One of the more unfortunate turns of Tea Party–era Republican politics was the “skin in the game” trope. At the time, some Republican activists and politicians were concerned that poorer voters weren’t paying enough in taxes—they had no “skin in the game” and were perhaps in some ways even suspect. Thus, Ben Carson’s “flat tax” proposal still had a minimum tax of $100. In its more paranoid iterations, this “skin in the game” line of thought could swell into the idea of viewing politics as some titanic clash between “takers” and “makers.”
On a level of raw politics, this approach fundamentally misunderstood American political dynamics. In part, because the affluent were sorting themselves into the Democratic coalition, Republicans needed to improve their margins with working-class voters. Pledging to raise taxes on lower-income families (so that they have “skin in the game”) is not the way to do that.
But this was also mistaken on a civic level. Whether or not a citizen pays income taxes, he or she certainly has “skin” in the game of American life. If anything, poorer Americans could arguably have more exposure to the vicissitudes of public policy. A hedge-fund billionaire can, to some extent, wall himself off from the consequences of government policy by living in a gated community or sending his kids to private school. He can hop from one country to the next. A Target worker outside Sioux Falls likely does not have those same options.
I count myself as sympathetic to the natalist cause. We should make it easier for people to have children by nurturing a pro-family culture and by making it more affordable to raise children. Parenthood detonates the thesis that we are merely atomistic actors pursuing our self-interest. The very importance of promoting family formation makes it important for natalists to avoid the temptation of the “skin in the game” argument.
Again, I think children are great (and exhausting), but saying that people need to have children to have a stake in American society is a conceptual inversion. We already do have a stake in American society. Children are perhaps the most potent representation of the fact that we live within a broader web of obligations, including obligations across time. Having children might also help awaken us to the existence of that web, and obviously, we acquire a new set of obligations in having children. But our involvement in the bigger social order pre-exists having children.
I don’t think George Washington had any less of a stake in the Republic because he didn’t have biological children, nor do I think that a fifty-year-old woman would suddenly be less of a citizen if her only child died in a sudden car accident. Those without children—from priests and nuns to the infertile to those for whom it just never worked out — all have gifts to contribute to our society. Of course, becoming a parent can help us realize some unexpected gifts and virtues, too.
The stronger case for natalism foregrounds the way that strengthening families enriches all our lives.