« Obama's iPod | Main | Assorted links »
Grand New Party
The authors, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, invited me to their book party at Borders -- and I wanted to meet them -- but no I must stay home and read and blog their book! (I wrote this post last night.) If there was rush hour road pricing, as indeed they propose, I would have been there in a flash but no I am munching on cherries on my sofa.
The subtitle is "How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream" and the Amazon link is here. Their favored policies include the following (with varying degrees of enthusiasm/utopianism on their part):
1. Family-friendly tax reform.
2. Sprawl is OK or at least it could be with rational traffic management policies.
3. Government reinsurance for catastrophic health care expenses, plus they consider the Brad DeLong health care plan.
4. Abolition of the payroll tax for many lower-income earners.
5. Allocate money to public schools on a student-weighted basis, as is done in San Francisco.
6. Reallocate funding toward lower-tier state universities and away from flagship schools.
7. Don't expect old-style unions to come back.
That is only a sampling. The broader vision is that the Republicans can and must find a way to be more friendly to the non-rich. Personally I don't see any reason to tie all of this to the Republican Party but I agree with most of their proposals. There's a great deal of common sense here and it stands as one best general policy books in a long time.
The deep question is why something like this hasn't already happened. You'll find the superficial "Republicans are just pro-corporate crooks" answer from bloggers like Kathy G. Another possibility is that Republicans don't get much electoral credit for pro-poor initiatives (just as many voters simply won't believe that "Democrats can be tough"). The more competitive political messaging becomes, the more this constraint binds and so the policies of upward redistribution are more likely to be enacted by Republicans in the resulting political equilibrium. If the authors are to get their way somehow this dynamic must be reversed.
Addendum: I've met Reihan only in passing and I have not had substantive correspondence with either of the authors. Nonetheless the authors thank me in the conclusion for having saved them from "all manner of errors"; maybe this is another instance of the influence of blogs.
Second Addendum: You'll find links to video and audio on the book at Ross's blog.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 26, 2008 at 06:34 AM in Books, Political Science | Permalink
Comments
How about "remaining Republicans are too dumb to recognize their self-interest in any event and Republican politicians are just flat-out crooks, not even pro-corporate crooks, with the occasional sincere religious demagogue thrown in"
Posted by: michael vassar at Jun 26, 2008 8:02:21 AM
I don't like #4: abolition of the payroll tax for low income workers. Low income people (families with less than $50,000) already pay little to no income taxes. Remove the payroll tax and we will have a large bloc of society paying nothing in taxes. I don't have a problem with lower income people receiving more than they pay in, but I don't like the idea of lots of people paying nothing and facing nothing on the margin either in the way of taxes. It just strikes me as an unhealthy disconnect between government funding and government services.
Posted by: liberalarts at Jun 26, 2008 8:10:10 AM
"4. Abolition of the payroll tax for many lower-income earners."
Apologists for Social Security -- all the way back to its New Deal architects, have adamantly opposed this concept, for the simple reason that if they did this, then they could no longer pretend that the program wasn't brazen, naked welfare (or "the dole" as they called it back then). It absolutely had to be packaged as compulsory savings to pass Congress and win support of Depression-era Americans (who had a very different view of "entitlements" than today's gerontocracy). See also, the fraud of calling FICA taxes "contributions."
Posted by: KipEsquire at Jun 26, 2008 8:17:41 AM
One of the recent reviews asserts that Douthat and Salam partially blame contraception for the decline of working-class cohesion. Is this true, and if so, what policy proposals do they make to combat this menace?
Posted by: Amber at Jun 26, 2008 8:30:17 AM
A private savings pension it is not, but neither is it a pure welfare plan. FDR wanted to retire a generation or two of old people on SS without building up the cash first. They have died and run off with that money (the "legacy debt") and there is nothing that we can do about that. My current SS annual report suggests that my wife and I will get about $50,000 in social security per year in 2008 dollars. Lower income peopel get less. Take away their contributions/taxes and watch the political pressure mount to increase those monthly checks. If increases in check size cause increases in payroll taxes, this pressure is lowered. It must stink to earn less than the median household income (I think around $50,000 per year now), but continuing to lower their taxes down to zero so that 1/2 of the population isn't contributing would be a bad long term move.
