pick a candidate more likely to reassure college-educated suburban voters, like Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota or Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia. Instead, Trump picked Vance, with an eye towards shifting the long-term trajectory of the Republican party in a more populist direction. 

Vance had been well known to pro-family conservatives for his serious consideration of ways to build a more pro-family society. Of course, since being nominated, his vocal, sometimes abrasive, comments on the politics of family and fertility have made for cable news fodder. His muscular brand of pro-natalism seems to play best among the Republican base.   

His erstwhile rivals, however, offer something of a glimpse into a more suburban-oriented version of conservative pro-family policies. Successful Republican governors, from Burgum and Youngkin to Georgia’s Brian Kemp and Tennessee’s Bill Lee, wouldn’t be caught dead speculating on single women’s fertility choices. A G.O.P. family policy built around the dynamics of purplish-red states would undoubtedly be more boring—and possibly less forthright—than the more aggressive version offered by Vance. But there is at least a colorable argument to be made that it would be more politically successful. 

In August, Youngkin signed into a law a set of bipartisan bills he had been selling as "Building Blocks for Virginia Families," which includes:

• Streamlining staffing/training requirements by requiring the Virginia Department of Education to review its training courses to ensure child care staff aren’t forced to go through modules that are irrelevant to the age groups they serve and expediting some background check processes;
• Permitting localities to waive zoning requirements for child care programs co-located in office buildings;
• Making families that receive WIC or Medicaid categorically eligible for the state's child care assistance program;
• Exempting child care programs on military bases from state licensing requirements and better align projected growth in child care demand with available subsidies.

Youngkin’s broader child care approach has included the pursuit of strengthening parental choice "of home-providers, public school preschools, community co-ops, church programs, and private day centers,” creating a digital wallet to enable more creative funding approaches, and greater funding for workforce development and after-school programming.

Some conservatives who view child care with a jaundiced eye might wonder why Youngkin isn’t spending more time passing school choice or support for homeschoolers. But politicians, one might say, don’t just fall out of coconut trees; they exist in the context of where they live and what came before them. In Youngkin’s case, that includes a state that has become increasingly “blue” as the electorate polarizes along educational lines. 

Which means the Virginia electorate isn’t looking for dramatic conservative reforms. They voted for a conservative governor because of his stance of supporting parents and want policies that work for their families. In Virginia, 73.7% of moms with kids under age six are in the labor force, some due to economic necessity (be they low-income married parents or single moms), but many because they are juggling family with their careers. 

As the following chart shows, child care is a growing concern—not just for moms in the wealthy D.C. suburbs, but also for those in high-poverty and rural corners of the Commonwealth. In the western part of Virginia, less than half of kids under six live with a mom who is working. But in the I-95 corridor leading south from D.C., through Fredericksburg and Richmond, then veering left into the heavily military communities around Newport News, the vast majority of families with young kids have moms juggling work and family responsibilities. 

Being pro-family, in the context of the Commonwealth, means improving options for these parents who need some form of child care. That, on top of Gov. Youngkin’s well-publicized rhetoric on K-12 education, is a winning pro-family approach that appears to be paying dividends: per a recent Roanoke College poll, 59% of Virginians approve of the job he is doing.

And it is especially important to notice what Youngkin has not done—such as uncritically adopt proposals from the left for massive expansions of child care subsidies to middle class parents (he voted a payroll-tax funded paid leave approach on those same philosophical grounds). The principles of the Governor’s “Building Blocks"—streamlining regulations, improving the user experience and prioritizing parental choice, expanding supply—all fit squarely into a center-right approach to the issue. 

What’s more, he’s adopted stances that accord with a traditional conservative understanding of pro-family policy without engendering harsh blowback. For example, he vetoed a bill that would have repealed the state's ban on advertising surrogacy services. He vetoed legislation to legalize slots-like gaming machines in convenience stores (though has stated he is open to a rewrite). He vetoed a bill that would have prohibited state regulators from disciplining doctors that provide abortion, even in the case of unsafe care, as well as a bill that would have sought to override providers' religious objections to providing contraception. He signed a bill codifying same-sex marriage into law in Virginia, on the condition it included explicit language about protecting religious freedom for clergy and churches. 

Youngkin’s apparent appeal in a state politically stacked against him is evidence that governors who take the political constraints of their state seriously, and avoid the temptation of being too online, can rack up political success. Of course, none of this is to say the Virginia governor’s brand of pro-family politics would be a national winner. Leaving aside some of the ham-fisted comments, Vance’s full-throated calls for more focus on support for working-class families and the perils of low birth rates are sorely needed in D.C. (not to mention that V.P. picks rarely move the needle much in either direction.)

But what we see in the form of Youngkin, Kemp, and Lee is an emerging form of pro-family politics that can have success in purplish-red states. It seeks to meaningfully improve parents’ lives without breaking the bank and uses popular successes as ballast when defending socially conservative principles that poll less well. 

It may not be as popular online as more muscular forms of culture war pro-natalism. But if it appeals to voters in Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia, it may be worth a try elsewhere as well. 

Patrick T. Brown (@PTBwrites) is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. A version of this post previously ran on his weekly newsletter “Family Matters.” 

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or views of the Institute for Family Studies.