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.
Fighting for the Soul of the Republican Party
COLUMBIA, SC — At a time and day – 8:30 am on a Saturday – when most Americans are sleeping in, the Kemp Forum on Expanding Opportunity convened in the capacious Columbia, SC convention center. Even at 8:15, it was tough to find a seat.
South Carolina’s important primary is Feb. 20, and doubtless some of the more than 1,500 attendees were attracted by the opportunity to hear from six of the Republican candidates for President. (It would have been seven, but Carly Fiorina missed her flight.) Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee offered their views on how to fight poverty and expand opportunity. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump declined to attend.
The absence of Cruz and Trump was significant, underlining as it does one of the two competing ideas about what the Republican Party is and should be. Senator Cruz and, to a lesser degree, Mr. Trump seem to endorse the notion that Republicans can win national elections by motivating the “missing conservatives” who stayed home in past presidential election years because the party’s nominees were moderates. This is the line doggedly pushed by talk radio, but has been pretty well debunked.
There’s another interpretation of where the Republican Party needs to be — not just to win elections, but to reform the nation. It’s the reform conservatism approach embraced by Speaker of House Paul Ryan, who was one of the hosts of the Kemp Forum (the late Jack Kemp was Ryan’s political mentor). Ryan was joined by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. Just by themselves, Ryan and Scott confound the image of Republicans as unlikeable or aloof or, in the oft-repeated poll result from 2012 that determined Mitt Romney’s fate, someone who doesn’t “care about the problems of people like me.”
“I hated being poor,” Ben Carson recounted. ”For years I thought I had been born into the wrong family.” Governors Bush, Kasich, and Christie spoke of their efforts to fight poverty through education reform, crime control, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and block granting welfare programs. As Paul Ryan put it, “We’ve been fighting a war on poverty for over 50 years and I don’t think we can conclude anything other than that his war has been a stalemate. Fifty years, trillions of dollars, yet today if you are born poor, you are just as likely to wind up in poverty as you were 50 years ago.”
The discussion was wonky and sincere and mutually respectful. There were three panels featuring presidential candidates and interludes with South Carolina politicians Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Lindsay Graham. Not an insult was hurled. There was no chest thrusting, alpha male posturing. You could fantasize that this is what campaigns for President should always be. Poverty, Ryan argued, is not just a matter of “deprivation” but of “isolation.” There was much talk of drug abuse, poor schools, and the problem of incarceration. Kasich endorsed racial set asides, which may not win many plaudits from conservatives, and he, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee endorsed more drug treatment as an alternative to prison. The idea that we are incarcerating large numbers of people for simple possession of drugs appears to have become conventional wisdom, though it’s wrong.
Where conservatives shine is in their emphasis on the importance of mediating structures in the lives of the poor (and everyone else for that matter). The family, the church, and private charities can give people more than a check – they can provide the guidance, the supervision, the understanding, and even sometimes, the kick in the pants to get and keep people on the right track. To the degree that government elbows those mediating institutions aside, it creates the “poverty trap” – offering just enough support to keep people from destitution but then penalizing them for working to better themselves.
Will large numbers of poor people abandon the Democrats and vote Republican? Hardly. But when Republicans address the problems of poverty, they demonstrate their connection to ordinary people. Rubio noted that “If you are a child born into a broken family, in an unstable home, in a dangerous neighborhood, in substandard housing, in a school that’s failing in your community, where the people on the street corners are drug dealers or not good role models, you’ve got six strikes against you.”
One of the biggest strikes against Republicans is the perception that they are indifferent to the problems of everyone except bankers and entrepreneurs. The Kemp Forum was a well-placed blow to that image.
Published in Economics
PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff has a different take on the forum:
In an article written by Karl Rove. Ironically it’s behind the WSJ paywall, so I couldn’t read it. I’m not poor, but I’m definitely not going to pay for Wall Street propaganda.
All this concern about poverty, proving we Republicans are compassionate and concerned as so much of the post emphasizes, doesn’t translate into votes. And even though I could become poor myself fairly quickly, is not even close to my first concern for America, especially not with poor foreigners pouring in non-stop.
