Click here for participant bios.
Tucker, Ross, Douglas, Kathleen, and Christine,
What should the GOP, and the conservative movement more generally, be concentrating on for the next few years? Developing, demonstrating, and communicating solutions to the current problems of the middle class.
Most conservatives who propose a return to "Reagan conservatism" don't understand either the motivations or structure of the Reagan economic revolution. The 1970s were a period of economic crisis for America as it emerged from global supremacy to a new world of real economic competition. The Reagan economic strategy for meeting this challenge was sound money plus deregulation, broadly defined. It succeeded, but it exacerbated a number of pre-existing trends that began or accelerated in the '70s that tended to increase inequality.
International competition is now vastly more severe than it was 30 years ago. The economic rise of the Asian heartland is the fundamental geostrategic fact of the current era. In aggregate, America is rich and economically successful but increasingly unequal, with a stagnating middle class. If we give up the market-based reforms that allow us to prosper, we will lose by eventually allowing international competitors to defeat us. But if we let inequality grow unchecked, we will lose by eventually hollowing out the middle class and threatening social cohesion. This rock-and-a-hard-place problem, not some happy talk about the end of history, is what "globalization" means for the United States.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSeen in this light, the challenge in front of conservatives is clear: How do we continue to increase the market orientation of the American economy while helping more Americans to participate in it more equally?
Here are two ideas among many.
First, improve K-12 schools. U.S. public schools are in desperate need of improvement and have been for decades. We do not prepare the average American child to succeed versus international competition. Schools can do only so much to fix this—in a nation where 37 percent of births are out-of-wedlock, many children will be left behind—but it would be a great start if the average school didn't go out of its way to make kids lazy and stupid.
No amount of money or number of "programs" will create anything more than marginal improvements, because public schools are organized to serve teachers and administrators rather than students and families. We need, at least initially, competition for students among public schools in which funding moves with students and in which schools are far freer to change how they operate. As we have seen in the private economy, only markets will force the unpleasant restructuring necessary to unleash potential. Conservatives have long had this goal but are unprepared to win the fight. Achieving it would be at least a decade-long project.
The role of the federal government could be limited but crucial. Suppose it established a comprehensive national exam by grade level to be administered by all schools and universities that receive any federal money and required each school to publish all results, along with other detailed data about school budgets, performance, and so forth each year. Secondary, profit-driven information providers, analogous to credit-rating agencies and equity analysts, would arise to inform decision-making. The federal role would be very much like that of the Securities and Exchange Commission for equity markets: to ensure that each school published accurate, timely, and detailed data. This would not only improve schools in the aggregate but also serve to provide a more realistic path of economic advancement to anybody with a reasonably responsible family and help to acculturate more Americans to a market economy. This would also become a model for other reform of entitlement programs, from retirement accounts to medial care.
Second, reconsider immigration policy. What if, once we had control of our southern border, we came to view the goal of immigration policy as recruiting instead of law enforcement? Once we established a target number of immigrants per year, we could set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent everywhere from Beijing to Helsinki. It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 very smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens. It would also do wonders for equality if they were not almost all desperately poor, unskilled, and competing with already low-wage workers.
Other examples of policies that can raise competitiveness and lower inequality, ranging from reduced small-business regulation to allowing individuals tax deductibility for private health care purchases to automatic (with an opt-out) enrollment for 401(k) plans, become obvious once you start to look for them. What they tend to have in common is a focus on building human capital and effective market institutions. That is, they build the key resources of the new economy.
The conservative movement has become excessively dogmatic and detached from realities on the ground. It needs to become more empirical and practical—which strike me as traditionally conservative attitudes.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Lithwick: It's Time To Retire the Solicitor General's Morning Coat
Slate's Movie Club Crawls Into Kate Winslet's Uterus
How Do You Shut Off Natural Gas to an Entire Nation?
Help! Do I Tell My Girlfriend That I'm Taking Viagra?
Terrible Economic Ideas That Won't Go Away
He Gave His Wife a Kidney. She Divorced Him. What Does She Owe Him?
I was floored by Douthat's response to Kmiec, especially by the arrogance it took to call him an idiot with such a convoluted, faux-academic tone.
Knowing nothing about Douthat's views, I can only say that he sounds like the sort of pro-life hardliner that sees no other issue as important. The reason that Roe has not been struck down is simple; someone who wants to criminalize an activity that half the population does not see as criminal has a tough row to hoe. I don't know anyone who loves abortions, or who wants there to be more of them. But hawks like Douthat think nothing is acceptable short of an outright ban, which means that when his allies are in the White House, noting gets done to reduce the need for abortions.
Just because Obama is staunchly pro-choice does not mean that he has nothing to offer Catholics on the issue. On a personal note, I live in a strongly Catholic European country, where abortion on-demand is legal. Catholic groups do not wring their hands trying to get clinics shut down, or to demonize abortion practitioners. They merely offer help and alternatives to those finding themselves in unwanted pregnancies, as well as education on how to avoid them. It's a pragmatic approach that I believe most pro-lifers in America are starting to see as preferable to another 30 yars of deadlock because of their hardline position.
--Junggai
(To reply, click here.)
Tucker, I realize you have to think in terms of political philosophies, but most Americans are not ideologues. The only reason for most people to vote is to improve their own individual lives. They vote with their wallets and their hearts. They balance personal pragmatism with their personal feelings about the likeability and trustworthiness of candidates. […]
The GOP's next presidential horse could win by speaking in tongues, if individual Americans could only believe they would make their lives better. If you want the GOP to survive, try dropping the unproductive ideology, regulation of social issues, and the promotion of enemies. […]
Show average Americans, the great middle of the voting bell curve, a plan for making their personal lives better. From their viewpoint, the great Left/Right political divide that defines your professional career doesn't actually matter.
--whitehat
(To reply, click here.)
Is this The Onion? Is Slate staging some sort of high-minded comedic prank by letting their guest conservative writers become caricatures of exactly what they are trying to address?
Hilarious Irony aside, you blogging heads are inadvertently pinpointing the exact problem with Republicanism right now - the party has focused way too much on how to market their policies, and has ignored the actual substance and content thereof.
Instead of thinking about "how do we sell this hooey to voters?" maybe you should think about upgrading your product. Message management is all well and good, but when the message and the product become one-and-the-same, that's when you know you have a problem. […]
The republicans didn't offer any solutions this election. They tried to run on a platform of change, which meant running on a platform that was nearly identical to Bush's, but under the title of "maverick." Americans do love some good advertising, but c'mon, we've got to get something similar to what is advertised.
Only when you folks figure out the disconnect between creating policy and selling policy, will the republicans win again.
Until then, be my guest to keep fighting amongst yourselves like infants.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
I think some of us are really tired of arguing with people about abortion and are ready to move on. IMO, we lost this argument long ago. For whatever reason, the majority of people in America want to keep abortion legal, so we need to work within that framework. Who knows? If enough of us organize, maybe we can hold Obama's feet to the fire on his statement to reduce abortions and respect the sanctity of life.
--Ripley
(To reply, click here.)
"Once the party figures out what it's for—or more precisely, against—it ought to stick to its story. People respect principle, even if they disagree with it."
I don't know about that. When you define your big tent as being united in opposition to something, don't you just come off as being a bunch of haters? The problem with making "out of the frying pan" into the basis of one's political ideology is that a thoughtful person could realize that "into the fire" fulfills the letter of your platform. But I guess the main problem that I have with a party defining what it's against as a means of tying itself together is that I've never been sure that I wouldn't find myself as being one of the Despised Other when it became politically expedient.
--Lyger
(To reply, click here.)
(11/08)