Posted by: liberalarts at Jun 26, 2008 8:41:17 AM
Apologists for Social Security -- all the way back to its New Deal architects, have adamantly opposed this concept, for the simple reason that if they did this, then they could no longer pretend that the program wasn't brazen, naked welfare (or "the dole" as they called it back then).
Of course, we all know that money is better spent on corporate welfare. Things like subsidizing the oil industry, backstopping corrupt/inept financial institutions and those who control their interests, protecting white collar criminals, pushing through anti-consumer legislation, and so on.
Posted by: meter at Jun 26, 2008 8:52:47 AM
"1. Family-friendly tax reform."
I don't like the sound of that.
As a poor, single 25 year old, it already pisses me off that I heavily subsidize families already.
Posted by: thehova at Jun 26, 2008 8:54:38 AM
Totally off-topic, but I am wondering, Tyler, if the recent developments with N. Korea change your opinion regarding which country is most likely to be nuked first.
My guess has long been India, btw.
Posted by: meter at Jun 26, 2008 9:22:18 AM
Re: addendum: or maybe it's primarily status signaling! (Common m.o. of book acknowledgments.)
Posted by: Jenny at Jun 26, 2008 9:29:03 AM
'Another possibility is that Republicans don't get much electoral credit for pro-poor initiatives (just as many voters simply won't believe that "Democrats can be tough").'
Except that the GOP has reformed radically since the New Deal and actually introduced many pro-poor initiatives, such as EITC, school accountability, voucherized government programs, and federal initiatives to cut crimes which victimize the poor most.
Whereas the Democrats keep stacking the courts with ACLU-class lawyers, as if they have learnt nothing.
As for pro-corporate crooks, both parties have their fair share of these.
Posted by: Chris at Jun 26, 2008 10:45:58 AM
I think that we need a the GOP to go away and of democrat party to split. Bill Clinton forms an economically liberal party and Obama heads up the democratic socialists.
Posted by: Floccina at Jun 26, 2008 11:19:23 AM
"Stacking the courts with ACLU-class lawyers" - that's so true! Damn those dirty lefties and their "civil liberties"! It should be terrorist until proven innocent, am I right? Think of the children.
Liberal sympathizers in our judiciary process do more to harm the safety, morality, and stability of our BEST NATION ON EARTH EVER than eight years of oil companies running the executive branch ever could...
Posted by: engineer at Jun 26, 2008 11:38:17 AM
liberalarts,
i know a lot of people making less than 50k and they all pay income tax. they pay property and sales taxes too. if they dare/are forced to work overtime they're slaughtered by an obscene tax rate. every bill in the mail they pay includes some form of tax: electric, gas, phone, cable. and the standards of their medical care has been lowered w/out lowered costs. you've seen the k-12 numbers of this great land of ours as well i'm sure: they can't teach a cat to meow. the no income tax people are at the lowest of the lowest caste: they work in the underground economy w/me: they are armed to teeth by the way too; i hope people like yourself can keep the aboveground economy running because they'll be looking to come and get some stuff if the wheels of this bus can't continue to go round and round round and round round and round. the agribusiness crooks and cowards are the welfare freaks your scorn and prejudice should be directed toward. lower the corporate tax rate and lower the payroll taxes. there are of course a few welfare
queens w/cadillacs scattered here and there: they shoot
babies out and get gov'ment checks. they're also americans.
Posted by: wagonrunner at Jun 26, 2008 12:05:15 PM
Floccina: Republicans = Whigs? If that's the case, then who will be the new Abraham Lincoln?
Posted by: quanticle at Jun 26, 2008 12:27:41 PM
I noticed Obama raked in 10 million in an event the other
night. Here we have arguably the closest thing to a
socialist that electoral politics is ever likely to
produce, yet wealthy people (Buffett comes to mind) are so
thrilled at the prospect of an Obama presidency that they
eagerly dispose of their filthy lucre to fund his effort.