I believe that private charities do much better than the government in helping with these problems, too. But I think Trump and Cruz were right to avoid this condescending virtuefest as a complete waste of time.
I can’t help but think if the people showing up to the forum were doing better in the polls they’d be out shilling in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. We are only a few weeks from the start of the primaries.
I’m actually surprised Marco Rubio wasn’t trying to displace Kasich in New Hampshire. If he comes in fourth he’s got a very rocky road.
This should have a “theology” Tag so folks could weigh in on what happens to ‘the soul’ when it dies? Or perhaps, the real issue: is there any merit to fighting for a figment?
An excellent example of how the GOP will destroy itself from within if it only follows the path promoted by Paul Mirengoff (which is not the view of most of his fellow Powerline writers, BTW). You do not persuade people to abandon the gravy train by promising that your only concern is cutting spending.
As Arthur Brooks explains in his latest book, the key to the culture is not the green eyeshade accounting posture, always about money and spending, but getting the structures right to allow the underclass to achieve “earned success”.
This forum is an example of what Dr. Bennett posits regarding winning the culture as more important than winning particular political battles.
“an article written by Karl Rove” is all the dog whistle required to make some elements of the right completely turn off their brains and crown Trump, who has never followed a single non-“me first” policy in his life, the Pied Piper.
I must say that I do wonder why Paul Ryan is talking about this at a forum in SC and not at the House of Representatives in DC. And where is Mitch McConnell? Is not this something that the GOP Congress should propose right now? This does not need to be a part of the primary campaign nor used as a club against the current GOP primary frontrunners.
Unless it was conducted for purely political reasons.
I know that you didn’t mean to include Franco in your condemnation of anonymous dissenters, but we should all work to maintain the civility that makes Ricochet special, and people who didn’t know you better might have believed the ambiguity to be intentional.
delete
Why LilyBart?
Love the book and was reading it when I needed an internet nom de plume. And it amused me to choose this one.
Why delete, I mean?
I do not believe that the Republican House and presidential candidates currently ranked 3-8 should take the lead formulating policy contracts and declarations before the 2016 election.
The candidate for President sets each party’s national agenda. Period. It’s the nature of our media to focus on individual personalities. Local candidates have local media identities, and should run the races necessary to win and represent their districts.
Other party agendas will be drowned out by the race for President, and could turn out to be distractions which media types can use to stir divisions within the party. This already happened when Ryan and McConnell tried to squelch Trump on Islamic immigration, then — oops! — polls revealed that Trump’s view was more popular than the establishment’s.
The Kemp Forum agenda sounds complex, policy-driven, and debatable. The details are sure to be devilish, considering some of the principals involved. “Opportunity-based” itself is bad verbiage, a new way to toss responsibility back into the lap of government. Capitalism springs from individual initiative and enterprise, sans roadblocks.
The return to an enterprising society will likely come from top. Nominate a candidate dedicated to making America prosperous again, and not some esoteric portfolio of governmental actions. Try to find a loud, credible advocate and fighter for capitalism, not the timid guilt-ridden, noblesse oblige type we’ve seen too often in the past.
What we certainly don’t need is more one size fits all education reform; politically tempered (i.e. more lenient) crime control measures; expanding the child tax credit against the advice of conservative economists; and other pet notions cribbed from the wonky, anti-populist, failing reformicon agenda.
Sorry to say that anything associated with Paul Ryan and AEI is viewed with much suspicion. I would seriously like to hear Cruz’s (truth in advertising – my preferred candidate) thoughts are on the subject along with Trump’s.
I’m sympathetic to Paul Mirengoff’s post at Power line (no right winger/Trump booster he).
It’s a legitimate issue but goo-goo-good government types like Ryan & Brooks are a bit much to take.
Condescending virtuefest.
Perfect.
