Vice President Kamala Harris attempted to bolster her progressive policy bona fides when she chose Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) as her running mate. The problem is, on education, one of a governor’s most important duties, Walz doesn’t have much of a record. His administration’s only accomplishments appear to be plummeting student achievement, tampons in boys restrooms at elementary schools, and a neo-Marxist “Ethnic Studies” initiative.
Of course, the Left hasn’t bothered to acknowledge these problems. But progressive pundits have lined up to applaud one Walz initiative: Universal free school lunch (and breakfast).
Unfortunately for them and, possibly, America’s schoolchildren, their arguments are as empty as the calories those meals provide. Fortunately for us, there is, for the first time perhaps in history, an opportunity for Republicans to treat this problem as the high national priority, or perhaps even national emergency, that it truly is.
Earlier this month, the New York Times's Paul Krugman rehearsed the typical progressive talking points in favor of Walz’s free lunch policy.
First, Krugman argued that we have a moral duty to feed hungry children whose parents can’t feed them. This is always the first-line argument, which is always followed by a concession that we already do that and that it isn’t the problem.
Second, Krugman argued that substantially increasing public spending on school meals is actually fiscally conservative. Because, you see, schools must process paperwork to determine who is eligible. If they don’t need to do this paperwork, they can reduce the marginal cost of each meal even as the total cost skyrockets. This is what progressives such as Krugman think is a “gotcha” zinger.
Third and finally, progressives argue that providing universal school lunches will “reduce stigma.” Krugman offered an unusual variant of this argument and said requiring families to register in order to get free meals might make students more likely to feel shame in asking for a government handout. Such shame used to be universally regarded as a virtue, not a defect.
But the more common version of the argument is that universal school lunches will reduce the “lunch-shaming” stigma felt by free-lunch students. On this theory, students know whose parents deposit money into school lunch accounts and whose don’t and pick on the children whose accounts are automatically debited. Maybe that actually happens sometimes.
Even if it does, the idea that universal free meals would somehow reduce the net incidence of bullying is profoundly daft. Students will find something else to stigmatize. Most likely, if everyone gets free meals from the schools, children will stigmatize and pick on students whose parents pack brown bag lunches for them.
Despite how vapid the progressive argument is, the Left usually wins because the typical conservative argument has been even worse. Republicans typically just say free school lunches are unnecessary public spending and leave it at that. And what else would you really expect Republicans to do aside from holding the line against more spending?
In a second Trump administration, Republicans have the opportunity to do much more, and for a far more important reason: The health of America’s children. Instead of making free school lunches universal and inevitably even more ultra-industrialized and ultra-processed, make them more targeted and nutrient-rich.
One of the three reasons Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed former President Donald Trump was because of his desire to work in unity against the “war on our children.” The first thing Kennedy said when he took the stage with Trump last week was that they were connected by Casey Means, co-author of the #1 New York Times bestselling book Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health. A former food industry lobbyist, Casey, along with his sister Calley Means and her M.D. from Stanford University, has been ringing the alarm about the dangers of ultra-processed foods.
Children in America are about twice as likely to be overweight as children in Japan. While there are many cultural reasons, what children eat at school undoubtedly matters. America’s U.S. Department of Agriculture-regulated school lunches are atypically high in ultra-processed seed oils. Some medical associations swear these are healthy. Other experts, such as Casey Means and his sister, argue that they’re partly responsible for our chronic disease epidemic.
During the Obama administration, when first lady Michelle Obama spearheaded an initiative to make school lunches less unhealthy, Tea Party Republicans mocked her. But, as evidenced by their rapid embrace of Kennedy, Trump-era Republicans are open to a children’s-health-first approach.
To be sure, Project 2025 doesn’t call for overhauling school lunches to make them organic. But with Kennedy playing a role on Trump’s transition team and potentially in his next administration, a serious initiative to make school lunches more targeted and nutrient-rich just might be on the table.
Healthy food for children who need it, and a culture of health, sure sounds a lot better than free churros for all.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Max Eden is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Most Popular
Comments / 0