J.D. Vance is very concerned about the birth dearth—people not having enough children.
I get it. About three decades ago, I read The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies?, by the late Ben Wattenberg and became deeply concerned about this issue.
Beyond the geopolitical implications, that the West was somehow in decline and the U.S. would lose its footing as a superpower, it had deeper, worrisome implications. Wattenberg cited the French demographer Alfred Sauvy who predicted Europe would become, "a society of old people, living in old houses, ruminating about old ideas."
This seemed bad and now it looks like the whole world is headed that way!
Writing in Foreign Affairs, demographer Nick Eberstadt finds that Wattenberg’s the long-term declines in birth rates are continuing—not just in the West—but worldwide. The implications of this are enormous and unprecedented. There will be problems as the need for people to care for the elderly outstrips the supply. Can economies sustain themselves with new proportions of workers to retired people? There will be difficult adaptations.
I’ve decided not to worry about it. Humanity isn’t going extinct. In fact, humanity remains a young species, our existence on this planet is just a handful of millions of years. Compare that to the shark which has existed several hundred million years. Our civilization is no older than 10,000 years. Yet in the past two centuries (an eye blink for the universe) we have profoundly changed the Earth and even, to a limited extent, left it. This is a growth spurt, a difficult adolescence. Perhaps it is ok if we slow down a bit.
But Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has not reached this stage of equanimity.

Policy Options for Countering the Birth Dearth
Policy options will have limited efficacy in changing this demographic trajectory. Eberstadt notes that the single factor that best predicts how many children there are is how many children women want to have. Children are demanding. Parenting is hard and costly, with the burdens falling most heavily on mothers. And of course, pregnancy and childbirth are physically and psychologically difficult (and risky) in ways that I can only dimly imagine.
So while humanity as a whole will struggle to reverse this trend, the United States is actually well-positioned to have ongoing, moderate population growth. Replacement level is 2.1 births per woman. The U.S. is currently at 1.6 which is above average compared to other economically advanced countries. But, unlike many of the other economically developed states, the U.S. has not really begun deploying social and economic policy levers to change this.
As the brilliant Jessica Calarco observes, instead of a social safety net, the U.S. relies on the unpaid labor of women. Little wonder that many women are not rushing into motherhood or limiting the number of children they have. Generous mandated parental leave, subsidized daycare, and a whole host of other policies could make parenthood more attractive and raise the birth rate. There are also related issues, such as the lack of affordable housing which may have policy remedies.
Other countries have tried these types of policies. They have an effect, but they are limited. Still if the U.S. could raise the birthrate to 1.8 children per woman, that would have an impact. The additional population growth could come from sustained, moderate levels of immigration.
Of course, these policies are an anathema to today’s GOP.
Veep as a Policy-maker
So where does this leave soon-to-be VP Vance?
There are three ways for the VP to exercise influence.
Lobby the President
VPs asking the president to take on their initiatives is a dicey business. It depends, first and foremost on the President-VP relationship. It also depends on whether the ask is inline with the president’s priorities. Vance has a talent for ingratiating himself with mentors. Perhaps that will work with Trump. But Trump is a mercurial figure (at best), so it is difficult to say how ready he is to hear Vance’s ideas. There is also the challenge of what to ask for? As the recent H1B imbroglio showed, lobbying for expanded legal immigration may be a 3rd rail Trump doesn’t want to touch. There may be specific social welfare programs that can be branded under a GOP rubric. Trump may be sold, but the GOP on Capitol Hill may not be. Will Trump want to expend political capital on this?
Lead Task Forces
Since the Reagan administration, VPs have led all kinds of task forces and working groups. Sometimes they served to query the government to obtain options. Bush led a working group on counter-terrorism. Harris led a task force on labor organizing. Other VP led endeavors have overseen the implementation of policy, such as Biden’s overseeing economic relief under Obama or Gore heading up security efforts in the run-up to the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. These types of task forces are usually inter-agency projects where the VP can enable whole-of-government responses. But they are also on narrow pain points. The birth dearth is much too big, and it isn’t clear that there are many specific actions the executive branch can take on its own to address it. Vance could lead efforts to find solutions to some related issues, such as the housing crisis.
Use the Bully Pulpit
This is the most likely and easiest option. Still, it isn’t clear that the presidential bully pulpit is all that effective, so it is difficult to imagine the VP really moving the needle on such a major issue. Harris made reproductive rights and voting rights signature issues, gave innumerable speeches, and did not accomplish much. Perhaps the most famous and relevant example of a VP taking a strong stance on an issue and trying to really change public opinion was his opposition to single motherhood. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Quayle criticized the fictional character Murphy Brown for choosing to have a child outside of marriage. It clearly had little effect on the rise of single motherhood.
This should be a lesson for J.D. Vance (or any man for that matter). Lecturing women on having more babies or staying with difficult partners for the sake of the children is not going to be appreciated. Women are effectively being asked to “take one for the team.” But women have been forced to do this for thousands of years. Now that women have a choice, they clearly prefer autonomy.
There is a related issue where the bully pulpit may prove appropriate. One factor in the birth dearth is that women are not finding many appealing partners among today’s men. I have some anecdotal evidence from the young people I know well (who are all delightful themselves, btw.) But they mention that their friends’ younger brothers are becoming misogynists from online videos served up by social media algorithms. They hear dating horror stories from their friends, who describe situations ranging from sheer boorishness to assault. Emblematic of these attitudes is the far-right cry of: “Your body, my choice.”
VP Vance would show real courage if he took this on, since much (but not all) of this vitriol is coming from his political tribe. If Vance does this, he’d have my sincere respect.