America’s poor do not suffer deprivation. If the biggest health issue facing the poor is obesity, then they are not suffering from any of the typical healthcare problems that people in poverty face, namely death due to malnourishment, exposure or infectious disease.
I would agree that they suffer ‘isolation’ as depicted in the OP, but the solution isn’t more poverty programs.
In short, if the problem is not monetary in nature, then it must have a basis in policy.
By the way, Cruz is also skipping the SOTU address. Another worthless farce.
I agree that the SOTU is a worthless farce. I disagree that the poverty summit in SC is a worthless farce, unless one is Ayn Rand and a proponent of the “let them all eat cake” philosophy that is championed by Reason Foundation and the GOP’s hard right.
For those who prefer to ignore documentable facts because they are quoted by Karl Rove (killing the messenger), here are analyses explaining why the “missing 2012 voters” myth is just that- a myth- from Sean Trende at RCP and Dan McLaughlin at RedState. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump can’t win in 2016 unless the Dems put up Bernie Sanders and Hillary is tossed in jail.
And, BTW, almost any WSJ article can be accessed via Google or Bing by title, even when the irritating paywall zaps the links.
It’s a shame when an accomplished writer can’t go three paragraphs into a piece about the “Soul of the Republican Party” without resorting to spreading falsehoods. Perhaps I am the only person in the entire world who has heard of and reads Sean Trende. I’ll take Trende any day of the week over Karl Rove.
Oh and by the way, Trende isn’t “Talk Radio” either.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you had posted Trende’s stuff. I just assumed that, since this topic comes up and I am the only one who knows that Trende even breathes air, that no one had mentioned him. I am glad to see that there are two of us on Ricochet.
Perhaps there aren’t tons of “missing conservatives” out there staying home on election day (Rove can’t be wrong about everything). Nevertheless, I favor bold, strongly worded, genuinely conservative appeals to the electorate.
Leftists want a true leftie, conservatives want a true conservative, and independents and moderates want a leader.
We’ve bought into the fallacy that moderates want somebody to mirror their views instead of shape them.
So as we hide from our convictions and try to follow the electorate, we come across as weak. We’re absolutely confounded by how not enough people vote for “conservative” “leaders” who seem terrified by the electorate they’re hoping to galvanize.
Ever had a boss who’s terrified of his employees? That’s what most Republicans are trying to be.
In the meantime, the left proceeds to boldly mock its opponents, nominate radicals like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to its highest posts, and convince the electorate it’s confident, cool, correct, and able to take charge.
We can “fantasize that [intelligent, well-reasoned discussions are] what campaigns for President should always be,” but as long as we do, we’ll keep losing them to the Party that actually understands what draws people.
Now on to the Trende confirming the “myth” business.
Is it true that these missing voters are not Conservative? Probably so. They might not be Leftists but they are not Conservatives. So what does Sean Trende say about these voters:
Trende’s description is almost exactly the type of voter that seems to be going for Trump right now (put the knives away, I’m a Cruz guy). Trump’s rhetoric has been “deficit hawk[-ish], opposed to illegal immigration, and free trade (if that means losing our shorts to China).” I would suspect that Trump would have a pretty good chance of getting some of these folks out to vote if Trend’s analysis is even close to accurate.
I didn’t listen to all the forum, but I listened to a good bit of it, and I’m kind of horrified that it’s presumed to be some kind of squishy “compassionate conservatism” weak nonsense.
Yes, the candidates (and Ryan and his co-host, Tim Scott) talked about poverty. They talked about the destructive consequences of liberalism, about how big-government programs hurt rather than help. Someone (Rubio I think) took the minimum wage head-on. They talked about unintended consequences — and intended ones; you missed a withering Christie takedown of the NJ teacher’s unions. Are these not manifestly things conservatives need to talk about?
They talked about ideas limited-government conservatives have proposed, from small to dramatic. They didn’t all agree. Some (named Kasich) were decidedly more optimistic about what the government can do. Others pushed back. They debated the merits of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Are these not things conservatives need to talk about? Should we really let the Kasichs go unanswered?
