RSS Feed MenuJonathan Rauch’s “The Tea Party Paradox” is a great article. It almost undermines one of my core convictions, namely, that libertarian ideas (particularly libertarian economic ideas) are inherently repellent and will never be popular. If what Rauch writes is correct, then perhaps libertarianism under some conditions can be (more) popular after all. However, I’m still skeptical. The Pew data say nothing about the political sophistication of the subjects polled. If you interview a highly knowledgeable voter, and he says “government programs should be cut back,” then it’s likely that he’s a consistent libertarian who might favor, say, abolishing social security. But that individual is the exception. Most people who say “government programs should be cut back” usually have no real desire to cut back entitlements or do any actual government program cutting.
Which is not to say that the trends that Rauch discovers are meaningless. Rauch notes the most important long-term dynamic in American politics today: as a demographic matter, Republican constituencies are shrinking while Democratic constituencies are growing. At the same time, the Republican constituency is becoming increasingly conservative. ”Conservative” here means that Republican constituencies are increasingly inclined to believe that government is no longer being run for the general public’s benefit (no surprise — numbers-wise, they’re becoming a minority). Hence, they are attracted to an anti-government message, and, as Rauch finds, may not even trust Republicans anymore. The ongoing economic crisis and the disrepute into which Republicans fell during the Zeros exacerbates this trend.
Of course, these are just groundless speculations. Still, I disagree with Rauch’s conclusion that to win over conservative independents, the GOP will need to adopt broadly unpopular anti-government policies. On the contrary, I think the data, properly understood, support the political case for a mix of policies that addresses (or, more importantly, for better or worse, is perceived to address) wage stagnation and the unhappy economic plight of the middle and working classes. That is, those conservative independents aren’t looking for extreme libertarian policies but rather a party that they feel they can trust.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm
That’s a lot data to interpret. My speculation is that future analysts will look back on the 2010 midterms as the last gasp of “pre-millennial” White America, the last election where “pre-millennial” Whites were a decisive factor. For 2012 and beyond, the GOP will have to move far, far left and embrace identify politics or go the way of the Whigs. The GOP won’t be able to get away with moving moderately to the Left; it will have to move far enough Left to attract a sufficient number of voters to offset the rapidly declining numbers in their traditional base and the loss of what’s left in that base when the inevitable Leftward shift occurs. And they may go the way of the Whigs anyway.
LFC // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:58 pm
It’s not tough. People want competence. They don’t want “small government” as an abstract concept, they want a government that makes their lives function better. And after a cratered economy, two failed wars, and a failure to lead and succeed on much of anything, they are damned impatient for it.
Obama, and to a lesser degree the Dem Congress, have been fixing long-standing problems despite the best attempts of the GOP to prevent solutions. (“Their solution won’t work! Vote for us! We have no solution!”) The problem is that there is such a backlog of failure, they can’t meet the timeline people demand.
dante // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:18 pm
DSP – Pretty much. The Democrats have ruled the 2006 and 2008 elections due to the country’s slow shift leftward (or the GOP’s hard shift rightward, one of the two). Even today the Congressional GOP has a less favorable rating than either the Democrats or the administration. Voters might be leaning GOP as a protest to the Democrats, but they certainly haven’t signed on with GOP positions.
This is pretty evident as to the Tea Party’s push for “fewer taxes/less government” contrasted with the almost no coverage of Paul Ryan’s “roadmap”. Everybody wants less taxes. Everybody wants (big picture) less government. When those same people are asked about their specific entitlements, NOBODY wants to give them up. It would have been amusing to see a Democratic Congressman, after facing a room full of angry seniors denouncing “socialized medicine”, to stand up and say “Yes, you are right. Tomorrow morning, I am going to submit a bill that gets the government 100% OUT of health care. Socialism is not the answer. Therefore, I will put forth a bill to end Medicare and Medicaid and all government subsidies on drug purchases….”
Would’ve been a great tv moment.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:27 pm
dante, I have used that line on my Fox watching mother and she got all indignant and said she paid for it, bear in mind that she was a housewife all her life and never really worked except in her young 20’s but she still felt entitled to it.
