Family values and inclusivity aren't mutually exclusive

Going to Target for some Bud Light; or, the culture war continues to be weird

Anheuser-Busch and Target have recently caught the ire of some on the right who claim that the companies are pushing a “woke” agenda with their LGBTQ+-friendly products. First, Bud Light partnered with transgender influencer Dylan Mulveny to reach younger audiences during March Madness. The backlash was so fierce that Anheuser-Busch’s stock continues to decline as customers boycott their products. Then, just a month later, Target found itself in the crosshairs of the culture war when the company released its annual LGBTQ+ clothing line, including a “tuck-friendly” swimsuit that was, in fact, for adults. Naturally, some on the right got worked up about this, tossing around the typical accusations of grooming and indoctrination (with a little Satanism sprinkled in). The chorus of outrage sang forth against the ever-reliable supporting refrain of “protecting our kids” and “family values.”

But there is a deeper contradiction occurring here within the right’s reaction to private companies chasing profits. First, companies selling more inclusive products are a celebration of the civilizing forces of markets. If those on the right who are constantly harping about the dangers of socialism and freedom were serious about their beliefs, they’d appreciate this fact. Second, “family values” aren’t as straightforward as some might like to believe. There are questions of whose values, not to mention what exactly is meant by the idea of “family.” These two things—markets and diversity—go hand-in-hand, and we can’t risk opposing one without losing the other.

Family Matters

Defending family values has long been a moral imperative that some on the right have imposed on themselves. From divorce to women working outside of the home to gay marriage, every generation has seen its version of the family values controversy. But as the late economist Steve Horwitz points out in his book Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions, “conservatives often fail to distinguish between the form families take and their ability to function” and that “functions that families perform have evolved over time, thereby necessitating, or at least allowing for, a similar evolution in form.” That is, family is an evolving social structure, not a static concept. 

These sorts of dynamic conditions, while possible in a variety of cultures, thrive in market-based societies found in much of the Western world. This is not to suggest that liberal societies are perfect, but merely that they allow for the greatest degree of social experimentation and alternative living arrangements. As such, we can expect to see a variety of familial structures emerge over time, and in fact, we have seen this. The “traditional” nuclear family that conservatives often have in mind when defending family values was just a historical blip, lasting from about the post-WWII period into the mid-1960s. As our society became wealthier and women gained more rights and independence, the idea of what a family could look like changed. Fast-forward about 50 years and we start to see more LGBTQ+ families emerge as the rights of more marginalized groups are recognized. 

It might be worth noting here a common objection to non-traditional family arrangements: what about the kids? Suffice it to say there has been enough research done at this point to show that kids raised by same-sex parents don’t have all that different outcomes from kids raised by opposite-sex parents. It’s also not the case that children face a higher risk of abuse in LGBTQ+ households. One of the biggest variables affecting outcomes, it seems, is if kids are raised in a high-conflict versus low-conflict household, with some difference seen in single-parent versus two-parent households.

Markets make us better, and the right should embrace this

The right has historically been seen as the pro-capitalism wing of the American political spectrum. I think there have been times in history when this was true, but I would argue that there’s nuance to this take, especially recently. Those on the right who are upset about Target and Bud Light fail to realize that there is a tension in their stated love for capitalism (read: markets) and their fear of social change. Capitalism, by definition, embraces change; without it, the system ceases to function. 

Not only are markets dynamic, but they are also moralizing. As economists Ginny Choi and Virgil Storr have pointed out in their book Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals?, markets make us more likely to be cosmopolitan. Citing the World Value Survey, Storr and Choi note that 

The authors go on to conclude that “people in market societies appear to be more accepting of people of diverse backgrounds and characteristics than people in nonmarket societies.” The moralizing and cosmopolitan nature of markets may contradict the right’s desired social order, but that’s a feature, not a bug, of the system.

This highlights that, again, while markets are not perfect moral spaces, they do tend to encourage better moral behavior among their participants. We can see this when comparing LGBTQ+ and women’s rights over time in liberal versus authoritarian countries.

I’m harping on the moralizing effects of markets for one important reason: the behavior we’re seeing in people who oppose more inclusivity is an aberration of markets. Those on the right who are caterwauling over what they perceive as an attack on family values are not the norm. And if the more authoritarian elements on the right want their claims about the importance of capitalism and family values to be taken seriously, then they will embrace the progressive dynamism that their values necessarily require. 

The world’s a dynamic place, and that’s a good thing

(Ostensibly) freedom-loving Americans who claim to defend family values but damage private property in stores are contradicting the very values they claim to uphold. Markets promote social change, not static decay. The dynamism they foster benefits us all, and results in some unpredictable but generally beneficial social arrangements. The family is not exempt from this. Voluntary, loving family units can take many forms. The idea of the traditional family is ephemeral. Families take the forms they need to so they can perform the functions they must. To deny this is to deny the value of family at all. What’s worse, it belies a deeply unserious nihilism that is destructive to the liberty to which we’re all entitled as human beings.