As Donald Trump and Kamala Harris race for the presidency, their boosters are insisting the stakes couldn’t be higher for the future of our nation. But Americans have already given up on the future and are demonstrating this despair in the most fundamental way: Americans are not begetting more Americans.
The birthrate in the USA has hit another record low. Though the U.S. is not yet at complete demographic collapse (e.g. South Korea or Japan), American fertility is still way below replacement rate. Regardless of whom voters choose in November, they are already issuing a vote of no confidence in the future by literally refusing to beget people to live in it.
Collapsing fertility will cause a plethora of problems — good luck sustaining economic growth and paying for entitlement programs with an aging, shrinking population. Importing high levels of immigrants to maintain workforce levels is beset with its own difficulties. But highlighting the challenges of a future with few children will not encourage people to have more kids; people will not decide to breed just because it might boost GDP in a few decades. Indeed, dwelling on the problems of a below-replacement world might even be counterproductive from a pro-natal standpoint, as it just reinforces anxiety about the future.
Neither candidate can fix this. Harris may be trying to float on a media froth of “Joy!” but the DNC’s celebration of sterility and abortion, including Planned Parenthood providing not just free vasectomies but even free abortions right outside the convention, is perhaps the most grotesque example of baby-hating anti-natalism ever in American politics. And though the GOP might look better by comparison, Trump has been stampeding the GOP away from social conservatism (to say nothing of his personal example).
Politicians are not going to save America from despairing self-extinction. And tempting as it is, we cannot just blame them for the failures of American men and women to form stable relationships and have children together. Yes, there have been unfavorable cultural, economic, and political forces, but though these may be mitigating factors, they do not negate personal responsibility. Americans have chosen the decline of America.
However, there is an upside to this, which is that we can improve matters without relying on politicians. Yes, political action is important; policies from taxes to education to housing and more matter enormously to family formation and flourishing, and thank God for the people doing good work on these issues.
But we should not sit around waiting for government to fix everything. It is not just that even well-intentioned and generous pro-family policies have often proven disappointing but that individual choices still matter. People can choose to prioritize family life even when culture, policy, and the economy make it difficult.
However, we need more than just exhortations to individual virtue: We need the help of others. Fortunately, government is not the only domain of collective action. As the process of family formation — from dating to raising children and sustaining a marriage — is breaking down to the point of incomprehensibility in much of our culture, America’s churches in particular have an opportunity to step into the gaps left by the fraying bonds of family and community.
Men and women need guidance in coming together to form and sustain marriages. Likewise, it is not good for parents to have to handle child-rearing all by themselves. It does take a village — but the government, and especially the federal bureaucracy, is a behemoth, not a village.
As important as help, from meals to rides to babysitting and beyond, can be, churches can provide that which is even more valuable: instruction, examples, belonging, and love. This community is what will actually make people want to marry, have children, and stay married while raising their kids well. Pundits worrying about the long-term political and economic implications of declining marriage and low birthrates won’t actually do it. What will work is if people believe in family life as important to what it means to live well and if they believe it is not only desirable but also attainable. For this, they need examples and assistance.
To be meaningful, pro-natalism has to mean more than just pumping out babies for the future of the nation. Rather, it must explain why babies are good in themselves and why marriage and parenthood are the vocations to which most of us are called and which we should joyfully embrace. Indeed, this will likely be one of the church’s most effective means of evangelization. Amid our cultural and relational wasteland, it will increasingly fall to the church to teach people how to live well despite the troubles of this life. And valuing babies over indulgence, ambition, and avarice is a good place to start.
Even the best efforts may not be enough to save our nation. But it is clear that there is only hope for our nation’s future if citizens place their hope in something greater than America.
Nathanael Blake is a senior contributor to The Federalist and a postdoctoral fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Comments are closed.