Good grief. In a phone call to donors, Mitt Romney explained his defeat by referring to the “free stuff” that Democrats give their constituencies. He said that Obama’s strategy was to “give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government.”
I don’t deny the importance of pork. I lived for 20 years in Nebraska, and so I’m not unfamiliar with the “extraordinary gifts” known as agricultural policy. But it seems that today’s Republican Party is dominated by a perverse economic materialism that’s positively Marxist in its mechanical determinism. The idea that black or Hispanic voters tilt heavily Democratic because they’re “bought” by government handouts reflects a mentality that is extremely ideological. Hasn’t Mitt Romey ever heard of Lyndon Johnson. His “gift” to blacks was the Civil Rights Act. Or Barry Goldwater, the Republican who ran against him in 1964. He voted against the Civil Rights Act.
What today’s Republican Party can’t seem to get its mind around is that globalization has disoriented and disadvantaged large portions of American society, just as industrialization did more than one hundred years ago. Democrats aren’t “creating dependency” by inventing social programs, they’re responding to the social reality in the way progressives have for more than a century. I’m not in favor of the progressive approach, but the fantasy that politics is simply about everybody getting the best deal for themselves is absurd. We have an instinct for solidarity, not just self interest.
David Axelrod is right. Romney’s post-election remarks suggest that he’s stuck in the 47% mentality. It’s a gray place, one that essentially says that Blacks, Hispanics, and other who voted for Barack Obama aren’t concerned about the common good, but just about themselves. Not a message likely to win their votes any time soon.
November 16th, 2012 | 10:35 am
[...] Things‘ R.R. Reno and The American Conservative‘s Scott Galupo both have posts today that grapple intelligently [...]
November 16th, 2012 | 11:10 am
I work in “the hood” in a work environment in which I (both as a conservative and a grouchy old white guy) am the minority so I have been surrounded by strong Obama supporters for the past 5 years or so. As I reflect on the reasons they gave four years ago and the reasons they gave this season…they all fit into the category of “Obama’s gonna take care of me”‘ from cellphones to “free medical” that’s what it was all about. Admittedly, I hang around a different crowd than brother Reno, but maybe the Obama supporters in his circle are experiencing the solidarity or sense of community that comes voting for Obama and by proxy supporting the poor through his redistribution.
November 16th, 2012 | 11:28 am
Is it really Marxist to claim that people respond to bribery?
November 16th, 2012 | 11:41 am
Or Barry Goldwater, the Republican who ran against him in 1964. He voted against the Civil Rights Act.
Robert A. George (who is not Robert P. George) points out the following in a 2000 article in the National Review:
November 16th, 2012 | 11:42 am
What??? Mr. Reno must have missed all the exit polling results which catagorically confirmed that many voters in the minority catagories he mentions stated their votes were cast in order to retain their entitlements. There is nothing ideological about that fact.
Raising LBJ as a champion of civil rights in this country is denying history. Consider the Congressional voting record that ultimately passed the Civil Rights Act. Republicans favored the legislation by vast majorities compared to their democratic counterparts in both the House and Senate. Leadership in the democratic party fillabustered AGAINST the bill to such lengths that Robery Byrd still holds a record for one of the longest fillabusters in US history. The pressure on LBJ was so great he had to act. Hardly the “gift” Reno describes.
To state that Republican or independent voters are turning their back on the disadvantaged in the global economy sounds more like a progressive talking point than a real understanding of conservativism. If Reno truly believes that Democrats haven’t created a large amount of dependency on social programs that are no longer safety nets but become ways of life, his perspective seems Pollyanna-ish. It’s not about self-interest. It’s about personal and public responsibility, contribution, and addressing very real and critical problems.
Romney’s post-election comments may be a result of trying to dumb-down the legitimate argument that entitlements are crushing our country. Possibly not the best way to address the issue, but Reno’s over-the-top position that Republicans are the true Marxists goes way to far. Good Grief!
November 16th, 2012 | 12:45 pm
Thanks, Prof Reno! I think the point may be that BOTH political parties (and perhaps modern Economic Man in general) may now be heavily influenced by dialectical materialism, or at least the mainstream economic principle that people are driven by “incentives” and maximizing utility. As outlined by Ross Douthat in NYT and many others, the Obama campaign sliced and diced the electorate into specific interest groups and made direct appeals to each group, even if they were inconsistent when added up. Globalization is creating winners and losers in America, and both parties are presenting what they think the government should do in response. Democrats support using the government as an agent of domestic redistribution from the winners to the losers, while Republicans want to expand the pool of winners through reducing the role of government and promoting private efforts.
