Conservatism to the Middle Class
On Peter Robinson’s thread about Mike Murphy yesterday, we read that Republicans have a problem with substance, in addition to packaging. The substance problem is what we’re saying to the middle class.*
So, in the comments section, I asked: What exactly is the Republican message to the middle class? Thus far, several people liked my comment, which indicates they might have the same question. As yet, however, I haven’t seen anyone respond to that specific question.
So – at the risk of revealing my stupidity yet again – let’s see if we can start a conversation to come up with an answer.
Consider:
- Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review Online
- Mike Murphy in Time
- Ross Douthat in The New York Times
Occasionally I do penance by reading liberals. I saw an article on Slate by Matt Yglesias, who, like a blind squirrel, wrote something interesting (not true, but interesting). He offered this:
… conservatives need to get over their gut-level hostility to "redistribition" [sic: misspelled in the original] in order to find an intellectually respectable way of making their agenda relevant to middle-class concerns. The sensible parts of Douthat's column offer perhaps another way of looking at this. In much of the aughts, the GOP seemed to be pushing an unpopular, elite-focused economic agenda and getting away with it by yoking it to a popular social conservative agenda. But with public opinion rapidly shifting on gay equality and the demographic composition of the electorate shifting, that particular combo doesn't work as well as it used to. The way back could involve shifting economic policy for social conservative reasons exactly as the extensive welfare states in Sweden and France are designed, in part, to specifically promote the interests of people with kids.
Lately on Ricochet, we’ve heard a few calls for Republicans to push their economic agenda, and not get dragged down by social concerns. Here, Yglesias and Douthat argue the opposite; the reason the economic agenda was palatable in the first place was because it was yoked to the more popular social agenda.
Hehehehehehe. OK, moving on …
Yglesias’ article cites Josh Barro. I don’t agree with Barro’s solution, but his description of the problem strikes me as accurate:
The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing. There's also no reason to think that, whatever standard of living we start from, an economy where nearly all the improvements accrue to a small fraction of families is either politically sustainable or morally acceptable.
Inequality. Barro follows with a reply to the obvious objection:
Lower taxes and a smaller government might raise GDP growth, but there's no particular reason to assume that growth would accrue in a more equal manner than we have experienced recently. The main effect of Ryan-style fiscal policy, which makes taxes both lower and less progressive and while shrinking benefits, would be a rise in after-tax inequality.
If the Republican Party and specifically conservatives want to persuade anyone, I think we need to explain how our economic ideas will address such inequality.
A couple points:
- It doesn’t matter if economic theorists have complex explanations about inequality. What matters is what we can explain to the public. Their healthcare and education bills are going up, but their paycheck isn’t. If conservatives argue that we have to loosen burdens on the rich so that they’ll provide more jobs, how do we answer their objection that when we did that before, it didn’t work … because the bills kept going up and their paychecks have been flat for decades?
- Say what you want about unions, they were one way to prevent management and owners from keeping all the profits. Is there any way to persuade workers that they could share in the profits if they were the ones who increased productivity?
- If a worker makes a business better, how does he reap reward? If it’s solely on the hope that we must trust the employer to do the right thing … well, the evidence doesn’t prove that they’ve done that. Wages have remained flat.
Before the election, I didn’t think equality was that big a problem. But now, I think the election smacked me in the head. it’s a glaring political problem. I now believe that unless we address the inequality question, nothing else we say will be attractive to the voting public.
I welcome your thoughts. And if you think I’m completely wrong, please say why – I’ll happily change my mind, if given a reason to do so.
* apologies to Jay Nordlinger, who correctly hates the term “middle class,” but hey, it’s handy here.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (22)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Sep '12
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
We need to make the point that the greatest income inequality is in the blue states, which are also going down the tubes fiscally. Exhibit A: California.
Dec '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
A bubble in labor is bursting. There is no getting off of this ride, the best we can hope for is at least have jobs for people that pay something.
Nov '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
People are not willing to accept that the regulations that they believe protects them from eeeeevvvviiiiilllll doctors and insurance companies and the easy money they get from student loans are driving the costs of health care and education up.
Frankly I am approaching the opinion that the government has become so divorced from the average person that the average person is incapable of actually understanding the impact of what the government does on their lives.
Sep '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
I think our hope is to point toward states that have enacted "conservative" ideas like fiscally sustainable budgeting, right to work, etc. Over the next few years if convservative ideas mean anything, states like Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and even Michigan may forge ahead while California and Illinois call for federal government bailouts.
