Thread by @hamandcheese

New from me:

If fusionism is really on life support, social conservatives should stop letting "small government" libertarians put them in a policy straightjacket, and embrace direct support for families and children.

americancompass.org/social-conserv…

In a recent essay for the American Conservative, Oren Cass offered a compelling critique of conservatism’s “free market fundamentalism,” and argued that whatever comes after Trump must “depart substantially from what came before.”

theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-f…

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, the post-Trump vision Cass presents fails to depart from what’s arguably *the key* pre-Trump conservative dogma:

Hostility to anything that smacks of “redistribution.”

As @oren_cass notes, Post-Trumpism starts from the premise that libertarian-traditionalist fusionism no longer works.

But if that doesn't include openness to redistribution, we're still letting "fiscally-conservative, socially-Burning-Man”-types set the terms of the debate.

Case in point—

A year ago, I went to the "Make Families Great Again" event hosted by the Hungarian embassy.

In attendance was a who’s who of White House officials and allies, all gathered to hear from Hungary's minister of family affairs, Katalin Novák.

https://twitter.com/katalinnovakmp/status/1106634315637633036?lang=en

Novák’s talk walked through the Orban government’s aggressive agenda to boost marriage and fertility rates, including through subsidized mortgages for families with three or more children, and large child benefits to support stay at home parents.
nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/…

Following the talk was a panel on “the role of governments and civil society in supporting families,” featuring Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Perkins seemed in awe of what he just heard, but alas— American conservatives are first & foremost for a small government.

I share this not to defend Hungary’s particular policies (as @lymanstoneky has detailed, they’re not all that).

Rather, I offer it as an illustration of the degree to social conservatives have subordinated their policy ambitions to “free market fundamentalism” by any other name.

Constraining permissible social reform to tax cuts and deregulation has done longer-term damage to conservatives’ ability to form coalitions around much of anything else.

I realized this first hand, while trying to organize a conservative Child Tax Credit coalition in 2017:

Of course, there's nothing recognizably conservative about putting low taxes ahead of stronger families.

Nor are child benefits "social engineering," as if the choice to reproduce civilization into the next generation were no different than preferring Coke over Pepsi.

If fusionism is dead, social conservatives should say “Screw your neoclassical tax reform. We are conservatives, and conservatives believe in supporting families directly. If that involves redistribution, so be it!”

At the *very* least, they need to keep the option on the table.