Posted on 04/14/2014 7:06:19 PM PDT by neverdem
Republicans must stop putting moneyed interests ahead of the American family.
Now taking his third shot at the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from New Jersey, Jeffrey Bell has spent his career warning of the risks of kicking the cultural leg out from under Ronald Reagan’s coalition of defense, economic, and social conservatives. Indeed, his 2012 magnum opus, The Case for Polarized Politics, argues that social conservatism, rooted in the moderate Enlightenment that informed the Founders, is indispensable to American exceptionalism and to any Republican resurgence in our time.
But the political theorist overstates the ability of even the most skillful defense of bourgeois social norms to help a party that, in the post-Reagan era, has delivered few economic benefits to Middle America, the very segment of the population where social-conservative ideals have the most traction. Given the social and economic dislocations of the past 25 years, which have downsized the middle class — and thus the once-great Reagan coalition — such appeals motivate fewer voters than they once did.
Consequently, social conservatives face a dilemma. While rightly insisting that the party take their concerns seriously, pro-family leaders have largely gone along with the shift in U.S. economic and trade policies, starting with the George H. W. Bush presidency and the Bill Clinton–Newt Gingrich era, that have left their own constituency behind. This ominous departure from the Reagan consensus — via policies sacrificing a national high-wage economy to the gods of globalization and financialization — has pampered the upper-income set, Wall Street, and multinational corporations but has liquidated the GOP’s natural base of religious conservatives, Reagan Democrats, and middle-income voters.
This accommodation to moneyed interests also creates a problem for the party at large. As William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute documented in his 2010 examination of the welfare state, Never Enough, the GOP’s focus on delivering marginal tax cuts — rather than, say, well-paying jobs — has done nothing to win it the political loyalty of U.S. households that represent the bottom three-fifths of the income distribution. Cutting to the heart of the problem, Voegeli laments: “It’s doubtful that a political coalition for limited government can be purchased so cheaply.”
No wonder the Republican electoral batting average has plummeted over the last six presidential elections. Bell thinks that consistently and properly framing social issues would reverse the free-fall. Yet the two most recent of the four GOP presidential victories that he lifts up as models (1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004) were anything but triumphs. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000; he barely squeaked by four years later, winning fewer electoral votes than Richard Nixon won in 1968. The party’s failure to rack up even 300 electoral votes in those two contests suggests that the GOP no longer understands what Bush 41 veteran Lloyd Green calls the transactional nature of elections: that voters expect something in return from a party to which they give their votes.
Republicans surely acted upon these realities from 1952 to 1988, when they went seven for ten in presidential elections, averaging 367 electoral votes in those ten contests. All three Republicans who won second terms — Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan — promised and delivered tangible benefits to a broad swath of the American public. Those deliverables included millions of stable family-wage jobs with dependent benefits, higher Social Security checks for retirees, and bold defense and infrastructure initiatives that kept domestic manufacturing alive, turned the wheels of innovation, and boosted living standards. In contrast, the last two-term GOP winner, George W. Bush, presided over a lost decade, the first since the 1930s to record zero net job creation.
Social conservatives raise a good point: The legal deconstruction of family- and child-centered mores — pursued since the 1970s by a rising American adversarial class in cahoots with the global Left — cannot be ignored as a source of the current malaise. Nevertheless, they could really help the party with an alternative economic agenda that would reverse the descent of Middle America into a Hunger Games–type wasteland even as stocks surge to record highs.
Indeed, pro-family strategists can draw on a respectable history of economic thought that begins with the pioneer of their movement, Theodore Roosevelt, who considered the natural family a critical component of American identity. Although some conservatives balk at his brand of progressivism, the 26th president leaned on Pope Leo XIII, the British journalist G. K. Chesterton, and Dutch prime minister Abraham Kuyper to protect motherhood, children, and average working stiffs from the naked forces of industrialization. Policies he championed as “the highest and wisest form of conservatism” kept America from turning socialist.
Social conservatives have nothing to lose in drawing on that heritage. The party’s hopes will only be dashed again in 2016 if Republicans bring out the same old talking points, even if dressed up as “reform conservatism,” the latest attempt among the party’s best and brightest to salvage an economic message that the voters have rejected. This influential crowd still accepts outsourcing and the free-trade regime, offers no plan to rebuild our defense and industrial infrastructure base, and entertains notions of helping the poor and illegal immigrants — never reliable sources of GOP votes — while advancing a strategy aimed at cutting popular earned-benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.
But with a promising vision that elevates the needs of average Americans above the demands of global markets, and a commitment to delivering tangibles to an anxious electorate, social conservatives could help restore the Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan magic. And Jeffrey Bell might find more Americans siding with his social-conservative underdogs, not with powerful elites, in the ongoing struggle to define the meaning of America.
— Robert W. Patterson, a veteran of the administrations of President George W. Bush and Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, was editor of The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy, from 2009 to 2012.
You have no idea what you are talking about. When oil comes up from a well, it is often mixed with natural gas. That gas is usually too dilute to be used effectively. That’s the excess gas in ND that you are talking about. There is no known way to make this gas economically feasible to use or sell, and you best believe that a lot of time, money and brains has worked on the problem.
Gas prices are low in the US because of the export ban. If the ban is lifted, prices will trend upwards towards global norms, which will hurt energy intensive industries and increase heating and electrical bills for American homes and businesses.
America does not have vastly more fossil fuels than Saudi Arabia or Russia. Persian Gulf oil in particular is low cost to produce and high quality, whereas the recently obtained oil in the US is higher cost and lower quality on average.
Please, learn something about the energy industry and markets before you make absurd statements.
I think you misunderstood my comment.
The article claimed that Republicans need to create more high paying blue collar jobs in order to “regain” the voters from “Middle America.”
That sounds like a futile strategy to me.
Well paid blue collar jobs are disappearing all over the world, not just in the USA.
And it’s not clear to me how we can stop that from happening.
As to massive LEGAL immigration - I was pointing out that low skill, lower paid jobs cannot be created fast enough in America to keep up with the 1.5 million new LEGAL immigrants who arrive here each year.
Massive LEGAL immigration harms low skill native born Americans.
It pushes down wages, reduces the number of open jobs, and limits upward mobility for low skill Americans.
The opposite of how it stated: tariffs.
When a BUYER with FREEDOM can choose between similar products, based upon pain to his wallet; he will usually by the cheaper one.
Thus, the American product WILL lose out because it costs more to produce; thus to buy.
Tariffs 'leveled' the playing field; costwise.
Only in some fields...
Things that cannot be automated too much as still a good choice.
I think that 'low skill native born Americans' harm themselves!
Gumminit makes it WAY too easy to STAY 'low skilled'.
But; if these folks were to somehow be high skilled; what jobs would they then get?
Only 9 percent of the manufacturing labor force is unionized in the USA.
This is one of those moments where the anonymity of the internet is just hilarious.
bttt
Worldwide, it is becoming globalist/banking interests fighting the rights of an over-abundance of people. It is both the dems and the ‘pubs, of course; in the US the ptb use the political theater to keep us entertained and believing voting matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.