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.
Conservative Populism: Tucker Carlson vs. David French
Tucker Carlson has recently done an exposition on populism that has gone viral. It is biting and rangy, covering a bunch of topics related to populism but from a conservative perspective. This has drawn fire from some on the Right that view populism as an evil thing that good folks on the Right should avoid. David French has a response in National Review where he blasts Carlson and populism in general.
What is populism and does it fit with conservative values? I think it does when taken in good measure. I think Carlson and French are both too extreme.
In Tucker’s monologue, he does make a few assertions that are not evident (e.g., women won’t marry men that make less money than themselves), but, in general, he addresses a lot of valid points where some groups of Americans have struggled over the last generation. He correctly notes the global rise in populism from Trump in the US, to Brexit, to Poland, to Brazil. He also notes that elitist thought-leaders promote some conservative values (free markets) over other conservative values (rule-of-law, strong families). He complains about Libertarian laissez-faire attitudes. However, the best example of Tucker’s mindset is from an interview he did with Ben Shapiro where he said he would outlaw robots to save jobs. This is the exact thinking of the Luddites who famously smashed looms to prevent productivity improvements that would them some jobs.
On the other extreme is David French. He is so set on destroying the idea of populism, that after complementing Carlson, he concocts a series of fallacious arguments to blast Carlson and populism. Here is one example from French:
(By the way, it’s strange to hear populists of either party talk — as Tucker does — of elites thinking of market capitalism as a “religion.” Both parties in this nation have embraced a truly massive social safety net. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare dwarf other categories of federal spending. Total federal outlays — not counting state and local expenditures — represent roughly 20 percent of gross domestic product.)
This is a false dichotomy whereby it is impossible to have both a social safety net and a misdirected industrial policy that causes undue harm to certain groups of Americans. It also falsely equates the value of a meaningful job with a handout, which no true conservative should do. When people argue against their own proclaimed principles it means that they have higher priorities, like maintaining the elitist purity of their circle and cleansing it of the working-class taint of populism. French’s attitude is one of “let them eat cake.”
Populism is simply government policy/culture that is beneficial to the common citizen. As Lincoln said, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Conservatism is the preference for principles and systems that are time-tested to promote prosperous ordered liberty. What does conservative populism look like?
- Societal leaders publicly promoting the formula for prosperity: learn a trade, marry a life-mate, then have kids. As Adam Carolla wisely said, “[Successful people] should preach what the practice.” Instead, we have Hollywood and politicians saying “let your freak flag fly” and “don’t judge.” But the time-tested principle is to judge and promote education and family formation.
- Politicians should fight violations of law relating to international markets that affect American workers. Free trade has benefits in a Ricardo-way, but it also has costs. If another nation is breaking the law (moral code) of abusing workers/environment or massive theft of intellectual property, then the trade must be stopped. If free trade causes undue destruction of human capital by product dumping, then trade should be curtailed. Rule-of-law and preservation of capital are conservative principles.
- Politicians should avoid war for profiteering, which benefits the Beltway crowd at the expense of life and treasure of the common citizen. The Bush 43/Obama 44 wars have cost trillions in debt and thousands of lives and have provided no improvement to urban Detroit or rural Kentucky. Even accepting the special role of US hegemony, the time-tested principle is to minimize involvement in wars. Madison warned of the dangers of a standing army.
There are many other issues where conservative populism can be applied (immigration, global warming, healthcare, criminal justice,…). The point is that conservative principles are not only compatible with populism, but they demand a certain measure of it. The difference between medicine and poison is the dosage.
Published in Economics
No, it most certainly is not. The statement of purpose explains why the body of the document was enacted. It is the body of the Constitution that empowers and limits government.
A living Constitution is an affront to conservatism. Perhaps it is conservatism you disagree with?
Because I know. And you? You said there were many such studies. Name three. Oh, never mind. But Carlson’s study is well-known. I’m surprised you hadn’t known of it.
