The Conservative Task

 Conservatives are generally at a distinct disadvantage when promoting policies believed to be in society’s best interest.  Telling people what they need to know, as opposed to what they want to hear, is a tough sell.  Think of Romney’s prescription for economic recovery as opposed to Obama’s promises.  Utopians, as liberals usually are, believe that human nature is malleable.  Conservatives, of course, know that is false (there’s a reason why utopian schemes have ALWAYS failed).

But isn’t it human nature, also, to believe that life will be better if we want it to be so?  In a sense, there is a liberal impulse within the human breast.  Human nature has an optimistic streak and that is good.  But conservatives know that that impulse must be tempered by an appreciation of less appealing aspects of human kind.

Take a look at what happens when good intentions run amuck without the restraint of common sense (mandated by a knowledge of human nature). 

The food stamp program (known today as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) began as an effort to ameliorate the effects of poverty.  Admirable intentions, indeed.  It was one part of a broader goal (remember LBJ’s “War on Poverty”?).  Now, though, it’s appropriate to consider whether food stamps have produced the intended consequences. 

In 1969, about 3 million Americans participated at a total cost of $250 million.  In 2011, forty-two years later, total participation had climbed to 45 million, a 1500% increase in that time span.  And annual program costs have risen to $76 million, 30,000% higher than in 1969.  (Yes, 300 times more.)

The poverty level in 1973, for instance, was 11%, a few years after the food stamp program began.  In 2011, the poverty percentage was 15%.  Even accounting for the economy’s prolonged downturn, it is obvious that this program has not served to reduce poverty among its targeted audience.  The food stamp program was designed to make people less hungry.  It was supposed to free them from worrying about where food would come from for themselves and their children.  With that worry (basic need) taken care of, the thinking was they’d be able to focus their attentions on getting jobs and escaping poverty.

So what happened? 

Human nature compels us to take the least difficult path to our objective.  If the government is offering financial assistance, the recipient has less incentive to seek financial resources elsewhere (as from employment, family friends or private charities).  Now, of course, no one likes being poor but getting out of it also involves a cost whether it be effort, inconvenience, commitment to work or sacrifice of leisure time.  Certainly this doesn’t apply to all.  Some, due to physical or mental incapacities, lack the ability to exit a state of impoverishment.  But doesn’t life’s experiences (a.k.a. common sense) tell us that it certainly applies to many of those on food stamps and other forms of welfare?   

America has (unintentionally, I’ll agree) created a culture of dependency. But that hardly excuses the failures of liberals to acknowledge human nature in efforts to “help” the poor among us.  It is ironic that the very policies fashioned to lessen poverty have had the opposite effect. 

We conservatives hold the moral high ground.  We don’t promise utopia in any of its guises.  We offer help based on experience and human nature, not hope based on fanciful illusions. 

Alas, we have not done a very good job of broadcasting these facts in the public arena.

 

Why Do Conservatives So Often Seem Defenseless Against Attacks from the Left?

During the last campaign, Republican candidates were hammered with a variety of political assaults accusing them of: 

                   *Favoring tax breaks for the richest 2%

                   *Conducting a war on women

                   *Opposing immigration

For several reasons, these attacks, ranging from half-truths to the ridiculous, were not effectively answered. 

Consider taxes:  of course it’s true that the GOP favored an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, not just the bottom 98%.  So the GOP position hardly favored the rich over the others.  Yet the label for many voters stuck. 

Why?

On one level, the attack probably worked because many Americans do believe – with considerable justification – that the very rich do live lives very different than theirs.  So there is little sympathy for policies which adversely affect such people.  Indeed – and unfortunately – a substantial number of  Americans are receptive to the appeals of class warfare.

The educated reply is that the wealthy are usually in that category because they own or operate successful businesses.  These are the very people whom tax policy should not discourage, because they are the engines of economic growth and increased employment.  

It is never a good idea to kill (or discourage) the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Reread the last two paragraphs.  We know that the public is appallingly ignorant of public affairs.  So why should anyone expect an intelligent response to be an effective rejoinder to an attack on the “wealthiest”?  It wasn’t effective.  The sound-bite won.  So we would have likely been better off with a slogan of our own based on a nursery truism found in the preceding paragraph.

Of course, thoughtful conservatives may find such proscriptions as demeaning and unsophisticated, resulting in “stooping to their level.”

So what?

Is the objective in an election to persuade a collection of open-minded and thoughtful voters, for instance, or the broader electorate which will determine the outcome? 

Responding to the “war on women” campaign, we could have replied “Obama insults all Americans, women in particular.”

Or, regarding immigration, “toleration of illegal immigration is anti-American.”

On Obama’s spending policies, how about resurrecting a tried and true attack: “The President is a tax and spend liberal”?

In these times of ever-shortening attention spans, it is crucial that we conservatives condense our messages into sound-bite slogans. 

Our efforts should be directed toward winning elections by recognizing the nature of the electorate.  Campaigns are not the occasion for thoughtful, nuanced policy discussions.  Wishing that they were is pointless.

The Obama campaign understood reality and so their candidate won.

The Sensible Conservative is on vacation.
He will return on Jan. 20.




 

How Does the GOP Get Back into the Win Column? [Or, Don’t Learn the Wrong Lessons from 2012]

The hope – and expectation –last year was that the tottering economy would lead to Romney’s election and full control of Congress, meaning a conservative government on the national level.  But the outcome should not be interpreted as a disaster.

So what do we do now?  One thing we certainly shouldn’t do is panic.  That reaction was displayed aplenty post-election.  Normally level headed Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (a highly regarded conservative pundit) as well as Fox’s populist right-winger Sean Hannity led a chorus calling for dramatic changes in the GOP’s immigration policy, citing Romney’s mere 27% support from Hispanic voters.

There may be legitimate reasons for easing the Republican policy against amnesty, but it is foolish to expect significant political gains from doing so. 

The Hispanic vote has never been partial to Republican candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with immigration. 

For perspective, note that in 1980 Ronald Reagan received only 24% from such voters vs 76% for Jimmy Carter.  In 1996, GOP nominee Robert Dole got only 21% vs Clinton’s 79%.  Immigration policies were definitely not an electoral concern in either contest.  Romney did better than both. 

Of course, he got less than the 30% obtained by McCain in 2008 and the 40% garnered by George W. Bush in 2004.  (Bush’s high support appears as an aberration since he had been a popular governor of a state with a strong Hispanic population.)

Latinos, like blacks, have long had a preference for Democrats because, in part, of their perceived economic interests.

I suggest the fact that Hispanics are far more likely to be on welfare than whites, for instance, is illustrative.

Government statistics from 2010 reveal that of the 40 million receiving food stamps that year, 10% were Hispanic.  That may not seem alarming since that’s a lower rate than their 15% of the total U.S. population.  But in comparison, consider that whites constitute 80% of all Americans but fill only 36% of food stamp rolls.  To put it another way, Hispanics were 50% more likely to be on welfare than whites.  Thus, Hispanic voters generally have a greater interest in supporting the political party more oriented toward increased welfare spending. 

In sum, significantly expanding Republican support among Hispanics does not appear to be a promising prospect. 

An interesting footnote:  Optimists cite the appeal that conservative values have in Latin communities where family, pro-life and traditional marriage are held in higher regard than in, for instance, the broader white community.  But keep in mind that the same is true among blacks and that hasn’t stopped that community from supporting overwhelmingly in presidential election after election Democrats who don’t reflect such values.