Arthur Brooks produced yet another masterpiece in today’s WSJ,
The key is here:
Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support—care for the vulnerable—to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.
The irony is maddening. America’s poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare-induced dependency to failing schools that continue to trap millions of children.”
How do conservatives compete with better ideas to a broader population that is generally receptive to only simple emotional arguments? I think Brooks is highlighting the correct issue. To explain why, consider a great Republican politician from the 80’s that created a revolution in Republican politics. And perhaps surprisingly, I’m not talking about Ronald Reagan. No, there was a Republican congressman that had great ideas about economic policy–but his policy ideas were almost always forgiven by his opponents because no one doubted that he cared. His name was Jack Kemp. His message was one of continual optimism and how capitalism lifted all boats. As a former NFL quarterback with the Buffalo Bills, Kemp had been a leader in race relations and was a continual advocate for the poor but via freedom and markets. Kemp’s credibility and all around likeability gave him exceptional ability to sell the intellectual argument for tax cuts, with the result that we got Reagan’s tax cuts through with Kemp-Roth (Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981).
If Brooks is right, conservatives do need a new message of delivery. This message needs to look a lot more like a new Jack Kemp, not a new Ronald Reagan.
Jeff Haymond
March 5, 2013
Paul Gigot picks up on Arthur Brooks message today, also seconding my call for a new Jack Kemp on this short Opinion Journal video:
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-moral-message-of-conservatism/EBE52C59-83A3-422D-8C20-7304FE414014.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_VideoModule_2#!EBE52C59-83A3-422D-8C20-7304FE414014
Grant B.
March 5, 2013
This is tough for Conservatives to digest – the orthodoxy of the moral superiority that is to be disseminated to the masses via constitutional amendments and legislation is something deeply ingrained in Conservative thought. What makes it worse is the moral equivocation that has been made between this goal and evangelism. It’s indicative of the laziness of the American Church. Real change won’t come about in the Conservative movement until the American Church can properly separate their thinking between the two subjects – evangelism and governance.
Mark Caleb Smith
March 6, 2013
There was much to love in Jack Kemp. He was a gifted leader and an economic visionary. As a matter of practical politics, however, Kemp was never able to build a bridge between economic and moral conservatives. In other words, if the Republican stool had three legs–anti-communism, free-market capitalism, and social conservatism–Kemp had difficulty translating his economics into a compelling moral vision that was all encompassing. I wonder if the same thing will afflict Brooks’ efforts. I am not arguing they are necessarily related, but I believe a muscular foreign policy, free markets, and moral obligations must be related in the popular conservative mind. Of course, it is also possible we are entering into a phase when moral conservatism will be eclipsed within the G.O.P., but that may also relegate the Republicans to a generation as a minority party.
This is the right conversation to be having, however. There is much to unpack here, and I honestly hope our blog tries to address the relationship between economics, culture, and political outcomes.
Jim DeKorne
March 10, 2013
Good thoughts, Jeff — and an interesting blog. Glad you initiated it. The political conversations that give voice to the moral structure undergirding political positions are indeed rare. I’m pleased to know there is a forum for such thought.