Going beyond politics, they talked about what people can do, privately. Christie (I think) talked about how he wished all the wealthy people funding studies about vouchers schools would instead spend money actually helping students get into those schools. They gave inspiring examples of actual people: of organizations that help lift people out of poverty, of people who have succeeded against all odds. They talked about hope and opportunity — not coming from a government paycheck.
(cont.)
Oh, sorry. I meant the comment sincerely – however, the way I wrote it just seemed like an outburst. I wanted to edit it, but was pressed for time by other priorities today.
Here is my comment for the record: Sometime around 2007, during a big push for amnesty in the Congress, I saw a video of a WSJ Editorial meeting. All the big-wig editors were there and they all agreed that racism was the only real reason anyone would oppose amnesty. The only reason.
I was greatly angered by this judgmental, narrow-minded view, and determined that I would never spend a dime again on any WSJ publication. I have kept that promise.
Sure, I’ll pick up my free copy of the Journal at hotels, and I know how to get around the paywall on their site, but not a penny of my own money has been transferred to the WSJ since that day.
Aren’t these things conservatives should be talking about? How do we imagine we will ever successfully make the case that government is not the answer, if we do not show what we believe can offer hope?
Yes, Tim Scott talking about poverty isn’t quite the normal primary routine, but it’s fully part of conservatism, and it’s not a part we can do without. This wasn’t about liberalism lite; it was about showing that the conservative message is not writing off 47% or being “not concerned about the very poor.” And I hope Mona is wrong and that Cruz’s absence tells us nothing but that Cruz had prior commitments. I really would have liked to hear him there, personally. Apart from the merits of the topic itself, it was a superb chance to hear the candidates talking, naturally, without time clocks, and on-topic.
I believe it was held in SC because Ryan’s co-host was Tim Scott. And evidently it’s been in the works for a while — before anyone knew Trump and Cruz would be leading the polls at this point — and I understand all the candidates were invited.
This isn’t a one-off for Ryan. He’s been focused on these issues for a while. But he’s not pushing any single agenda item that can be passed in D.C. — in part, he’s talking about things that can’t be done from D.C.
I don’t agree that government is the only way to help people, or even the best way to help people. In the past, when government was small, neighbors and communities used to come out and help each other. People were right there, could see what needed to be done, and could distinguish between the needy and those that needed to be pushed to do for themselves. It was harder for ‘grifters’ to take advantage of people’s charity as they do now with the bloated government programs. And not only were needy helped, but the ‘helpers’ benefited too (more blessed to give than receive)
Government programs are crowding out private charity and creating all manner of perverse incentives. I know someone who lived in Sweden for a time and reported that people didn’t help each other there – grandparents didn’t even help with the grand kids – they all thought it was government’s job!
And government is making promises they can’t keep. We’re spending and borrowing money we don’t just have – and continuing to add new promises to the existing (un-keepable) promises.
Things that can’t go on forever won’t. What will happen to the poor when our government runs out of $$?
I think the most selfish people are the ones that expect government to solve all the problems – and expect their fellow taxpayers to foot the bills! They want to know that they live in a country where everything is taken care of without any inconvenience and expense to themselves!
Just after the Obamacre premiums started coming in, a lady who’d supported the ACA and whose premiums were disastrously high was quoted as saying, “I wanted people to have heathcare insurance, I just didn’t think I’d have to pay for it!”. She expected someone else to pay for it!
There was an Austin woman complaining that after voting for every big spending city program for parks, libraries, etc that was on the ballot, later found she had to sell her Austin home because she couldn’t afford to live in the city anymore with its high tax rate needed to pay for all the goodies she voted for.
Government doesn’t really solve problems in the end. Its just an organization full of self-interested people spending other people’s money inefficiently. We can marshal government to do some basic things, but we have to stop expecting it to solve all our problems. It’ll just end in tears.
Reading your comment I’m wondering if you misread my question? Because my whole point was that conservatives should talk about those other ways to help people.
This is exactly the kind of thing this forum was about: this situation, and what to do about it.