Assuming that works and and Medicare and Medicaid turn south maybe we will have something to explain to people. Right now I fear we just look mean and stingy compared to the democrats.
Sep '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
One more thing regarding messaging.
The budget battle should be renamed an argument for "sustainable government".
We should give up on fiscal restraint (or austerity as it has been branded on the left) and instead have the argument about what level of debt to GDP is sustainable as a target. My recollection is that Ryan's plan stabilized the debt over 20 years. This was attacked from both the right and the left, so rather than trotting out more detailed plans or outlines of plans, we need to just have an argument over whether we should do anything and over what period we should reach our goal.
Entitlement programs should be reformed in the name of "fairness". Is it fair that people born in 1936 get a lot more net benefits than someone born in 1963 or 2003? Who in the electorate cares about the budget? Not enough apparently, but everyone can get fairness.
Taxes should be similarly argued as to fairness and what is a fair share. What we are doing now is ridiculous. Even Republicans don't believe that an increase in the top rate of 4.6% will do anything other than get accountants busy avoiding it.
Sep '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
On immigration we should turn an about face. 2 cheers for Mexican immigration. We can't do a whole lot to stop it because it is driven by forces beyond our control. I don't think a fence will change things drastically and the demographic damage to Republicans is here whether we like it or not. I hope we are not against immigration as a party but rather are more for enforcing our laws. We would be better off changing the laws and sticking with law and order as a principle while chucking our ideas about what is the optimum number of Mexicans immigrants in the US. Makes us look mean and is not very practical either.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
The problem we have is that conservatism is based (at least in theory) on principles. When you stand for principles that are unpopular with the public, you lose. Mike Murphy seems to be suggesting that we abandon our principles for power. Then what? If that's my ambition, why not just join the Democratic party? I stand for right because it is right, not because it's popular. The truth remains the truth even if only one man knows it. If average Americans want to embrace popular immorality, let them have at it. There will be a price to pay. Maybe the survivors will eventually wise up.
Mar '12
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
In some battles, there is a time when all you can and should do is hold your position and wait. Save your resources for a better time to counterattack.
The GOP should just do nothing, vote present.
May '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
I think blasting crony capitalism is a winner - draw attention to Buffet and Schmidt benefiting from their FOB status.I think education is a HUGE winner. We have to make the case for school choice even more loudly and forcefully.I think arguing for a free market for healthcare is a winner. Increasingly the effects of Obamacare are going to be felt. We can't give up on the idea that there is a better way. And his time we get to call it healthcare reform!I think simer taxes is a winner.I think arguing in favor of the efficiency and value of the private sector (FedEx) over the public sector (post office) is a winner. I think we suffer from half-measures thinly supported. We have to convince voters that the economy can actually grow and that 1.5% need not be the new normal.
Edited on December 14, 2012 at 10:02pmJun '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Both wings of our agenda are crippled among the economically vulnerable. Plenty of the commenters have noted the immigration, education, and wage problems.
However, half the problem is that these people are so lost or damaged. Unfortunately, it isn't the elites who are divorcing, shacking up, skipping church, etc. Folks we used to call "good people" have are becoming "trash" and lost to us. See Murray, Charles and Situation, The.
Thankfully, some churchmen and churchwomen have started to realize that it's the single mom with the screaming kids or the gruff mechanic that need the pews. The CPA, his wife and kids will show up on their own.
Oct '12
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Trace: I think blasting crony capitalism is a winner - draw attention to Buffet and Schmidt benefiting from their FOB status.I think education is a HUGE winner. We have to make the case for school choice even more loudly and forcefully.I think arguing for a free market for healthcare is a winner. Increasingly the effects of Obamacare are going to be felt. We can't give up on the idea that there is a better way.
Edited 9 minutes ago
I'd have to agree with this.
Also are we talking equality/inequality of opportunity or income? This needs to be defined a little better.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
KC, it seems to me that when we have the greatest inequality, we also have the richest poor people (in the world). As you attempt to close that gap, inevitably by throttling those at the top, the bottom inevitably gets worse off,
I know of no model analogous to the Laffer curve which predicts that there is some point of income equalization where taking from the top stops helping the bottom and begins to make make them worse off.
As Margaret Thatcher demonstrated visually (esp. after 1;27), redistribution shrinks the whole pie, not simply change its allocation.
