To some, even the simplest proposals for family formation are contemptible. A hyperfocus on gender and race takes from the fact that genuine family-first approaches have these things in mind.

But that slips past critics who read only prejudice into pro-family guidelines. Such is the case with a new memorandum from the Transportation Department, titled “Ensuring Reliance upon Sound Economic Analysis in Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and Activities.”

The title indicates how many ideas are packed into the short document. Much of its content, however, centers on family benefits, and it is this detail that has caught traction in public discourse. Specifically, the memo proposes that “statutes governing DOT policies, programs, and activities shall be administered to identify and avoid … adverse impacts on families and communities.” The same goes for maximizing benefits for them and minimizing “family-specific difficulties.” As a critical point, the DOT will “prioritize projects and goals that … give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.”

That last part really catches the eye of the reader whose primary social focus is preference-based, which means that the Trump administration’s natural opponents interpret the proposal in isolation, unsympathetic to it. At once, the idea is racist, for those most in need are poor and unmarried minorities; partisan, because families have been in mass exodus from blue to red states; and utilitarian, as a high fertility rate is the scheme of the patriarchal Right.

One particular worry, from the New York Times, is that DOT funds will no longer go toward a “$4 billion program that sought to reconnect communities of color that had been split by highways.” Such projects are Biden-era remnants.

Of course, there are higher priorities than the aforementioned. It is worth considering: Would the New York Times’s concern still stand if communities of color had stronger family structure?

Probably less so. Perhaps families were split by highways, but doubtful immediate family members who had not already gone off on their own. The fact of the matter is that family structure matters for black children the same as for white ones and that black children are the most likely, by a lot, to be living with single parents. Among the many things a secure, two-parent family life puts on offer, support and belonging are chief qualities. The sense of “disconnection” and the hardship and isolation of adversity would become lighter when faced with a family. Race-based communities, not always practically salvageable, would seem less crucial.

Part of the disadvantage of racial minorities in the family realm — and it is multifactorial — is the Democratic ownership of racial interests and the party’s simultaneous lies about family life. Framed as a burden and a loss instead of a joy and a gain, the Democratic Party pushes antifamily endeavors onto its constituents. For couples who do not buy the messaging, progressive state-level agendas force relocation.

So, when pro-family policy appears partisan, it is. That result is not the fault of conservative politicians but of Democrats’ stated goals.

Opponents of Duffy’s memo are on the right track with community-based concerns, though they are aiming too low: What benefits the family benefits society overall.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Merely on the level of neighborhood quality, families bring assets. For suburban life, mutually strengthening family networks: Young parents know those more experienced, children have friends, and good people enter society. For city life, even married and unmarried people can benefit: Not only a vibrant and safe urban setting comes about, but the age-old mingling of lonely, single people with happier-seeming families makes for a strong community.

All of these are ideals, but they are attainable. The problem with such harsh criticism of the memo is that, no matter whether one disagrees with the ideals, its proposals are left broad. The family is no public good, to be sure, but it might do its disparagers some good to entertain that lens, just a bit.