Am I to believe that a man who spent his life amassing an
enormous fortune has suddenly become indifferent to wealth?
The Democrat party is a curious amalgam. The foot soldiers
are the foolish, the "superdelegates" with the real power
are the wealthy and powerful.
The Democrats are the party of the rich, they are just
very adept at marketing their policies as favoring the
commoner.
Posted by: Superheater at Jun 26, 2008 1:00:43 PM
I think I am OK with abolishing the payroll tax for low-income people.
Maybe I'm just restating the obvious, but, really, a large chunk of what gets taken away is probably given right back to them. Might as well eliminate the transaction costs involved in the
gov't collecting it and trying to enforce the tax laws, which are probably
pretty extensive.
I agree the time is ripe for a new party. But that's probably what people have been saying for the last 50 years, with not much success.
Posted by: 12345 at Jun 26, 2008 1:10:03 PM
Superheater,
obama's two economic policy advisers are austin goolsbee
and jason furman: are they socialists as well?
surely clement attlee was more socialistic? no?
Posted by: wagonrunner at Jun 26, 2008 1:10:47 PM
To build on Superheater's post with some extreme generalizations: Republicans socially favor the poor and uneducated (e.g. religious rights, gay marriage, etc.) and economically favor the rich/educated. Democrats economically favor the poor and socially favor the rich/educated. So no one is happy? And could the guy who both socially and economically favors the poor even get elected in this day and age?
Posted by: Albert at Jun 26, 2008 1:17:06 PM
12345,
"given back to them"? what exactly do you mean by that? the defense budget is 1.02T. "they" are paying for Star Wars as well as the reconstruction and resurrection of iraq and afghanistan. "they" are sacrificing their lives and bodies and families there in earth's drylands. "they" are not being educated effectively. "they" are not as wealthy as they want to be. "they" are americans also. like you.
Posted by: wagonrunner at Jun 26, 2008 1:19:22 PM
The Obama=evil socialist meme is a pretty tired one. It might have even been less toothless if not for the fact that every GOP President in recent history has expanded government so broadly, and particularly with a GOP congress to support it. If the GOP gets badly spanked this November, they have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves.
Posted by: shecky at Jun 26, 2008 1:27:56 PM
I think Tyler misses the point on why Republicans haven't already adopted these ideas (assuming they are political winners). The problem is focusing on why "the party" or "the Republicans" haven't done X. Because of course there is no such thing as "the party" or "the Republicans" in the sense of a cognitive being that can adopt particular ideas.
Instead, we have to ask why haven't more individual Republicans done so? And the answer likely is that it has no electoral advantage for them. Most U.S. Reps, for example, are in highly gerrymandered districts. In a heavily Republican district, the ideas won't have any added benefits in electoral payoff, since the Republican is going to win anyway, and in a heavily Democratic district, adopting these ideas won't be enough to tip the balance and defeat the Democrat anyway.
The more directly relevant question to pursue is, are Republican senators and senatorial candidates in states with partisanly competitive senatorial elections adopting these ideas, and if so, has it enhanced their chances of winning? I don't know the answer, but that's an empirically answerable question.
Posted by: James Hanley at Jun 26, 2008 2:05:02 PM
I agree that the GOP has been a dying group for a while, and Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and the Congressional Republicans have merely put the last nail in the coffin.
So what to do? Well my little libertarian heart was hoping the Ron Paul candidacy would shake things up and recharge the conservative base with an actual small government agenda. Then Ron Paul got his ass handed to him in NH and I realized that the GOP and America in general has entered the end stage. Statists have taken over the GOP part and parcel and a warmongering, free-speech-hating, "moderate" career politician got the nomination. At this point I don't care if Obama wins and institutes a dictatorship of the proletariat. If that's what this country wants, then so be it. I'm just sorry I have to witness the decline.
Posted by: Christina at Jun 26, 2008 2:16:14 PM
Well, predictions of the GOPs demise are comically overstated. We have a stable 2 party system with Dems enjoying a mild surge at the moment. If the Repubs can survive being blamed for the Great Depression, then they can survive the anti-Bush hysteria.