What evidence is there that the study you are referring to is what Carlson was talking about?
Again, here is the statement by Carlson at issue, “But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.”
I tell you what. Let’s cut out the wikipedia garbage.
Your position is: Marriage causes affluence. Don’t argue, I’ve read all your comments.
Mine is: Improper marriage causes poverty, and marriage specifically does NOT cause affluence.
I’ll prove my point as well as I can. I know many people, I personally know many people, who live in families which have five or more children and live in what I personally must call poverty (although I often argue once you’re on all applicable social services your rich by most third world standards). Marriage never elevated them out of poverty, as you purport your study to claim.
Name meBear in your own mind five 7-member families whom you know in which the first child was born out of wedlock and in relative poverty and are now relatively affluent by American standards, and maybe I’ll then consider your point that marriage causes affluence.Be honest now. Don’t fake it. Don’t BS. Tell the honest actual truth here.
Ok. Chapter and verse. Because my copy of the Constitution empowers the Congress “to regulate commerce with foreign nations…” If shipping American IP out of the country, to be assembled and reimported into the country is not commerce with a foreign nation, then what clause would supersede the Commerce Clause?
How are we defining affluence? There are many degrees between poverty and what I think of as affluence; I don’t think marriage causes affluence, but it may well inoculate most people against poverty. One of my cousins, who dropped out of high school, got a girl pregnant when they were both teenagers: their first son was born before they were married, but they got married soon afterward, and have been married for over 40 years now. They ended up having 5 children, and until the youngest turned 18, my cousin was the sole bread winner: they brought a house in the country, where property was less expensive, and my cousin commuted to work. They have never been and are not rich, but for a couple who got married as supposedly clueless teenagers, they have done alright, and all five of their children are doing very well as adults.
I understand that marriage in and of itself can’t make people rich, but in some cases, it will prevent them from being poor.
Klaatu. In point of fact, I can think of no one — and I come from a very impoverished “third-world”ish city, and I’ve hung out in the projects and have known some level of poverty personally — I can think of no one who has ever had a first child out of wedlock who has gone onto mid-level middle income life. No one. No wait, I met a nurse once who did. She I would call by my own definition here, affluent. She alone falls into the 2%.
Your turn.
Should this be limited by age of families? My 35 year old family (of which I’m the oldest) meets the criteria. But it was only possible through significant, external, familial support (brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers).
I do not think marriage and kids pulled them out of poverty. If anything, 5 kids hindered it. It was sheer stubbornness and a strong external family. But that external family was largely affluent to begin with (elite, actually…)
I don’t know how likely this is now. Most of the people I know who are married and not affluent were not having kids until years after marriage and they still can’t afford much. It actually makes it less likely they’ll afford much in the future – however, their parents (hers, anyway) are affluent.
Anecdotes?
Regardless, you are arguing with yourself. The discussion is about David French’s rebuttal to this statement by Carlson, “But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.” Do your anecdotes support this claim? I do not see how they can.
French argues, and I agree, that Carlson has it backwards and the correlation between marriage and affluence is that marriage leads to affluence.
I use affluence in this context — because it’s a quote from both Carlson and French — as having disposable income, and poverty as relying on some form of government financial assistance or from others on a routine or monthly basis.
I can’t say that I absolutely agree with the findings of the study I mentioned [in fact, on the face of it, I find it hard to believe], but as I thought about it, I no one but one who doesn’t fall into the 98% majority.
My point is really a quibble with a quibbler, that marriage in no way causes “affluence” I know too many poor married people to ever think that.
And for Klaatu to argue otherwise, let alone think or believe it, is simply foolhardy.
You think this empowers Congress to tell a privately owned company where to employ people? Your expansive view of governmental power would make Bernie proud!
Ok, by this definition my cousin and his wife are and always have been affluent. I don’t know any poor married people; I don’t really know any rich married people either, and this is entirely subjective, but it does seem that marriage prevents people from falling through the cracks.
