Mothers do not need medals – they need a better world for their children

Mother’s Day is there, and although President Trump may seem like an unlikely celebrant of the occasion, his administration recently launched several proposals to encourage maternity – or, more specifically, to give birth. There is the “baby bonus” of $ 5,000 for each American mother, free lessons educating women on their menstrual cycles and a national maternity medal for mothers who have at least six children. (Do you want to guess which diet also awarded such a medal?)

As usual, Trump offered ridiculous solutions to a very real problem. He is certainly right that each American can afford to raise children and that social security programs depend on stable demography. But of course, all the other measures he has taken to undermine gender equality suggest that this sudden interest in mothers’ well-being is less than sincere. This is exactly why progressives have an opening to break what the republican party believes to be its ideological monopoly on pro-family policies.

The roots of the fertility crisis engage the problems of bread and butter that have long been the field of Democrats. American birth rate rates have reached a record not because the nation has become “almost pathologically anti-child”, as JD Vance said it The New York Times. Instead, surveys have shown that potential parents wish to have a house, repay students’ debt and have money for child care before starting a family. However, the average age of a buyer climbed to 56, almost double what he was 40 years ago. And 43% of young people are currently carrying out student debts, compared to 28% in 1993. The problem is not a lack of interest – it is too much interest paid on high loans.

But most of the Trump administration’s drift fix are non -original blows from the undemocratic leaders they admire. In 2017, Vladimir Putin declared a “decade of childhood in Russia”, an innocent name for a program that calls for everything, from the defense of family values ​​called to encourage marital meetings during work breaks to censor “propaganda without children”. Meanwhile, Viktor Orbán devoted 5% of Hungary GDP to Pronatalist policies, which include nationalized IVF services and life tax exemptions for mothers with three children. These men exercise an authoritarian tradition started by the very original man, Benito Mussolini, whose “battles for births” have warned literal battles which have reduced the European population by 20 million people.

This is why those who really care about real solutions would be wise to start offering their own plans, and, in fact, some have already done so. What the Trump administration did not plagiarize plutocrats, they have taken progressives, which is why the “bonus for babies” are very similar to the “bonds for babies” offered in 2021 by the senators Tammy Baldwin and Cory Booker and representing Ayanna Pressley. The legislation would put $ 1,000 in a savings account at the birth of each American child. The American rescue plan of the Biden era has also almost doubled the children’s tax credit, which almost half reduced the poverty rate of children. Although this permanent expansion has received bipartisan support, he was finally killed by the centrist triangulature of Joe Manchin.

Four years later, Democrats have the opportunity to adopt a truly progressive program which is coupled with a pro-family platform. Bernie Sanders has long called to cancel all student debts; Elizabeth Warren campaigned for universal guard services; And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among the first politicians of Capitol Hill to offer three months of parental leave paid to all its staff. The Progressive Caucus of Congress also called for a series of policies that would reduce the cost of living, from the expansion of Medicaid to the investment of $ 250 billion in affordable housing. They understand that the real relief will not come from the distribution of medals but from the meeting of courage to fight for the families of workers.

However, even if the Democrats manage a progressive populist renewal not seen since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it would probably not be enough to raise the birth rates. In Social Democracies such as Finland and Sweden – which offer 13 months of remunerated parental leave respectively and cover 90% of preschool costs, fertility remains lower than replacement levels.

Does this indicate that the problem can be more fundamental? A sociologist, Dr. Karen Benjamin Guzzo, has attributed this dilemma to apprehension: “People really need to feel confident about the future.” But whether it is 60% of young people who feel very worried about climate change, or 80% of new mothers feel alone, or 90% of voters feeling that American policy is broken, the state of the world does not seem too conducive to domestic happiness. The response from the right to this anxiety is embodied by Elon Musk, who keeps children sirring with women he meets on X to create a brood of “legion” “before the apocalypse”.

To help avoid said apocalypse, what should be proposed are authentically family policies that benefit parents and non-parents. In doing so, there is a chance to persuade the Americans that the next generation could always have a better future than the previous one. Or, at the very least, that progressives have a more convincing vision for American families than that whose budget is about to take billions of people from education, food and health care of children.

It is one thing to encourage to give birth. The Americans deserve leaders who will fight for these children after their birth.