The former is obviously a more powerful electoral strategy and has a long history in machine politics. As they used to say in my native Massachusetts, “spend, spend, spend – elect, elect, elect.” This can work for the short term, but as all “Marxist” economic models show, the potential for redistribution will typically collapse over time to a point where almost everyone is a loser.
The Republican strategy of a smaller government depends on a longer-term “supply response” in which greater private investment will create better jobs. For someone who is suffering the present recession, this may seem too remote.
One immutable factor here are demographics. A record number of older people will shift the entitlement burden higher. Unfortunately, the same smaller generation of post Roe vs. Wade young people who are suffering in this economy will also bear that burden for the foreseeable future.
November 16th, 2012 | 8:32 pm
The GOP uses Marxist dialectics. The media insists the truth is always in the middle, the GOP steals the opposition’s talking points (saving Medicare). They denounce class warfare, but clearly they are the masters of class warfare, except that in their form of Marxism the dialectics have been turned entirely to benefit the rich. And their materialism and sense of inevitablity makes them smash the mechanisms of civilization with the zealots belief that they are racing towards a Utopia that will self-assemble from the rubble.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/20/918054/-Republicans-Embrace-Marxist-Dialectics#
November 16th, 2012 | 10:15 pm
1. I thank Dr. Renomfor a respectful sense of his opponent.
2. So…if I understand the comboxers who disagree with Dr. Reno, and thinkhat the Dem voters are all voting for personal selfishness, two possibilities exist to characterize the Republican voter: a much more virtuous individual voting out of solidarity (which is lacking evidence) or just a different sets of self-interests. Is it just a battle of selfish individuals?
November 16th, 2012 | 11:36 pm
Democrats aren’t “creating dependency” by inventing social programs, they’re responding to the social reality in the way progressives have for more than a century. ”
Juvenal spoke of “bread and circuses” millenia ago. What basis is there to assert that “progressives” merely have a reflex response to authentic social problems and don’t seek to develop loyal constituencies? Why would anybody think that this is beyond politicians that spend thirty years in Congress and show up bringing grants on novelty checks, use silver shovels for groundbreaking ceremonies and cut ribbons with giant scissors.
I am a bureaucrat who has direct experience with these “progressive” programs and if they are not designed to promote dependency, then they are designed to be conspicuous enough to promote fear of disruption or diminution. I’ve seen how it creates an insidious change in the calculus of voting, where recipients of government programs act like subjects, rather than owners hiring custodians.
“I’m not in favor of the progressive approach, but the fantasy that politics is simply about everybody getting the best deal for themselves is absurd.”
It is not only not absurd, it won multiple Nobel Prizes in Economics, including James M. Buchanan (1986), George Stigler (1982), and Gary Becker (1992). In addition, Vernon Smith (2002) and Elinor Ostrom (2009) were former Presidents of the Public Choice Society.
Where Romney is wrong is that he appears to lay the blame at the feet of voters, rather than the politicians that make elections into auctions. Reinhold Niebuhr quipped something about the sad duty of politics being the establishment of justice in a sinful world. My observation is that politics is part of the sinful world, and perhaps the home of some of its apex predators.
November 17th, 2012 | 11:09 am
[...] MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION Published November 17, 2012 Anno Domini Are Republicans the True Marxists? – R.R. Reno, First [...]
November 17th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
This article points to a truth that many in the GOP (pundants, at least) will not see or admit. There is a very strong “just pull yourself up by your bootstraps” idealogy voiced by many fiscal conservatives that fails to take into account the negative effects globalization has had on so many Americans. Corporations may be people, but these “people” do not vote in elections. People who have lost their jobs, or lost their houses to foreclosure, or are afraid that these things will happen are the ones who vote, and they voted to keep the current social safety net in place. How we will pay for this safety net remains a big problem, I admit, but I believe in this case, fear trumped pragmatism.
November 17th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
Greetings from Ireland (Labour Party in government (coalition)).