All five of the adult children of the cousin I mentioned earlier married very young without graduating college, and they married people who hadn’t graduated college either. Regardless, they are all now living in big, beautiful homes, they take great vacations, they have more than enough disposable income, and the wives, it they work at all, only work part time: they are actually doing far better than some of their college educated counterparts. They are also doing far better than most of their married counterparts, so ok, maybe they are weird, but if what you say is true, and there are tons of poor married people out there, how much more difficult must it be for a single mother to get by? If there are lots of married couples who can’t do it, how in the world is a single woman supposed to do it on her own?
Are the poor married people you know more or less poor than the average single mother?
Not only do I believe it, Charles Murray on a Remnant (I think) podcast said he believed it and the research on the subject was clear. I believe it was on the same podcast he said marriage was as strong a driver of affluence as a college degree.
Did I ask for anecdotes?
There are certainly studies that indicate a good result from marriage, but not as far I can see that marriage in itself causes “affluence”. Carlson was speaking roughly, not denotatively, and you took him that way.
It seems the affluence thing is missing a big piece of the puzzle.
The original studies were looking at children raised by married parents vs single parent families. Children raised in single-parent (never married) homes were far more likely to be impoverished than those raised by married parents.
So it seems like French’s view on it is missing the key part – that never-married households fair more poorly when compared to married households.
Marriage, in and of itself, does not lead to affluence. It may even be a chicken egg scenario – those who can afford it get married, therefore showing a correlation between affluence and marriage.
Tucker’s point deals with the reality that marriage rates are low. My husband and I have noted that our culturally Christian friends get married for the purpose of having kids. Else, why get married instead of cohabitate? Sure enough, in an age with less pressure to marry before sex, there really isn’t a reason to marry unless you do want kids (or take faith issues seriously or have other pressure put on you).
If most delay marriage until ready for kids, the “not able to afford marriage” relates to “not able to afford kids” which matches even those who have tied the knot and still remain childless. They just can not afford it.
No, that is all you were providing.
I took him at his word. “But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.”
I cannot believe that I am in any way agreeing with @klaatu, I never ever agree with him, but this is what I have observed among the young people I know: the ones who marry young definitely do better financially, not just in the long run, but right away. They don’t have any college debt, they buy a home early in life, and start building up equity, because they have kids, they are far more focused on saving and investing wisely.
The ones who don’t get married, even when they are well educated, end up being kind of aimless, and they are still pretty much broke at age 30, and some of them may also be saddled with debt. I say this as someone who didn’t marry young; I was aimless, and broke. My husband didn’t get married until after age 40; in the years before that, he owned a succession of mostly very successful businesses, and was usually pretty wealthy, but the money just kind of vanished into thin air, because he was a single guy, and he didn’t have kids to think about, and he blew the money because he could. And that is ok: if he hadn’t blown the money, I never would have met him, but most of the time, marriage and kids does make people more responsible, and more rich than they would have been otherwise.
I don’t know. To put this in a context not pertaining to the original argument (which I say is that Carlson was right) Cato has a lot of studies. But one in particular shows that only 2% of people that do three things, in this order, ever drop into poverty, and those in poverty who do this get out of poverty.
Those three things are:
1- Finish high school (and preferably get additional education).
2- Do not marry until you finish high school.
3- Do not have children until you are married.
If Cato is right, and as outlandish as this simple program is, in my own experience it is spot on, then it is not marriage that leads to affluence, but finishing 12th grade, and delaying marriage, and then delaying childbearing until after that leads to affluence.
This is so basic that it should be taught each year K through 12, as far as I can see.
EDIT: The three things were, now that I remember, 1- high school, 2- successful employment, then 3- marry and have children (in that order).
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/2/571/2330321
Two points, Mr. Justice Hansen. 1. Worse things have been done in the name of the Commerce Clause. I’d take my chances that even the most conservative justices on the court would agree in a compelling state interest.
