Excellent postmortem on the GOP...
My good friend, Bob Patterson, had a postmortem election piece run in the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday. From his repudiation of libertarianism to his affirmation of the godless betrayal of what the GOP refers to disdainfully as "social issues," I like all of it. This sort of political analysis is Christian; the work of a man of faith spending his life trying to clothe the public square. I'm thankful for Bob's faithfulness. (I might add Bob is to Darryl Hart as Joe Sobran was to Peggy Noonan, I was to Joe Sobran, Lig Duncan is to Tim Keller, Russ Moore is to Al Mohler, Justin Taylor is to John Piper, and Mark Driscoll is to Mark Driscoll.) Anyhow, read on...
* * *
Failure to appeal to middle class doomed GOP ticket
Robert W. Patterson
Sunday, November 11, 2012
President Obama may have scored a narrow victory Tuesday night, barely winning 50 percent of the popular vote. Yet his squeaker of a triumph not only represents a bigger loss for the Party of Lincoln, but also offers a critically important lesson.
Republicans and their standard bearer, Mitt Romney, were confident of consigning Obama to the same ash heap as the failed Jimmy Carter presidency. But Election Day hit them like a ton of bricks. Extending the tragic reversal of their three landslides in the 1980s, the GOP failed for the fifth time in six presidential elections to capture the vote of the people...
As in any presidential defeat, the Monday morning quarterbacks are out in full force assessing the carnage, searching for scapegoats. Keep in mind that the highly paid talking heads who are purveying advice for a party in crisis were the same cheerleaders who were reassuring nervous Republicans last week that Romney would be our 45th president.
Other than Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute, who warned of a Democratic victory on National Review Online early on Election Day, the conservative punditry were parroting the groupthink that the election was in the bag for the GOP. If if the prognostications of Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove, Michael Barone, Charles Krauthammer, Newt Gingrich, Fred Barnes, George Will, Brit Hume, and Larry Kudlow were so far off, why listen to their analysis now?
The experts may wish that Romney had put on the boxing gloves that helped him knock out his primary opponents, lament Gov. Christie's bear hug of the president at the Jersey Shore, and complain that the party's base is too white and religious. But the main reason the Republican ship went down has little do with strategy, tactics, or demographics. Nor is it related, as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have suggested, to Romney's infamous 47 percent (a national group that includes retirees on Social Security and Medicare) of Americans who supposedly want no responsibility, only more government handouts.
Rather, it has everything to do with Republican leaders and insiders, including the presumed best and brightest of the conservative media and think tanks, who long ago dumped the girl that Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan brought to the dance. That gal in question: Middle America.
Both Ike and the Gipper were gifted leaders who advanced public policies to build, protect, and expand the very middle class that elected them. The political class may harbor disdain for bourgeois America, but these popular Republican presidents understood that the promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" cannot be fully realized apart from a growing middle class, a 20th-century achievement that required careful cultivation through pragmatic "Hamiltonian" economic policies that focused on infrastructure, good education, and rising family income. If they were alive today, Eisenhower and Reagan would understand that our economic and fiscal woes are a symptom of a waning middle class, not its cause.
In contrast, 21st-century Republicans have traded a devotion to "average Americans" for a love affair with free-market and limited-government abstractions. Consequently, the Romney-Ryan ticket invested heavily in the notion that naked market forces, especially fiscal austerity and tax cuts for investors, would magically lift all boats.
The anxious electorate didn't buy this pitch, especially in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, where free-trade and outsourcing policies have drained away millions of manufacturing jobs. Appealing primarily to educated small-business owners - so-called "job creators" - the GOP lost the votes of the vastly more numerous but less educated "job holders" worried about not holding a job. Exit polls revealed that the electorate trusted Obama - running on the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since FDR - to create more jobs than the heralded entrepreneur Romney.
If that weren't enough, the top of the ticket showed no awareness of how laissez-faire economics has dovetailed with the sexual-liberation agenda of the left in undermining prospects for millions of Americans, especially those without college degrees. It is no coincidence that globalization has undermined the economic security of Middle America at the very time that Democratic policies have destabilized the family through legalized abortion, distortions of marriage through no-fault divorce and same-sex union laws, federal birth-control mandates, subsidized day care, and gender-based affirmative action.
