Is "Conservatism" Anti-Family?

Well, "Conservatism, Inc." is anti-family--or at the very least, it is not "PRO-family."

But as we all know, "Conservatism" properly speaking is pro-family.  The problem is that propaganda groups which claim "conservatism" are not properly Conservative; instead, they are Conservative, Inc.

This essay at American Greatness points to a very serious problem with Conservative, Inc.

When the otherwise-despicable Romney suggests a $350/kid (or less) payment to families, AEI--a 'conservative' group--screeches that women might not seek/hold employment if those payments were made, so it's BAD!!

Really?  The birth-dearth here is serious and getting worse every year.  Money-for-babies is a very American solution to what is a demographic catastrophe-in-the-making.  After all, what is the per-child deduction but money-for-babies on the cheap?

Raise the minimum wage?  Heritage Foundation clutches its (large and pricey) pearls and goes into a dead faint.

...increasing the minimum wage could raise childcare costs to make it a kind of luxury expenditure. “That could reduce employment by causing some parents—particularly within two-parent families—to stay home with children instead of working,” she writes. “To the extent that women would be more likely to stay home than men, this could widen gender-based differences in the labor market.” ...

If the author of that passage is actually older than 14, I'll give you a nickel; her thought-pattern doesn't show it.  We all have concerns about raising the minimum wage, but 'women leaving the workforce' is inane.

What you see from Conservative, Inc. is a materialist world-view which, as you recall, is also the Marxist world-view.  That's not Conservative by any stretch of the imagination.