The Dems are the party of the super-rich now already. The Repubs are still the party of the upper-middle class, but are moving down-scale quickly. The super-rich are urban elites and they have shifted en masse to the Dems over the past couple decades.
Basically the Dems and Repubs are in the process of trading white people. The Dems are collecting all the trust-fund kids and elite whites, while the Repubs are scooping up disaffected lower-middle class whites. An Obama presidency will accelerate this trend.
The perception of Repubs as the rich party was built up over decades (because it used to be true), but the truth will eventually filter out into the general public.
It'll be interesting to see what effect having a racist traitor like Obama as President will have on the body politic.
Posted by: jim at Jun 26, 2008 3:44:47 PM
Republicans become Democrats? Never.
Posted by: Lord at Jun 26, 2008 8:53:34 PM
Jim was making a reasonable amount of sense until he ended by calling Obama a racist traitor.
Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok are, as far as I can tell, good people (and I've read much of their work). It's a shame that their blog has to so marred by the presence of people like this.
What has Obama said that's racist? If you're just affiliating him with his preacher, fine, but are you willing to apply the same standard to all the Republican candidates who have faithfully trekked to Bob Jones University?
And exactly what has Obama done to qualify as a traitor? Remember that treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution--giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In what way has he aided the enemy?
Give some evidence: put up or shut up.
Posted by: James Hanley at Jun 26, 2008 11:32:42 PM
What would Jesus do? I am not a religious person but I have found that asking myself that question is most helpful when faced with political and other complex issues. Of course, one needs to read his teachings first.
Posted by: George in Texas at Jun 27, 2008 12:07:33 AM
Maybe Republicans should end the Drug War, which would save a ton of policing and incarceration money, reduce violence, and rejuvinate minority schooling with the eradicaion of drug gang distractions to children.
I don't think Jesus would be a DEA agent.
Posted by: mr econotarian at Jun 27, 2008 2:54:56 AM
"Republicans become Democrats? Never."
Either Lord is being tongue in cheek or he has no knowledge of the history of Southern politics.
Posted by: meter at Jun 27, 2008 9:08:14 AM
The best thing possible would be for the GOP to simply become a regional party, which it is well on its way to doing, and then die - morphing into some sort of smarter Democratic party is not the solution.
The GOP, at one point, had a good platform. Then it turned into the ex-Southern Democrat party of big government economics and boondoggles and pro-religion and xenophobia party.
The GOP had its chance and it blew it. Instead of reducing the size of government, it blew it up. I doubt that, in my lifetime, that the GOP will ever approach majority party status again. And, frankly, it doesn't deserve to. You can't whore your principles out so a few people can keep Washington jobs and expect to survive against the "everyone gets a free lunch party" that is the Democratic party.
I hope the enlightened subset of the GOP simply leaves and starts a new party with a new name, tosses many of the brownshirts in its ranks out and lets them go back to the Dems. Build from there by taking on the few good positions of the Democrats and maybe advocating the free market and freedom in general, once again.
I doubt it will happen because our press is just so incredibly ignorant and uncritical and our public schools so set up to brainwash the electorate into a bunch of non-thinking, socialist idiots, that the country's path is largely set in stone at this point. Borrow, borrow, inflate, inflate, total financial collapse when the rest of the world decide to stop investing in US treasury bonds and notes.
Posted by: jdd at Jun 28, 2008 2:57:55 PM
Who will be the American Disraeli?
Posted by: Owen at Jun 28, 2008 9:59:30 PM
7. Don't expect old-style unions to come back.
That assumes that the barriers won't be knocked down by repeal. Watch for a repeal of RTW/Taft-Hartley if there is a solid majority of trade-hostile Democrats. As for the GOP, they lost touch with the common man since 1981. This time, they're finally reaping what they sowed nearly 30 years ago. The only way that a second coming of Reagan is going to come back will be one that is not Rust Belt/Labor Union hostile.
The "old-style" unions will come back after their chains have been (inevitably) cut loose. The only missing piece will be the mobsters - they're now in Wall Street.
Posted by: sethstorm at Jun 29, 2008 11:17:46 PM