This may explain why Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, remained mum on social issues, as a robust defense of natural marriage, motherhood, and family life would have forced them to rethink their economic platform. Their abject fear of cultural flash points not only allowed the Democrats to make hay with the war-on-women canard, but also undercut GOP appeal to African Americans and Hispanics, most of whom embrace conventional family mores.
The sober reality is that America cannot survive without a flourishing middle class - and that expansive middle class cannot exist when manufacturing, family formation, and fertility are in retreat. Consequently, a party that wants to recover from two consecutive presidential-election beatings does not need consultants writing strategy memos outlining how to connect with slices of the voting population, whether unwed women, Hispanics, or young people.
No, the party simply needs to recover the Eisenhower-Reagan vision and stand with the broad middle class, the trump card of the electorate, against the collusion of the libertarian right and the social-liberation left. If it did that, the Grand Old Party might not only save itself, but also save the country.
(Used by permission.)
* * *
Chat live with Robert W. Patterson on Monday at 1 p.m. at www.philly.com.
Robert W. Patterson served as a special assistant to the secretary of public welfare in Gov. Corbett's administration. E-mail him at rwpatterson79@verizon.net.




Comments
This is the best summary I've read on why the Republicans lost. Obama was a weak candidate, but Romney was even weaker. Setting aside the biblical issues, the Republicans negated their two most effective advantages against Obama when they nominated Romney. Obamacare is pretty unpopular, but Romney couldn't argue against it since it is very similar to Romneycare. The biggest concern among voters is jobs, but Romney couldn't criticize Obama for that either since he was born into wealth and made even more money by being a net job destroyer. I think running a populist platform against bank bailouts and crony capitalism would have been very politically popular, but I guess the Republican establishment is too big-business friendly to allow that.
Disclosure: I voted for neither Obama nor Romney.
I wonder how many here actually tried to stop Romney from getting the nomination?
(full disclosure: I was a caucus captain for Santorum, rallied for him and donated to him)
Sorry guys, but Mr. Patterson has made up his key point. There was no free market angle in the message of Governor Romney, no laissez-faire. When his "fiscal conservative" vp has a plan to balance the federal budget sometime in the 2040's, one can't claim the mantle of free markets. And limited government is no more an abstraction than bloated government. The former blesses middle America, the latter is destroying it. I'm afraid this piece represents the very populist, big government, Republican nonsense that makes the parties two sides of the same coin.
>>There was no free market angle in the message of Governor Romney, no laissez-faire.
Dear RC, knowing Bob, I think you misread him. He's not arguing for the integrity of the Romney message. Only that it was the only message they trusted to get them in the White House. Patterson himself is concerned about the way free market capitalism has greased the path to fornication, birth control, abortion, adultery, no-fault divorce, sodomy, sodomite "marriage," etc. Which is to say free market and free love are both "free," but in fact terribly costly.
The past few years I've been wondering if the neo-conservative free marketers and their Reformed fanboys don't need to spend some time listening to the Vatican when it comes to economics.
For myself, I've been immensely helped by coming to understand the Roman Catholics' promotion of subsidiarity. Ironically, they refuse to follow it in their own church hierarchy whereas I've come to believe it's a key to understanding Biblical polity, Acts 15, and everything that was wrong with the PC(USA) and is becoming wrong with the PCA.
Late in life, I'm a fan of local presbyteries and an enemy of nationalistic non-profits claiming the Western world as their purview.
Love,
Tim,
Right on right on. I've made the same conversion. It took a while, but when I read Pope Leo'x encyclical Rerum Novarum last year I said, "Now this I can get on board with!"
The economic freedom and sexual freedom agendas are undeniably connected. It's no mistake that Kinsey was funded by the Rockefeller foundation. If the people can be made slaves to sexual desire, they will be easy to manipulate.
Convince women to go to work. Destabilize the home. Make working men feel insecure. The children are fair game by that point. And before you know it you've remade the culture. Career is what matters. Marriage, children, church responsibilities--who cares?
And you're telling me that the corporate boards that funded feminist propaganda didn't know how this would affect their bottom line? Please.
