Is Libertarian Populism Bunk? It Depends.

Joseph W.H. Lough

In his July 11 column, Paul Krugman explores libertarian “Delusions of Populism.” I wish that I were so sure.

 

English: "Paul Krugman lectured on "...
English: "Paul Krugman lectured on "After Bush - The End of the Neo-Conservatives and the Moment for the Democrats" to over 500 guests in the jam-packed big lecture hall at the German National Library in Frankfurt" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have a couple problems with Professor Krugman’s take. According to Krugman, those promoting the new libertarian populism are relying upon the misleading data and analysis of Sean Trende who is widely believed among libertarians to have shown that Republicans failed to make headway in 2012 because of lower-than-2008 turn-out among white blue-collar voters. Correctly, Professor Krugman shows that this lower-than-2008 turn-out among white blue-collar voters was matched by lower-than-2008 turn-out among non-white voters. Its a draw.

But Professor Krugman’s leading objection is that the policies Republicans propose as well as the actual legislation they have sought to enact harm the very white blue-collar voters they are seeking to motivate.

So, what are my problems with Professor Krugman’s analysis? At bottom, my objections are the same as always: economists have very poor political radars. (Krugman has tacitly admitted as much by his assiduous refusal to accept any and all political posts.) More substantively, however, my first objection concerns the differing samples for Krugman and Trende. Krugman – read his column – is clearly thinking about swing states. Trende by contrast is thinking of building upon political gains in state legislatures and and the House with the aim of reinforcing a political movement among blue-collar white voters.

Trende’s analysis actually goes a fair distance toward explaining one of the most contradictory features of the 2010 midterm and 2012 elections: how Republicans manage to do so well in House elections when they are losing the White House and the Senate. Demographically, no one will disagree that as a nation we are becoming increasingly chromatic or that women constitute an ever larger role in both economics and politics. Yet, rather than broaden the social and political franchise to include more people of color and women, the Republicans have clearly settled upon an alternative strategy: to restrict the franchise even further.

More importantly, there is a significant, well-funded minority of white blue-collar voters who stand ready to do all in their power – both within and outside the law – to make sure that majorities do not govern. This significant, well-funded minority is disheartened by legislation broadening the social and political franchise. This is because they believe that our nation’s economic problems are a consequence of undocumented workers, labor unions, federal jobs, and over-regulated industry. When centrist, largely mid-Atlantic and northern Republicans recommend that the party broaden the social and political franchise, this contradicts the talking-points of rank-and-file white, male, blue-collar voters. By promoting these talking points, as Trende’s analysis surely does, he aims to provide ammunition to the largely southern, mid-western and western libertarian base.

Krugman either ignores or is insufficiently wary of the tremendous role the politics of resentment plays in the Republican party: the problem is not economic policy; the problem is undocumented workers and government regulation. For House Republicans, who must feed off of increasingly gerrymandered voting districts nested in between seas of brown and black voters, this message of resentment is essential to their political survival. The counter-message, advanced by northern and coastal Republicans, is a death-sentence.

The second problem with Professor Krugman’s analysis is that he seems to take seriously Republican assertions that they are eager to help blue-collar voters. But why would the Millionaires Club that makes up and finances the Republican leadership have any interest in policies designed to improve the lot of blue-collar workers? Their aim is political, pure and simple. For, again, they know that the moment they back down on the no-new-taxes-close-the-boarders-deregulate industry-dismantle the federal government platform, they will already have conceded too much to those who know that our nation’s economic woes arise not from too excessive, but too parsimonious a social, political, and economic franchise.

It is this message of hate and resentment that puts fire in the belly of the Republican base, not the message of a broader social and political franchise.

So, of course, Professor Krugman is right. But I don’t think he adequately grasps the Republican strategy and its aims.

Enhanced by Zemanta