Show me where I'm wrong, but it seems, unfortunately for the "great income inequality is bad" argument. the wider the gap, the richer the poorest are. It might change for the better, however, if the Government wasn't so adamant about getting involved in micromanaging every jot and tittle of existence.
BTW, this is from someone near the bottom of the ladder. I figure if O wasn't trying to make the rich pay their "fair share", they might invest in hiring me and I could drop Food Stamps.
Jun '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Yes, but the GOP have to throw their own cronies overboard as well.
Jun '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Which bubble is this? The one where I can get all the Urumqi-based "developers" I want for $12/hr so long as I tell them exactly what to code? :-)
Oct '12
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Fricosis Guy: Yes, but the GOP have to throw their own cronies overboard as well.
· 16 minutes ago
Yes. All political grouping must forswear cronyism. Is that going to happen? No. Not as long as there is a K street in Washington, DC. Not as long as elected representatives put themselves up as providers of largess to their electorates. Not as long as voters can be bought.
Nov '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Your title generates cognitive dissonance for me. As I understand conservatism it is about personal responsibility, universal opportunity, rewarded initiative, punished crime, wise use of resources and preservation of societal values.
It is not class conscious at all. "Conservatism for the middle class" is sort of like "Poetry for left-handed people" or "Shintoism for the hearing impaired". Huh?
I grew up in a seriously poor family of 6 kids. My parents didn't have indoor plumbing until all of us had grown up and they retired and moved into a trailer. Now I am well into my career as a professor at a major Canadian university and my own kids have grown up. I have known need and I have known plenty. I have known the "bottom of the barrel" of society and hob-nobbed with the elite. I have experienced both fame and obscurity. But my basic values ... those that undergird my conservatism ... have remained constant. What has my socioeconomic class have to do with this? In my view that is a category barely even acknowledged in conservatism. Why frame our worldview according to Marxist categories?
Nov '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
I agree 100% with Trace here. And I'd like to add: None of these are particular "middle class" issues. They are "everyone" issues. If only conservatives would be full-throated about their values and stop toying with centrist wishy-washiness we'd have a lot of winners that appeal across all sectors of society. How about this principle: Pick those issues in our value system that resonate across the majority of society (ignoring special constituencies!), go all in on those and message them with a microphone. Trace has a good starting list here. If we've got other issues that resonate less, perhaps they should go on the backburner.
Aug '10
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Also, we have to draw a sharp distinction between income and wealth equality and income and wealth mobility.
Inequality is bad in a system where people are not able to move between income quintiles. Class warfare works best when people born into a class stay in that class.
Conservatives believe in mobility, in the ability to move up in income if you work hard enough. We can and should make the case that while Democrats implement programs that are ostensibly designed to help equalize incomes, they do so at the price of mobility.
If all your capital is taxed away, how are you supposed to open that business you've been dreaming of? If barriers to entry are erected across the economy with regulations and taxes, how are people supposed to lift themselves up? Do you really want to have to lobby the government or deal with a government bureaucracy every time you want to do something to improve your life?
Where would Silicon Valley be if all those venture capitalists who built the place had no capital to venture with because it was all taxed away by the government? How many incomes has Silicon Valley lifted up?
Jan '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
Is the only way to close the gap to throttle those at the top?
I think Barro does make a point: who cares if you're richer than you were ... if the costs of living are growing faster than you can keep up? As Barro says: "The problem with rising inequality is not that lower-income families can't afford ever-cheaper electronics; it's that they can't keep pace with the rising costs of health care, education and (in certain parts of the country) housing."
The problem is, first, that we can't pay the bills. An iPad is a lot cheaper these days, but I don't need iPads to live. I need car insurance, heat, gas ... basics. They're nearly unaffordable.
Second, we note that our income hasn't risen to meet those bills, even if we work hard and we've improved productivity.
That's where the pressure comes from.
Jan '11
Re: Conservatism to the Middle Class
R. Craigen: Your title generates cognitive dissonance for me.
It is not class conscious at all.
Jay Nordlinger agrees with you, and I agree with you. Nordlinger said as much on a recent podcast.
However, I was replying to the articles I cited, which argue that Republicans lost the election chiefly because there is something disconcerting about the basic conservative economic message to the vast majority of voters, who are neither entrepreneurs nor are indigent on welfare. The articles referred to those people as the middle class; I just figured the damage of that term had already been done, so I used the term as they used it.