Patterson himself is concerned about the ways free market capitalism has greased the path to fornication, birth control, abortion, adultery, no-fault divorce, sodomy, sodomite "marriage," etc. Which is to say free market and free love are both "free," but in fact terribly costly.
Ever read Richard Weaver and the Southern Agrarians?
You're sounding like D.G. Hart. Well done!
Should have put the first paragraph in quotes.
BTW this sort of stuff doesn't fly well with Ron Paul people.
Blame it on crony capitalism, which is also called fascism. But truly free markets, like those established in Israel, do not in fact push toward the dissolution of the family. They instead strengthen family ties. Ironically, a truly free market, one not distorted by internal improvements built on eminent domain, tends toward smaller, local markets, less capital intensiveness, or, in short, agrarianism or in an urban context, distributivism. Trouble is, most agrarians and distributivists don't understand that the state is the source of the ills, not a bulwark against them.
Truly free markets are the enemy of conservatism, the family, the church and good social order. The free market is a social corrosive.
God ordained the state to suppress evil, not to play night watchman.
RC Jr,
You make very good points and I tend to agree.
Here's the rub. With man being man and sin being sin, don't you have to have rules and regulations of some sort to put a lid on the kind of radical concentrations of wealth that tend to happen in capitalism, that then leads inexorably to fascism and crony capitalism. In Scripture it's called the Jubilee Year. On several occasions kings and rulers are held responsible for the well being of the poor of society. Not sure how we could make all that work here, but I do know it would be different from what we have now and I know that it probably won't play well with the Cato Institute or Fox News.
I don't have as much faith as some conservatives do in the Power of the Market. The way some of the Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell people talk about the market, it's almost like it's god: it can do no wrong. Well...um...no. It's done plenty of wrong. We're seeing with our two eyes.
As I understand distributism, on it's best days its simply trying to put the Jubilee to work and put Biblical principles to work as if they're really true and really in the Bible for us to follow. A good distributist is a good theonomist. :)
Tim,
While Bob rightly identifies some problems (e.g., waning middle class), his overall analysis falls short. We haven't seen anything like laissez-faire economics in our lifetime and no one, other than Ron Paul, was advocating for anything remotely close to it. And related to another point in the article, if you plotted the decline of the middle class in America against the growth of government over the last 75 years, you'd find a strong correlation, one that would argue for a cause-effect relationship.
There are many problems with the Republicans but their advocacy of a free market is not one of them. In fact, it would be a strength if they did, especially if they advocated for it in the broader context of liberty under God.
Tom
>>We haven't seen anything like laissez-faire economics in our lifetime and no one, other than Ron Paul, was advocating for anything remotely close to it.
Dear Tom, I think Bob would agree. In your lifetime, that is--I'm about fifteen years older. Love,
Nobody living is old enough to remember laissez-faire economics in government.
I just don't understand the aversion to free markets, or better said, liberty in the area of the exchange of goods. While it's true that we've never experienced completely free markets, America experienced it's greatest growth and properity, including many benefits for families and the working class, when government was smaller and markets were much freer. Its only with the rise of our semi-fascist state over the last 80 years that we've begun to reverse those benefits.
Most Christians who advocate for free markets have no illusions that the market is perfect ... just that it does a better job of allocating goods and services than any group of people can centrally plan and manage, especially over the long term.
I'd argue that one of our greatest problems is that people have made an idol of the state. When any bad economic event occurs, the first response of almost everyone is to ask what the government is going to do to fix it. When markets are free, we are more inclined to trust the Lord because, outside of ourself, He's all there is to trust.
Should people be free to sell abortifacients?
Pornography?
Dabney used to make a good argument against laws allowing incorporation.
Dear Tom, I'm not averse to free markets. It just seems that it's not the only ball we should keep our eyes on, economically. And I never think the government is a solution, nowadays. Love,
I agree, both parties are progressives, in which the symbol of the party used to be a wolf dressed as a sheep. Interesting that this author references the first progressive president, Teddy, as one "helping" the middle class. He took over private property with the powerful arm of the government. How does that help the middle class? The truth of the matter is that half of the country is dependent and trusts in government and not in God.