“libertarian ideas (particularly libertarian economic ideas) are inherently repellent and will never be popular.” absolutely, and more than that, they are childish. There are a million conservative solutions I can accept, like more state and local control over education for example, because these recognize the legitimate function of Government, just that it is more effective since it is more localized and responsive, it doesn’t call for the abolishment of public education.
Richard Stands // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I’ll refrain from asserting what “people want”, but can convey what I want.
I challenge the premise that “doing something” is the exclusive domain of the federal government. Top-down monolithic government solutions are always fraught with error, corruption, unintended consequences and abuse. These undesirable outcomes arise regardless of whether Team Red or Team Blue implements them.
This is not to say that nothing belongs at the federal level. But far, far less does – certainly. And bear in mind that decreasing federal involvement does not have to be a binary shut-off. Incremental movements and opt-outs can ease the population back into self-reliance just as incremental entitlements are easing us into infantilized dependence.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:24 pm
by the way, great article, well written and argued.
kosloff2032 // Jul 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm
The biggest and most frustrating thing for me is that many in the hard-right/tea party crowd fundamentally believe that their libertarian views on all of these issues are actually supported by the public. I at a Republican leadership training session (in Oregon where Republicans are a distinct minority) and I was repeatedly told that we should abolish social security, unemployement insurance, disability, and any sort of social safety net, the public schools should go too because they teach “evolution, socialism, and secular-humanism (which is interesting because in high school I only heard of SH in AP Euro and I doubt most kids know what it is.)
Their solution would be to only have private charity, because social welfare is stealing.
All of these people thought that they were being resonable people and that a majority of the American people support them. But we all know that is not true, the American people definitely do not like what Obama is selling, hence independents run towards the GOP, however, my greatest fear is that once Obama either loses Congress or the Presidency, the tea-party crowd will get arrogant and start pulling Sharron Angles (abolish popular programs) and independents will run back to Democrats.
We rational conservatives have to call them out for their libertarian ideas and demonstrate how unpopular their beliefs actually are.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Libertarian ideas would be very popular if given a chance; that’s why no one in the political mainstream wants to try them.
We could put my theory to the test easily enough by making social security voluntary.
We would learn real fast how many people actually prefer a compulsory government retirement plan over making their own arrangements.
kosloff2032 // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:32 pm
How is that a good test? A vast majority of American’s like social security/medicaid/medicare and polling shows that American’s do not want deficit reduction through entitlement spending cuts.
Why do we need to abolish the program? If the American people like it I don’t see why you need to through libertarian ideas at them. The reason why people don’t have faith in social security is that they feel it will not be there for them due to stupid uses of money by politicians and cowardly inaction on the issue.
We need to sit the American public down and tell them, “if you like social security, then the only way it will work is if we do some or all of the following: means testing, age raise, tax increases”. I realize these are not popular but they are the things required.
If the American people reject these necessary solutions, the DeepSouthPopulist you are right, you tell them ok then we will privatize it (which the American people don’t want). We need to treat American’s like big boys and girls for once.
busboy33 // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm
@DSP:
Assume you make SS voluntary. I put my funds in, and get my SS when I retire. You decide you can strike it rich in the Stock Market, you gamble and lose your shirt. You’ve got no retirement because you lost your money.
Let’s even say its not your fault. The market crashed. You account was raided by an unscrupulous broker. The company you invested in gets wiped out. Whatever. Even if for the best of reasons . . . you got bupkis.
Do we as a society let you starve or not? Maybe you can get by on handouts and charity, maybe you have enough family well-off enough to take care of you . . . maybe. But if not, do we as a society impose the consequences of what happened? Are we going to let you die or not?
If the answer is yes, then fine. I disagree, but fine.
If the answer is no, then why the heck should ANYBODY bother with SS? Just gamble, because you’re going to get it anyway, whether you opt in or not. This was the same discussion as Healthcare reform. If its not mandatory, then only the sickest will sign up, that’ll drive premiums to “bankrupt” levels, and the insurance system collapses (not the government system — insurance firms period).
