Liberals are late to the "cat lady" nonsense
I registered my objections to these natalist nuts years ago.
August 4, 2021
by Ann Coulter
There’s a disturbing trend among post-Trump populists to think that just because they’ve rejected the old GOP ideas about tax cuts and permanent war, they should also reject standard GOP ideas about big government and social engineering.
Currently, the most embarrassing of the allegedly populist right-wing enthusiasms is the pro-natalist argument. The idea, in a nutshell, is that family formation is good for society, so why not create government programs that encourage family formation?
The main way the government could do that is by eliminating 90% of itself, but that’s not in the cards. So instead, Sens. Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, The New York Times’ Ross Douthat, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author J.D. Vance, among others, want to pay women to have children. Vance recently suggested giving parents extra votes for each of their children, which I’m hoping was just a brilliant satire of political pandering. A slew of populist-conservative male icons, like Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich, are constantly haranguing young men to “put a ring on it” and start popping out kids.
One is left with the strong impression that these marriage and child boosters are people who are sorry they got married and had kids, so they have to turn their life’s greatest regret into the equivalent of landing at Normandy.
Human reproduction doesn’t require a P.R. team. All the Beatles got married and had kids. Mick Jagger got married and had kids. If ever there were men who had no reason to get married and have kids, it was those guys. But people want to get married and have kids.
Who would think that activities humans have engaged in for millennia require government incentives, except the unhappily married or those who consider heterosexual sex repulsive? …
Read the whole thing here.
Yet and still…
J.D. Vance is a brilliant VP choice, recommended by me back in May (‘Pick the Hillbilly, Trump’). He’s the one politician we can be sure actually cares about the “left-behind” Americans, for example, by not sending them to die in pointless wars.
The media wouldn’t be frantically attacking him if they weren’t afraid of him. As New York magazine reported:
Everything would run more smoothly if Republican politicians would simply hang on my every word.
The pronataliets are naive. You know who's having a lot of kids? Blacks. And browns. Not Whites, and no amount of goading is going to change that. And why is this happening? Economics. If the governments of the Western countries redistribute huge sums from Whites to blacks and browns, what do they think is gonna happen? I support the opposite movement, not blanket antinatalism, but rather the paid sterilization movement, as this mostly affects blacks & browns, i.e. it addresses the root cause for decline of the West. https://childfreebc.com/candidates - free market, voluntary, and strongly eugenic.
In the reverse of the cliche about the stopped clock being right 2 times a day, the great and good Ann Coulter is wrong here.
Government policies should try to increase the birthrate.
Orban of Hungary has come up with a very interesting law. If a couple have 4 children, they get an exemption from the income tax.
The great thing about his idea is that will incenticize the very people whom we most need to have children and no incenticize the slow-witted. An architect, an engineer, a brain surgeon are going to get far more benefit from an income tax exemption than someone flipping burgers at McDonald's.
Vance is right also about the role of children in determining the franchise.
I don't think childless people (like me) should have a voice in shaping a futrue in which we have no genetic investment.
I think that - among other restrisctions - the only people who should be allowed to vote are married men who have children and have never been divorced. (Vance hasn't thought it through. The parents of bastard children should not be allowed to vote.)
Imagine the revolutionary changes in our government if the electorate consisted exclusively of married men with kids?
I'd gladly give up my right to vote if I c ould live in a country ruled by a government elected by such voters.