David,
Your first question has nothing to do with free markets. Murder is wrong and should always be prohibited. The ability to sell pornography has been an oft debated question on both sides of this debate. Without writing a long essay, I'd say that given the US system of government, at a minimum, I'd leave that question to the states. As far as incorporation goes, many advocates of free markets would agree with Dabney as corporations are a creature of the state.
Of course, we should always remember the maxim that hard cases make bad laws. Sure, there are some things (e.g., public roads) that are debatable, but we're not even in the free market ballpark today. The economy is macro-managed by the Federal Reserve, tax policy, etc. and micro-managed by regulation, subsidies, etc. And, we're macro and micro managing more and more every year.
In the end, as Bob Patterson rightly sees, we're becoming a society of have's and have not's and the middle class is disappearing. This will continue as long as our current direction continues until it all falls apart.
Now, I don't for a minute, believe our major problems are economic. They're theological and spiritual and most of the economic problems flow from the theological and spiritual problems. That said, I do think our economic problems are substantial and need to be addressed.
Tom
Last week's election results have caused me to give some amount of consideration to the Reaganism that has guided my thinking for the better part of the last three decades. As Peter Leithart astutely noted in last week's issue of First Things, the American people have finally voted Reagan out of office.
But is that such a bad thing? There has always been a certain tension between the communal conservatism of Russell Kirk, Roger Scruton, and the Southern agrarians, and the libertarian conservatism of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand. Reaganism promised us that we could somehow take the social values of communal conservatism, graft them onto the economic values of libertarian conservatism, and arrive at a pragmatic fusion that preserved the best of both worlds.
In my opinion, that experiment only worked because, in the 1980s, communal conservatism still thrived in many parts of the country, especially in the rural Midwest. But I don't think we were conscious of our practice of those values. So, as my generation left small-town life behind, we retained many of the small-town social values that had shaped us, while immersing ourselves in the economic thinking of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. We never realized that out schizophrenic conservatism succeeded only because we were living off the borrowed capital of the communal conservatism that nurtured us.
But the small Midwestern communities that incubated my generation have passed on. Thirty years of libertarian economic policies have wreaked havoc on the mid-sized manufacturing hubs in the Midwest, where communal conservatism once thrived, even if it did so unwittingly. Most kids entering college today are raised in communities similar to the one where I reside--artificially crafted creative class hubs where nearly every adult has a college degree (and probably even an advanced degree) and where the term "outdoors store" refers to Patagonia and not to Big R. You have to make a concerted effort to find people who have below-average intelligence and below-average job skills. Heck, you've got to work to find people are haven't been in the 95th percentile on every test for their entire lives. The implicit values of these communities (and I'm a denizen of one) tell our kids that it's ok to exercise your intellectual skills to maximize your personal wealth at the expense of those who are dumber and less skilled. Milton Friedman wouldn't have it any other way. But then we're shocked when our kids assume that the same principles apply in terms of how we relate to each other socially and sexually.
I'm coming around to seeing that communal conservatism can only be instilled in our kids by our participating in a living, breathing community that practices it, even in the economic realm. For my generation, Reaganism worked--it worked because we could continue to borrow from the banked capital of our small-town Midwestern upbringings. Our kids, however, have no such store of capital from which to borrow. And the towns we abandoned two decades ago have collapsed and struggle to produce kids who will even make it through high school, let alone through college, graduate school, etc.
Hey Bob; may I put this up on the front page? And would you please send me an e-mail giving your first and last name so I know who you are? I'd post it, though, under simply "Bob." My e-mail address is linked to the button "Contact Us" at the top of the front page. Thanks.
Come on Bob! Do you really believe that the last 30 years have been a struggle between communal conservatism and libertarian economic policies in which libertarians have won out? Both have been just side shows in a consistent grab of power that has been going on for much more than 30 years. The ongoing inflation of our currency, regulation of our economy, and destruction of our incomes and savings through taxation are the real reason why our manufacturing base has eroded and the middle class is being destroyed.
I would hope that both more libertarian folks like myself (who also has a great appreciation for the strengths of communal conservatism) and communal conservatives would find themselves on the same side in this battle. If not, I think our chances of turning things around, which are remote to begin with, are even worse than I thought. Either way, God help us all!
Add new comment