Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is There a Real Alternative to the Ideas of Trumpism?
Let’s posit that Donald Trump’s polling power — particularly among white working-class voters — mostly reflects that group’s economic troubles and anxieties about the future. What sort of economically-sound agenda might resonate with these voters? Something other than border walls, immigrant roundups and deportation, and trade wars with Asia.
In his much buzzed-about The Atlantic piece, David Frum tries to outline just such an agenda:
Admittedly, this may be the most uncongenial thought of them all, but party elites could try to open more ideological space for the economic interests of the middle class. Make peace with universal health-insurance coverage: Mend Obamacare rather than end it. Cut taxes less at the top, and use the money to deliver more benefits to working families in the middle. Devise immigration policy to support wages, not undercut them. Worry more about regulations that artificially transfer wealth upward, and less about regulations that constrain financial speculation. …
Take seriously issues such as the length of commutes, nursing-home costs, and the anticompetitive practices that inflate college tuition. Remember that Republican voters care more about aligning government with their values of work and family than they care about cutting the size of government as an end in itself. Recognize that the gimmick of mobilizing the base with culture-war outrages stopped working at least a decade ago. Such a party would cut health-care costs by squeezing providers, not young beneficiaries. It would boost productivity by investing in hard infrastructure—bridges, airports, water-treatment plants. It would restore Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican pantheon alongside Ronald Reagan and emphasize the center in center-right.
1) This is directionally correct although I may differ on some particulars and wording.
For instance: universal health insurance should be a goal of center-right healthcare policy. As should major reform of Obamacare. But at some point “repeal” vs. “reform” or “ending” vs. “mending” becomes an unhelpful and distracting quibble. It’s like how many parts can you replace on your car before it’s really a different vehicle?
Imagine reform that a) continues to give subsidies to buy health insurance, b) nudges those who can afford it already to buy it, but c) is more geared toward financially protecting people from high-cost, low probability catastrophic events rather than providing comprehensive coverage. Would this repeal or reform Obamacare? Does it matter? Whatever you call it, this system would not return to the pre-Obamacare status quo or maintain the current one, while also moving us toward universal coverage.
2) Likewise, expanded government infrastructure spending and science research should be part of a pro-productivity agenda, but so should smart business tax reform and anti-cronyist deregulation. We need a ruthlessly competitive and dynamic private sector combined with a modernized safety net (including reforms of Social Security and Medicare).
But more broadly, GOP-leaning policymakers need to look at the actual problems facing middle-class voters today and respond with something more than promises of superfast growth driven by high-end tax cuts. Sure, Trump does offer just such a tax plan, but he talks about it far less than illegal immigration and trade. But Trump is about more than the substance or practicality of his policies. Combined with his inflammatory rhetoric and combative personal style, Trump’s ideas signal to working class voters that he “gets it” and that he’s just not another lobbyist-pleasing Washington politician. He’s a disruptor who’ll shatter the status quo.
3) So is a pro-growth/middle class/family conservative reform agenda adequate to counter Trumpian populism, especially if espoused by a traditional politician? I think so. Just as older politicians can appeal to younger voters, governors and senators can appeal to those looking for big change. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all did this. Maybe Cruz, Rubio, Christie, or Bush can do the same.
But so far during this campaign there has been relatively little effort to offer clearly such a different agenda. Do GOP voters really know what the candidates would do about, say, making college more affordable and a better value? Maybe now would be a good time to start.
Published in Economics
And who is he talking to? I don’t get it. But he can’t defend his assertions because of what you just said. He is a top-down policy wonk of the first order. He doesn’t care what happens in the comments, he’s busy ruminating on his next policy.
Ricochet is a dropbox for James. This is cross-posted on other sites and outlets. I’m glad he posts here.
He reminds me how clueless the GOPe is.
And why is that? Because they don’t listen. You can’t learn if you don’t listen.
I use him as a healthy reminder at how abjectly intellectually bankrupt reformicons are.
If US-made shirts are better, maybe you need to start a company to make them in the US. Or maybe the issue is that Lacoste’s US management has done a crappy job of selecting materials and establishing manufacturing specifications; based on my manufacturing background, that is usually the issue, not the person on the assembly line, who just does what and how she is told with the materials they give to her. The problem is almost always that those who set up the production line, manage the component supply chain, and manage the tech data package have whiffed, usually by chasing bad goals.
Hex on Aaron Rodgers.
So the “GOPe” whatever that is (“THEY” to the black helicopter crowd) pushes this incoherent and unrelated set of situations, most of which are virulently opposed by virtually every GOP politician?
Black helicopter, whatever that is..I only see them in the movies. Thus they don’t exist – just like the GOPe doesn’t exist.
GOPe deniers: living in a world where abstractions don’t exist since 1964
Agreed with your point about graft- if actually enacted law for all businesses, we’d see many companies suddenly discover “competitors” that make them qualify. I’m talking about supporting this as a principle, and occasionally applying it on a case-by-case basis while encouraging other countries to enter into trade agreements where we simultaneously drop subsidies.
In the long run, I want free trade. It seems like we’ve been pursuing that policy by “leading by example” generally, and giving carveouts specifically based on campaign contributions. I’m arguing for switching to a “proportional response” principle, which would be threatened frequently and only occasionally applied. Obviously these “occasionally applied” instances could (would?) quickly balloon into the spending sprees we’re currently seeing. But that’s just the rub: we’re already seeing them. A President who was maliciously against subsidies generally but advocated proportional response to foreign subsidies could be better, on net, at getting us to closer worldwide free trade.
Most GOP politicians have been bought and paid for on open borders for a very long time. See Bush, McCain, et al.
Any support for Federalized DOE has led to inferior schools with higher costs, see Common Core.
The GOP establishment has refused to refute the climate hoax, afraid of offending ‘the holy independents’
Trade deals which destroy skilled jobs are a GOP specialty.
And on and on.
He doesn’t need it!
I’ve noticed that higher paid employees who feel part of the food chain generally (not always) produce better work. But I do agree this is an issue with the manufacturer and the U.S. govt as well. Steve Jobs once remarked to Obama how easy it was to build a factory in China, but nearly impossible to do here because of regulations and costs.
(As an aside, re: AR -again- you need to start directing that hostility towards Charlotte.) :))
Way to avoid substance, Franco. Again, I repeat- virtually every point on that list is opposed by Republican leadership.
You are Charlotte’s compatriot in football crime, I figure that you can pass on the points to her. You are welcome to agree with me, though. Aaron Rodgers was a nice kid when he came out of college- in addition to his unsavory professional association, he has now rejected what he was taught growing up and embraced Hollywood and its jello-headed starlets.
I also think that the “better work” point is valid, but it really only meaningfully applies to high value-added activities. Routine high-volume stuff is based on configuration and process, with process controls and well-designed QA sampling to track quality. Management determines what hem/seam allowances to dictate, and stitches that unravel because the hem is too small in order to reduce fabric scrap are not the fault of the piece-worker.
And I agree (so does lefty Matt Yglesius, BTW) RE the problems with starting a business.
Oh, come on. If that is the case, Reagan was the most hypocritical establishment person ever, because he did not eliminate the Dept of Education (BTW, DoE is Energy, not Education).
Really? Do you have evidence for that?
No, you moron. Why do you think Trump is conservative enough to run the country in detail? Answer the question in the affirmative or you’re Hitler.
[Editors’ Note: Initially redacted for insulting language, but the Editors now realize that we missed the joke.]
Ist Nicht Fuhr GeFingerPoken.
Is There a Real Alternative to the Ideas of Trumpism?
—
No, silly. There are no ideas in Trumpism. It’s a weapon, not a platform.