Either abolish SS or not . . . but “kinda” SS isn’t going to be practical.
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:03 pm
@busboy33 // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:54 pm
// Do we as a society let you starve or not?
Yes. People who want a sure thing can choose the government plan.
But isn’t this counterpoint arguing against a straw man? Some small fraction of people might starve, sure, but most would be much better off.
easton // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm
But isn’t this counterpoint arguing against a straw man? Some small fraction of people might starve, sure, but most would be much better off.
Actually, no many, many people would starve. The elderly know this, which is why they fight so hard to make sure nothing happens to Social Security. Look, I agree it was set up badly, that it would have been better if each generation put money into a collective, insured account, but it is too late for that now. What we can do is what kosloff suggests, means testing, age raise, tax increases. And look, I hate to blow your bubble, but lord knows how future technological advances might render most people extraneous. AI, Robotics, etc. is not as far away as you imagine. We will have a productivity explosion but it won’t be human based, then what? Allow the few who own the technology keep everything and the rest of humanity should die? Is that your libertarian utopian future?
DeepSouthPopulist // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:12 am
I haven’t thought about AI, robotics, nanotechnology and genetic engineering in the context of political or ethical theory. It’s an interesting question. With human nature being what it is, however, it doesn’t seem likely the people who develop these technologies will give them away for free and few will be able to afford them. Also, it’s possible the key breakthroughs may come out of Japan, China, or India, rather than the US or any Western nation with liberal egalitarian values. If that happens, the technologies might not be sold even to the super-rich, much less shared with rest of humanity. A profit oriented libertarian might at least sell them.
busboy33 // Jul 31, 2010 at 3:25 am
I’m leery of going too far into the “dystopian future” issue. We can postulate whatever we like, making planning not much more than a fun bull session.
Me personally, I’m for not letting people die. I expect the ambulance to take the injured motorist to the hospital before they check to make sure he can pay. SS was established because society didn’t want the elderly dying from lack of funds. I agree with that as a moral proposition.
Should every need of everybody be catered to forever and ever for free? No. But walking by a bleeding guy laying in the road? I don’t want my society to endorse that. Or rather, I think its fine as long as me and mine don’t suffer. I’m all for cutting government waste, but if me and mine are getting that waste then don’t you dare turn it off! I at least recognize this is pretty damn selfish, so I advocate for the “society not stepping over the bleeding” and accept the cost as a becessary evil.
But like I said . . . its just my opinion. At least you’re consistent. I’ll give you that. On this, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. On the plus side, I’m willing to bet that most of our disagreements can probably be traced back to some version of this.
montestruc // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“Libertarian ideas are repellent”. Sheesh more like any idea that we need to learn to live within our means is repellant.
What is fact is that we must pay our debts, one way or another, even if it is “repellant”.
JonF // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Re: Yes. People who want a sure thing can choose the government plan.
That goes against human nature, or at least our cultural imperatives, which have been conditioned by 20 centuries of Christianity not to let people starve. (And even from a wholly self-interest POV, a nation where people starve in the midst of plenty a repulsive place to live, something only a sadist could enjoy, and most of us are not sadists). So what really happens is that the failures will still be supported in their penury, but we won’t be asking any contributions from them up front– which is not what we want.
And really– it’s not like you can’t set up a retirement plan of your own. The markets abound with 401ks and IRAs. You speak as if using your own assets to plan for retirment were illegal which it decidedly is not.
lolapowers // Jan 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm
True liberatrian ideas have never taken off in this country or in the entire world because even though humans cherish their individuality and freedom, they also love helping their neighbor in times of distress. We have been wired from pre-historical times to help our “clan” ; that is how man has not become extinct and that will ensure the continuity of the species. Man is truly generous because his very own survival depends on the well being of others…
lolapowers // Jan 25, 2011 at 12:27 pm
.
Libertarians can dream all they want, but their ideas will never be practical . I would not want to live in their world.