As a compassionate person, I feel that Vance’s remark lacks empathy and nuance. But as a political observer, I see it as malpractice.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is a lesson that JD Vance has not heeded.
Eleven years ago, the prominent historian and author Niall Ferguson became embroiled in controversy when he argued that the renowned early-20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes “didn’t care about future generations because he was gay and didn’t have children,” as journalist Tom Kostigen summarized.
The implication, Kostigen continued, was that “if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.”
This bears an eerie similarity to then-Senate candidate JD Vance’s more recent comments: “It’s just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children... And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”
Ferguson — who was not running for political office — quickly apologized for his “stupid” remarks. In contrast, Vance — now Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate — doubled down on his.
During a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, Vance neglected to make amends with the women and families he offended. He did, however, note that he’s “got nothing against cats.”
The fact that Vance and Ferguson both made similar assertions (albeit 11 years apart) suggests that these comments represent a larger worldview that is shared by some larger, if still fringe, portion of the American right.
Word on the street is that Tucker Carlson and venture capitalist Peter Thiel were both instrumental in persuading Trump to select Vance as his running mate. Back in 2015, Carlson appeared on my podcast and had this to say: “I would never ask for important life advice from someone who didn’t have children. Call me a bigot if you will. In my view, until you’ve really suffered with empathy and concern over a child, it’s hard to have a bigger view of life. And having kids definitely puts everything in perspective.”
Those comments by Carlson were obviously less offensive than Vance’s infamous “cat lady” line. This was, after all, the pre-Trump era.
Still, it’s worth noting that Vance’s “cat lady” comments were made on Carlson’s Fox News show in 2021. Could it be that Vance — a political weathervane who previously compared Trump to Hitler — was eager to tell Carlson’s audience what they wanted to hear?
Meanwhile, Thiel’s other political protege is Blake Masters, who just lost a GOP primary race for a House seat in Arizona. Last week, Masters bluntly declared that “Political leaders should have children.”
Somehow, I don’t think it is a coincidence that this small group of prominent right-wingers share a certain view about the childless. And I do believe there will be consequences.
One consequence of Vance’s cruel comments is that it undermines what might otherwise be a defensible, if esoteric, pro-natalist case. As a father, I believe that I’ve gained a certain amount of wisdom and perspective about the future that I might not have had without kids. It’s true that I literally do have skin in the game.
What’s more, I think it’s perfectly fine to believe that marriage and children bring many of us joy, not to mention more pragmatic externalities, such as providing more young workers to pay for retiring baby boomers’ Social Security, as well as more Americans to compete against a billion Chinese — both economically and militarily.
On the other hand, I do not believe parenthood is a sine qua non for caring about America’s future. In addition to Vance’s hurtful rhetoric, it is this assertion that crosses the line. Aside from being mean, it is simply untrue.
Recently, Fox News host and former GOP congressman Trey Gowdy told a story about spending the day with a pair of Catholic nuns. The nuns, who obviously do not have children, have dedicated their lives to helping others.
One could also attribute the same characteristics to Jesus and the Apostle Paul — figures that Vance and many of his supporters ostensibly revere.
As a compassionate person, I feel that Vance’s remark lacks empathy and nuance. But as a political observer, I see it as malpractice. The electoral consequences of his statement could be cataclysmic.
Vance might have, as his original comments suggested, intended to target Vice President Kamala Harris (who is the stepmother of two children) and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg (he and his husband have since adopted children). However, millions of Americans feel implicitly wounded by his unfeeling words.
Some are Americans who could not have children — and who might have spent tens of thousands of dollars trying. Many of these folks are great Americans, not to mention terrific aunts, uncles, friends and neighbors.
What is more, Vance’s comments do not just intellectually offend these people; they affect them on a deeply emotional level.
An old adage suggests that “Logic leads to conclusions, but emotion leads to action.” When it comes to Vance motivating angry Americans to show up at the polls in November, Trump/Vance ’24 had better hope this maxim is incorrect.
Matt K. Lewis is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “Too Dumb to Fail” and “Filthy Rich Politicians.”