I once said to an American friend that taxation is the price we pay for living in society. Another American, a Republican, insisted that taxation was thievery. I have been in steady employment for 30 years now (public service). I usually vote for the (propper, Western European) Left. I accordingly seek to insure myself and my loved ones against missfortune. And create a compassionate society for all (most?) “Better 10 ‘scroungers’ that one genuine case neglected”
Dependancy? I depend on the postman. The street sweepers. The school teachers… and on and on. Personal responsibility reduces to a Hobbsean State of Nature. Responsible behaviour necessitates interdependance…..
November 17th, 2012 | 3:46 pm
As one of the 47% who has required govt. assistance while working at low paying jobs, and who voted for Mr. Romney due to my support of religious freedom, I can only say I was sincerely disappointed to hear Mr. Romney on the campaign trail say that he supported women’s access to contraceptives, implying that he approved requiring others to pay for them. I voted for him anyway, but if a man tries to be on both sides of the fence on the important issues, he is less likely to appeal to people with strong convictions on either side of the fence. My vote wasn’t bought, even though the Obama administration raised my food stamp allowance at the beginning of his first administration. Romney’s presumption that us poor people wouldn’t vote for religious principle over cash helped lose him the election when he ignored those principles.
November 17th, 2012 | 3:51 pm
“David Axelrod is right” says it all! I suppose Mr. Reno thinks that American’s concern for the common good must be proportionally increasing along with our governments bloated and unsustainable social welfare outlays. If what he believes is true, America then, must be the most altruistic and virtuous culture the world has ever known! And even more, this years voters must be the most civil and civic minded since our great nation’s founding. I live in a heavily democrat area of a heavily democrat county in a heavily democrate state and trust me when I say they DID NOT vote for the “common good”. Perhaps Mr. Reno needs to come visit the north-end of Flint, Michigan where I live and see firsthand what the welfare state has done to our black communities. Then Mr. Reno wouldn’t talk so foolishly.
November 17th, 2012 | 4:51 pm
Let’s be fair here, neither party had a stellar record on civil rights in the early days. In Fact starting with Lincoln(Republican)and his Emancipation Proclamation and a bloody Civil war one could argue Republicans were at the forefront of that movement while Democrats in those days, even into the mid 20th century had as it’s base segregationist Dixiecrats. So one could point out failures on both sides if one were to be objective.
November 17th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
Mitt Romney lost because he was a bad candidate. He was a bad candidate for many reasons, primarily because Republicans stayed home. They stayed home because he was not representative of basic Republican ideals. His Mormon religion also has to be held up to scrutiny. Serious Catholics and protestants were very leery of him because of his non-Trinitarian / neo-pagan religious affiliation. Romney was never held to any public scrutiny about Mormonism. One deeply held Mormon tenet is a concept called Theo-democracy. This tenet suggests that Mormonism, like Islam will control the world religiously and politically. There was never a conversation about it, Jack Kennedy was held to be publicly accountable and said Rome will not rule America just because he would be President. The postmortem continues.
November 17th, 2012 | 8:00 pm
I used to be a progressive and we definitely believed in using government handouts for electoral gain, in fact we felt that poor people were plain stupid if they didn’t vote in favor of the largesse that Democrats wanted to give them. There was special contempt for the “irrationality” of lower income values voters who voted conservative because they opposed abortion and “gay rights”. See the book “What’s the Matter With Kansas” which is about this topic, progressive electoral strategy based on getting people to vote for Democrats who want to give them stuff. We were very idealistic and felt we were very good people for this robin hood policy. Then I returned to my Catholic faith and realized that contemporary liberal politics includes a lot of things diametrically opposed to my Catholic faith and that I had to make a choice, support the pro abortion, pro “gay marriage” liberals or live my Faith. God won in my life. Like another commenter, I saw my food stamps benefit go from something like $12/mo before Obama to $148 per month. And I didn’t even need it. I wound up quitting food stamps on my own initiative a couple months ago because I realized that for a long time I had been giving that much per month to Church or charity. I do not doubt whatsoever that for many recipients, food stamps helps them pay for their cable TV etc. It is an income supplement. The program gives grants to organization to enroll more people (their stated goal is to get everyone who qualifies on the program) and they tell them all kinds of reasons why they should enroll anyway even if they don’t need it. I think that is wrong which is why I am now foregoing $1776 per year in food stamps. I told them that on a progressive site and they ganged up on me as if I was insane and worthy of contempt. And I understood why, because that was the attitude I used to have in those days when I too thought “What’s the Matter With Kansas” was great. Now, I truly believe in protecting innocent human life from conception to natural death and believe in protecting marriage and religious freedom, and $148 per month that I do not need does not at all motivate me to want to violate my conscience.