2. Your brand of politics is completely untenable from an electoral standpoint. It is Bernie’s wet dream. They would love to run against you.
If I have built one bridge I feel better.
If your brand of conservatism stands no chance of very being voted in or enacted, then what is the point?
Most of my many young adult cousins are doing very well financially, including the ones who never went to college, but. Virtually all of them chose careers in the military, law enforcement, and medicine. It works great for them, but it isn’t possible to have a society where everybody either works for the government or in medicine. I agree with something Tucker Carlson said recently on one of his shows: capitalism should serve society, not the other way around. You seem to think that capitalism is some kind of religion whose dictates we must all obey regardless of the consequences, and anyone who isn’t willing to do that isn’t a real conservative: you make conservatism sound like some kind of death cult. :)
In some cases-not all cases, but some cases, the reason people are not marrying young is because they don’t have decent jobs. Buying products created by people who are essentially slaves in China doesn’t help matters.
I don’t accept that conservatives cannot win elections or conservative ideas cannot be enacted.
Capitalism DOES serve society. There has never been an anti-poverty program that compares to free market capitalism in the history of man. It is the furthest thing from a death cult.
I don’t advocate you be forced to do anything. If you want to open a textile plant in Cleveland, pay your workers $30/hr with benefits, and charge 5 – 6 times what your competitors do, feel free. What I don’t want is for the government to force your competitors to do what you are doing or artificially increasing the price of their products to make you competitive in the market.
But you have no problem with Americans using slave labor in third world countries? I think there are very serious problems with that, both morally and economically. I would be far more comfortable with it if the executives who want to profit from the third world were also willing to live there, but for some reason, they never are. I would never force anyone to stay in America: if they guy who runs Apple wants to move all of his operations, including himself, to China, by all means, he should. But as it is, he wants all the benefits of living in America, but he doesn’t want to pay American workers. That is disgusting, and I really don’t think conservatives can win by defending it. Even if we could, it would still be wrong.
Why does living in the US impose an obligation to pay US workers (leaving aside the fact Apple pays thousands of Americans)? Do you object to the CEOs of Mercedes Benz or BMW living in Germany while the companies make cars in the US rather than Germany? Does this disgust only exist in one direction?
I am pretty sure that that Americans who work for foreign companies are paid far more than people in China who work for American companies, but you may know more about this than I do. How does the salary of an American working for BMW compare with the salary of someone in China working for Apple? I always had the impression that companies like BMW have a few factories and employ a few people in America mostly as a pr move, to make Americans more comfortable with buying their products, but maybe I am wrong? Personally, my husband and I agree that we will only ever buy American made cars-and he used to drive BMWs when he lived in Scotland, and he really likes them, but now that he is an American, he believes in supporting American companies.
The executives who live in America but don’t want to pay American workers want a situation in which they enjoy basic rights that their employees do not possess. They have a “freedom for me, but not for thee, and certainly not for my employees” attitude. Look, there are pros and cons to everything: it is extremely distasteful to want all the benefits of living in America with none of the drawbacks, while also enjoying all the benefits of employing people in the third world, with none of the drawbacks. When the people doing this start attacking poor Americans and calling them deplorable, not to mention trying to take away our rights to things like free speech, it is fair to ask if America is really the right place for them. They don’t seem to care about freedom at all: perhaps they would be more comfortable living in China.
Is your issue that Apple does not pay American workers or that it doesn’t pay Chinese workers as if they were Americans? The question for the Chinese worker is not whether his wage is comparable to Americans but how it compares to his available alternatives. You are condemning those people to perpetual poverty if the only alternative is American level wages.
Is it really less moral to lift Chinese workers out of abject poverty than give Americans a job?
Out of curiosity, what model car do you drive? What is the North American content? Where was it assembled? Why are those American workers more deserving of your money than the BMW workers in South Carolina?
Actually, I think it’s the opposite. Being unmarried is a luxury only the rich can afford.