The weekend marked a significant controversy among conservatives, especially online, after the Trump administration announced plans to open a child-care grant to stay-at-home mothers, on top of the two-income households the program already supports. Debate ensued among well-intentioned conservatives over whether the de facto expansion of the welfare system was worth it, despite its intended assistance for stay-at-home mothers and a sort of traditional lifestyle that many conservatives believe is worth incentivizing.
🚨 BREAKING: The Trump administration is reportedly drafting a plan pushed by JD Vance to give federal child care funds to married couples with a STAY-AT-HOME SPOUSE while the other parent works — NYT
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 5, 2026
The program could be $9K per year for these families
The goal: make it easier… pic.twitter.com/Wi5eEO8Urv
The conversation came amid a broader debate about “common good conservatism,” a philosophy rooted in Catholic Social Teaching and advocated for most notably by Vice President JD Vance, Daily Wire commentator Michael Knowles, Marco Rubio (to a lesser extent), and others, especially amongst young conservatives. The philosophy doesn’t shy away from the heavy-handed use of central government, especially when it comes to the economy. As a matter of fact when applied, it seems to say that the goodness of the ends justify the means. In many ways, it reflects a sort of socially conservative but economically progressive policy platform. And right now, it’s something worth discussing, because it’s something conservatives must reckon with well before it comes time to vote.
Now, for why this matters. Many Republicans have remained baffled by the electoral success of openly socialist candidates on the left. It’s important to remember that while conservatives have been victorious on the social front, pushing the pendulum rightward on illegal immigration, DEI, transgenderism, discrimination, men in women’s sports, and so much more, the same is not true on economics. Yes, the president cut red tape. Yes, he’s rooting out fraud. Yes, he’s reduced taxes. But that is not an encompassing economic vision, at least not one that will win an ideological debate between free markets and socialism.
As a matter of fact, both Republicans and Democrats appear to be pushing equally leftward, simply arguing over who should benefit. While the Democrats promise more entitlements, the president is vowing to give adult Americans $5,000 checks if Republicans keep the House and Senate. While the left wants to give entitlements to illegal immigrants, leaders on the right don’t have an issue with entitlements themselves, vowing to expand them to encompass stay-at-home motherhood and root out fraud. While the left is okay regulating U.S. companies so much that they offshore and take jobs with them, the right is openly discussing doing the same for AI. While the left talks about seizing the means of production, the right takes stakes in over 30 companies.
And while the left sings praises of communist leaders, our own openly scoff at the ideas of Milton Friedman and discuss "democratizing" the economic benefits of by private companies.
VP @JDVance tells @michaeljknowles that the economic position of the Republican party has moved from Milton Friedman to Alexander Hamilton.
— H.A. Hazony (@HAHazony) June 30, 2026
Less laissez-faire and more American developmentalism.
The economy is a tool to provide a good life for citizens. pic.twitter.com/fduCMQK6TV
VP Vance on AI and the importance of giving workers a voice in their own wealth creation:
— Vice President JD Vance (@VP) July 15, 2026
"There has to be a middle way...and part of that solution is to give workers a say in what's going on, give normal people some power in this system." pic.twitter.com/x8QwXCexHX
May I ask what the principled difference is between the left’s economic vision and our own? Right now, there doesn’t appear to be one.
So while the right argues in opposition to socialism, it adopts socialism’s diagnoses of American economic problems, abandons the warriors who spent decades opposing its rise, and presents an economic vision of the status quo, just minus giving benefits to illegal aliens. Behold today’s version of a New Deal Republican.
What we really need is a push toward free-market capitalism, a system that’s good at delivering benefits and bad at PR. Critics regularly that’s just Bush-era establishment talk, a recipe for losing elections. But the Bushes and early-2000s Republicans weren’t devout Milton Friedman acolytes pushing genuine free-market solutions. Victory and markets aren’t mutually exclusive, no matter what we’re told.
And here lies the greatest problem: What path will America choose? Right now, it appears to be more government and more socialism, not because that’s the only choice, but because that’s the only choice people are being offered. If we really want to defeat socialism, it’s time to brush up on the likes of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, and others who devoted their lives to showing us the path to victory. Until that day comes, prepare for socialism to only grow in popularity.
