No More Takers

Being economically conservative, it surprises me that conservatives have not been more effective politically. It seems to me that conservatives have a very strong case today but it somehow doesn’t win. I think I know why. It has to do with the word “takers.”

First, winning elections is not mainly about demographics. It is true that we have more people voting who are not white middle age males. But any voting group you can mention is not a homogeneous block. Each group has its liberals, conservatives, and centrists. Obama lost votes in 2010 because he lost centrists. He won more votes in 2012 because he won centrists. In my opinion, Republicans have not forever lost these centrists. They do not have to give up their principles in order to attract them back to Republican candidates and policies. But they do have to change their approach.

Second, conservatives need to give up on this “takers” thing. Hey Joe Taker – you are a selfish meathead. By the way, please vote for me. Really? Calling 47% of them names and then asking them to vote for you? An entitlement is government spending going to a person because a law specifies that that person is eligible for government assistance.  

You don’t have to be a wild and crazy liberal to believe that government help is good for the country. One entitlement is the social security benefit. Most of us who receive this benefit believe we “earned” it by dutifully paying payroll taxes to the US government for half a century – despite the fact that social security is not an insurance program.  We are “takers” in the sense that we receive assistance from the government – but we are NOT takers in the pejorative sense said or implied by some conservatives.

Social security benefits are not a plot to rob the rich, but that does not mean that we cannot discuss and criticize social security. Perhaps we can raise the age of eligibility. Perhaps we can make it more progressive. Maybe we can make it work better. Such critical analysis would be beneficial for social security – and for all government entitlements. The government, like any other organization, is far from being perfect. A poverty benefit might go to a family that has temporary economic problems. They need to be tided over. That seems very reasonable to me. I wouldn’t brand such a family a “taker”.  But a poverty program that somehow creates more poverty rather than less through poor administration or poorly designed incentives – ought to be reformed. Poverty programs should create less poverty – not more.  They should help people escape poverty not be imprisoned by it.

My point is that the whole “takers” issue needs to be ended and replaced with one that is less sensational and more correct. EVERY government spending program and every tax source needs to be reconsidered for reform. Is it crazy and dangerous to admit that government programs can create perverse incentives that lead to unnecessary and damaging government spending growth? Do we not have plenty of data from the last 75 years to show which programs have been successful and which have not? Republicans, it seems to me, have plenty of ammo in that data. They can focus on all those cases where policy has failed to succeed. They can focus on all the examples of unintended consequences. They can focus on the facts and how the facts show that policies have failed.

The third point is once they have pointed out the failures of too much government growth, they can explain the conservative case for improving social outcomes and government services. We are not going to get rid of a government that spends $4 trillion annually. But Republicans can show that they have BETTER policies – better ways to solve the problems of pensions, healthcare, poverty, energy, immigration, and so on. The focus is SOLVING problems. Reagan is famous because he said government was the problem and he explained how slower government growth could solve our national problems. Today’s Republicans need to speak with a clear and powerful voice.

Republican solutions often stem from very different assumptions about human behavior and about how government can impact those behaviors. There is nothing mean or selfish about teaching a person how to fish. There is nothing mean or selfish in pointing out how some programs have done just the opposite. Self-confidence is a great goal. Liberals often point out that self-confidence can be generated or restored though government entitlements. But sometimes these entitlements do the very opposite when they reduce the incentive to go beyond government payments.

This is not about takers. It is about the best way to use government to solve national problems. Conservatives have nothing to be ashamed of – they just need to quit pointing fingers at takers and explain why conservative remedies and less growth in government are the best ways to help people.

Some conservatives will react to the above by saying the game is over. They repeat the idea that the takers are now in the majority. Once in the majority it seems there is no end or limit to how much more they can take from the richer minority. But the data for this assumption is weak. As I said above all the so-called groups of takers include many centrists. These people understand that too much selfish taking hurts the country and often hurts the very people who receive the government benefits. But these centrists will vote for people who appear to have the best solutions. Obama and the Democrats wooed them in 2012. I think Obama’s case is weak and grows weaker each day. But it is the Republicans who must make their case now. They must stop calling people names and get down to the mundane business of showing vividly how and why government programs must be reformed so that we have an effective social state that pays for itself and attempts to solve mankind’s most pressing problems.

Final note. The Wall Street Journal is a library of data, case studies and other forms of evidence that reveal countless failures of government as well as positive advice on alternative solutions. But the WSJ and other similar outlets do not have the same reach as the many more liberal paper and electronic media outlets. Republicans need to find new and better ways to summarize, condense, or otherwise package all this great research and information and disseminate it to a larger public. Quit talking about takers and quit looking down at our people. Let’s raise our collective consciousness about a better way to run this country.