Dispatch Live: Conservative Family Policy With Andy Smarick

Join our weekly livestreamed conversation.

By
12

How conservatives approach family policy in the post-Roe era will be an increasingly important conversation in the near future. Andy Smarick, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has been on the leading edge of this topic for years. And on this week’s Dispatch Live he joins Jonah and Andrew to talk about that and more. And, as always, there will be plenty of time for your questions.  

Tune in on August 9 at 8 p.m. ET on YouTube. Come with your questions, grab a drink, and settle in for a meaningful conversation. 

Dispatch Live recordings will also be available as a members-only podcast on select platforms. We heard from many of you requesting audio recordings of Dispatch Live and we’re excited to provide this feature to members. See below for information on how to access the podcast. 

Q&A: We want to hear from you during the show. To ask questions of our panelists and interact with other members you can use the YouTube Live chat feature or simply comment on this post during the broadcast.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
12
By
Comments (12)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Linda Magaw

    This podcast was excellent. I love it when a discussion is civil and each participant listens to the others. Great when someone admits that they hadn’t seen a particular point of view and was willing to adjust opinion as a result. Jonah was a great host/moderator and Andy and Andrew were clear and thoughtful. Need to have Andy on again.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I also enjoyed the deep dive into family policy as opposed to the emphasis on election politics that have often been the case for prior TD Live events, although I understand some of that considering they happen on Tuesdays when primary elections are held.

      The main difference between the worldview of the two Andrews, seemed to that Smarick sees family policy issues as ultimately about the State, or at least the larger community, doling out benefits to the needy people. So he views, and rejects, the Romney plan as basically just another federal welfare plan that is usurping the proper role of state and local governments as well as private charities

      But Egger pointing out that "the state needs the people too" was quite refreshing and I really don't remember anyone either on the Right or Left, really articulating that recently. Although I suppose other pro-natalists might believe the same.

      But the Left obviously sees the secular State as the source of all or most goodness, while the loudest voices on Right either also accept this and just define "goodness" differently, or just reject the State as a barely necessary evil that is always inherently opposed to the interests of the people and therefore should be as limited in scope as possible.

      But the idea that "the State needs the people" is actually true, too.

      I also appreciated Egger's point that much of the "Biden regime" verbiage among Republicans has the not so hidden connotation of "Biden is an Usurper whose regime is inherently legitimate".

      But the regime language also seems to imply that for all its small "d" democratic trappings, that the US isn't really that different from, say, Russia, and that the only form of government that is practical, is some form of strongman rule by a caudillo/ dictator/ what have you. That the only real choice for Americans is who the Supreme Ruler will be.

      That's an extremely cynical view of politics, that obviously the three men who took part in the discussion reject. But sadly it seems they are in a rapidly shrinking Remnant these days.

      Collapse
  2. Pohl

    This was an excellent discussion. I agree with Smarick on subsidiarity and how much can be done locally.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Henry Clemens

    One really hasn't time to listen to podcasts. Can transcripts not be provided?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Maria B

    It's a little weird to set up a discussion about family policy "in the post-Roe era" that includes no women. Really, guys? An all-male family policy discussion is questionable in any context, but if you pitch it specifically as conservatives talking about family policy after Dobbs, well, that sends quite a message all by itself. And yeah, I'm being that tiresome lefty talking about representation because I think it matters. Nothing about us without us, as the saying goes. Surely you can find a conservative woman to join this discussion by tonight.

    Collapse
    1. Lynne

      Good Point, Maria, regardless of political affiliation. Many socially left, moderate and right women subscribe to the Dispatch.

      Aside from this, does no one come back to the comments to discuss the Livestream after the fact? I thought there might be more post-stream comments as there are post-article comments.🤷🏻‍♀️

      I will say that I loved hearing Zoë (?) try to contribute, and Jonah try to shush her. Assumed it was her and not Pippa.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Maria B

        Since I have a house full of dogs myself, I always appreciate it when people's dogs chime in during livestreams. Kids, too. Happens to the best of us. :-)

        I'm admittedly predisposed to be skeptical of conservative ideas about family policy, but as I feared, three dudes talking about how we need more babies had some real "shut up and breed" energy, especially after Smarick argued that we shouldn't "privilege" two-income families by providing subsidized childcare. We'll never know whether having a woman in the mix would have added some nuance, and that's too bad.

        Since I'm spouting off here, I'll add that a policy discussion heavily focused on Catholic teaching and mythical notions of community is not much of a policy discussion. It's more preaching to the choir and will not get you far with the unconverted. In case anybody cares what that conversation sounded like to an outsider, I'm here to tell you that it sounded distinctly creepy. I know the left can sound just as silly and vaguely menacing when it's talking to itself about these issues. Heck, it sometimes sounds that way to me.

        This is why the whole subject of family policy is so thorny. You're talking about the most intimate aspects of people's lives, and in this huge and wildly diverse country, it's impossible to try to engineer families without trampling on someone. Any attempt at family policy should be approached with humility, a quality currently in very short supply.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      It's a good point, 'tiresome lefty' or not.

      Collapse
  5. Mathew A

    So very happy to have the podcast option nice work!

    I really feel like I get my money's worth here

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    W James Anderson

    I look forward to it😎

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    So I realize this is technically outside the scope of the topic, but I recall Smarick writing an article in 2021 that had a pretty positive gloss on Stop the Steal, that the guardrails held in the end and the republic was never really in danger of a coup.

    I wonder if he thinks the same would happen in 2024 if Trump is the GOP nominee and loses again? Because right now, I am much less certain.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Theirn Scott

      I'll feel better once the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 is passed.

      Collapse