more family and less economic liberalism

The so-called American contemporary conservatism, which emerged in the second half of the twentieth century to fight, among other things, against the influence of socialism, had two clear pillars. One, adherence to economic liberalism. The other, the defense of traditional values ​​derived from Western philosophy and Christian culture, such as the primary role of the family in society. Increasingly, this coalition is falling apart.

As private business increasingly embraces the cultural agenda of the progressive left, divorce rates rise and the birth rate plummets, many conservatives have become more reticent about the power of the free market to prevent the degradation of the social fabric.

This week, the Center for Ethics and Public Policy (EPPC), a think tank with an ideological profile on the right and headquartered in Washington, it launched a manifesto in defense of pro-family policies. The text is signed Ryan T. Anderson, PhD from Princeton University, and Robert P. George, professor at the same university, and Helen Alvaré, professor at George Mason University, in addition to researchers from other institutions and journalists.

The document maintains that, “in its ideal form, the family is the social institution through which children are brought into being, raised, and prepared to assume responsibilities as they reach maturity.” The text proposes to public agents ten measures to strengthen families. Some are what one would expect from a conservative entity, such as support for “lasting ties” between family members and protection of children from the gestation period. Others may surprise those who are used to associating the right with the defense of a minimal state in the economy.

One item on the list calls for the state to “pursue approaches to paid leave that provide basic protection for new parents in the face of the demands of the workplace.” Another calls for the state to “develop employment policies that create flexibility for parents without compromising their financial security, allowing more families to find the work-life balance that is right for them.” A third is the promotion of policies that make motherhood (or fatherhood) cheaper.

A People’s Gazette, one of the signatories of the letter explains that the idea is not to break with free market ideas, enthusiastically defended by liberals, but to readjust priorities so that families are treated with more attention. Patrick T. Brown, a researcher at the EPPC, says that mere economic calculation is not enough. “Over the last few decades, conservatives have too easily accepted the liberal approach to take over in economic policymaking. It’s not that there aren’t important ideas in the liberal tradition,” he says, “but the economic perspective cannot be the only way we look at public policy; we need to think about the long-term impact for workers, families and communities.”

Brown admits that some of the policies proposed on the list may go against the premises of pure and simple free markets, but he says that the price to be paid for the breakdown of families is much greater. In other words: every society needs children to continue to exist, and families fulfill a social role by generating children and taking care of them. “As the direct costs and opportunity costs of having a child continue to rise, society has an obligation to ensure that parents are not overburdened with the expenses associated with having a child and raising a family. The question is not whether we can take modest steps towards more pro-family policies; that’s what will happen if we don’t”, he justifies.

The redefinition of American conservatism

The EPPC initiative is part of a broader movement that rejects automatic adherence to economic liberalism guidelines.

In recent years, authors such as Professor Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame have questioned the classical liberal view. In 2018, Deneen published a book whose title goes straight to the point: “Why Liberalism Failed”. Donald Trump’s own victory in 2016, on a more protectionist platform than his Republican competitors, has also been interpreted as a sign in that direction.

The strongest name within the Republican Party for the 2026 presidential election, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis also departed from the traditional playbook of American conservatism by picking a fight with a large corporation for ideological reasons. On his initiative, Florida last year removed much of the tax privileges of Disney World, in Orlando, after the company took a position against a law that aimed to prevent the teaching of sex education to children in the early school grades.

The new conservatism – more nationalist and less concerned with defending capitalism – even has a name: “national conservatism”. In one of the periodical conventions of the movement, which usually bring together republican politicians of the first magnitude, it is possible to see intellectuals defending alliances between conservatives and unions to defeat the alliance between the progressive elites entrenched in universities, in the media and, increasingly, in big companies. . It’s a significant change. Whether it will bear fruit remains to be seen.