Republican civil war erupts over its 'big government' future

As it becomes increasingly clear that President Donald Trump’s era of political dominance is coming to an end, there has been a growing fight over the future of the Republican Party. According to Wall Street Journal contributor Matthew Continetti, a battle over a little-known program has turned into a major civil war over whether the GOP is the party of “big government.”

“Trumpapalooza is over, but the debate over the GOP’s future is just beginning,” wrote Continetti on Friday. “Another skirmish broke out last week with news that the Trump administration is planning a change in family policy. What might seem at first like a minor tweak to a forgotten program has turned into a fight over JD Vance, 2028 and the direction of the conservative movement.”

On its surface, the issue may not seem like one that would plunge a political party into infighting. As Continetti explained, “The Health and Human Services Department is preparing a rule that would grant stay-at-home parents access to the Child Care and Development Fund, a $12 billion program that currently subsidizes child care for low-income workers. Since the 1990s, the fund has provided eligible parents some $9,000 a year to help pay the cost of child care. Most recipients are single moms. Households where one spouse works and the other stays at home with children could also collect subsidies under the proposed rule. The goal would be encouraging marriage and reducing the cost of raising children. But because the rule change wouldn’t be accompanied by a budget increase — at least for now — money likely would flow from single moms and commercial daycares to married parents.”

Democrats have argued that the plan will “rob” money from single mothers so Republicans can impose “their preferred definition of what a family should look like.” And according to Continetti, many conservatives are opposed to the policy for their own reasons. As he puts it, “Family policy is another fault line dividing limited-government conservatives from nationalist conservatives such as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have long backed aid to married couples with children.”

Since the plan leaked, Continetti says there has been surprisingly “lively” debate among conservatives. As he explains, “Limited-government conservatives point out the potential cost of the program, its perverse incentives (that $9,000 vanishes as soon as dad gets a raise) and its reliance on social engineering. ‘Who works or does not work; who takes care of a child; or who takes a child to childcare is the family’s business,’ wrote former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. ‘It is certainly not the place of the federal government to put its thumb on the scale using taxpayer dollars.’”

According to Continetti, “One group resists government action for economic, social and constitutional reasons; another wants to use government power for conservative ends.” Aspects of this fight have been simmering for decades, and in the past, those in the latter camp have criticized “neoconservatives” like George W. Bush for expanding the role of government. But, says Continetti, “the irony is that today’s advocates of using government for conservative purposes are some of the most prominent critics of neoconservatism and of Mr. Bush. They’re due for a refresher course in history. Their nationalism is a different name for an old idea.”

Continetti argues that “nationalists in favor of subsidizing stay-at-home parents fit the definition of ‘big government conservatives’ that journalist Fred Barnes first described in a 1990 article for the American Spectator. Big government conservatives, Mr. Barnes wrote, are ‘realistic’ about the chances of cutting federal spending — namely, that it’s next to impossible. They favor programs that put them ‘on the political offensive.’ They have a benign, even positive view of government. And finally, ‘big government conservatives aggressively seek to broaden the scope and maximize the funding of their programs.’”

Supporters of Vance and Rubio's family policy, says Continetti, voice this stance openly. “The welfare state already exists,” wrote Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. “The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either. Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline.” Heritage vice president and former Trump administration official Roger Severino agreed, saying, “To respond to a clear improvement in allocation of existing funds with cries of ‘socialist!’ is either grossly unserious or grossly uninformed.” The message is plain: Subsidizing stay-at-home moms is realistic, forward-looking, and harmless.

The arguments of big government conservatives have changed, while the limited government stance has remained consistent. As Continetti writes, “When he was in Congress 20 years ago, Mike Pence led a revolt of limited-government conservatives against President Bush’s spending plans. Today, fellows at Mr. Pence’s think tank Advancing American Freedom make the same arguments against executive overreach, tariffs and big government.” Another example is conservative commentator and Trump-loyalist Mark Levin, who has been speaking against the proposed family policy change.

Continetti doesn’t think the fight will be settled anytime soon, concluding, “Expect the contrast between big-government and limited-government conservatism to grow. Mr. Vance clearly believes in using government to advance nationalist goals, and he’s likely to face at least one challenger who believes in limited government. That challenger is also likely to be someone from outside the administration — a senator or governor or former official who will take up the mantle of constitutionalism and free enterprise. And though Mr. Vance is favored to win that contest, the argument within conservatism will endure.”