November 17th, 2012 | 8:23 pm
When it comes to bribing and distracting the masses, ‘Breads and Circuses’ are nothing new. With a degree in history allow me to say, the politicians of the Roman Empire, in the wake of their globalization also responded in kind. We might also draw a distinction between industrialised agriculture which is subsidised and independent agriculture which is non-subsidised. One example would be small butcher shops do not receive a free USDA inspector whilst an industrialised meat-factory has it’s products stamped with governmental approval on the taxpayers dime. Corporate retail is allowed to utilise highways built by the taxpayer whilst the small family retailer pays regressively into a transportation they do not utilise.
There is nothing materialistic about the realities of macro-economics. Filthy lucre has always been a factor in betraying oneself and one’s God.
November 17th, 2012 | 9:42 pm
“Dependancy? I depend on the postman. The street sweepers. The school teachers… and on and on. Personal responsibility reduces to a Hobbsean State of Nature. Responsible behaviour necessitates interdependance….”
That’s not dependency as it’s used here and you know it. Dependence is not “interdependence”.
If your street sweepers fail, you can file a complaint. If the complaint falls to resolve the problem, people lose elections. Teachers are responsible, to supervision and governments. In any case, those things are “public goods” (nonrivalrous, nonexcludable) which are provided for a general benefit, not a personal one.
However, when people rely on government for private and personal goods-food, housing, medicine, contraceptives-interminably, as a right, without requirement or even expectation for eventual emancipation and/or repayment-it robs them of the right to make their own way in life, stealing a part of their humanity and the right to be productive and be part of the general societal interdependence.
Obviously, for those that want to dominate others by perverting democracy-insidiously undermining elections by rendering the electorate into subjects, and creating artificial divisions among citizens who should be united in their vigilance over the rapscallions that attracted to government like pyromaniacs to matches, dependency is lovely idea.
November 17th, 2012 | 10:41 pm
As a former staffer with about 15 years of Hill experience, it’s hard not to believe that everyone can be bribed for their vote with goodies. Not once, literally not once, did I ever have anyone come to me and not want something…. It’s always the same story…. “But this is such an important program….”
Whatever. Instead of pandering to the older people by saying we should protect Medicare at all costs…. Instead of getting on the Republican bandwagon to suggest we protect medicare for anyone retiring in the next 10 years…. I now believe we should take a distinctly different approach.
I am now in favor of spending like drunk monkeys. It’ll be fun for a while, and then the bond market will correct it for us. Interest rates go up to 7 or 8 percent? Nice…. that’s an additional 770-880 billion dollars in net interest payments every year. We will be Greece overnight, and then all the goodies collapse for people.
November 17th, 2012 | 11:31 pm
[...] Are Republicans the True Marxists? [...]
November 18th, 2012 | 8:21 am
Adam Baum –
The ‘dole’ is now called ‘job seekers allowence’. Those not taking appropriate measures to actually ‘seek’ employment will loose this ‘entitlement’. The same types of checks and ballences apply as to the performances street sweepers etc. (10 to one weighting, of course, as above. Genuine cases take precedence.)
In a compassionate society the genuinely unemployed, the disabled etc are ‘entitled’… The hand-out concept is unfair. Milton Freedman’s idea that abolishing welfare would create full employment is suspect. We would all end up in penury – the famous ‘race to the bottom’. Or are some of us immune to this? So privileged as to be above this possibility?
My wife is Catholic. Her ‘problem’, not ‘objection’, with welfare is that it can make Christians believe that their obligation to, not just give alms, but to corporal acts of mercy is taken care of.
My philosophical studies mentioned the distinction between the ‘Good Samaritan’ and the ‘minimally decent Samaritan’. Tax directed to genuine welfare is a basic minimum. People are ‘entitled’. I am obliged to insure my car. Given the dangers of motor travel there is no reasonable case for ‘opt out’ here. To pay into a welfare system with my tax monies is enlightened self interest at the very least.
Can it really ever be the case that nobody needs welfare?
November 18th, 2012 | 11:54 am
Regardless of what you think about Professor Reno’s argument, it is refreshing to see someone, of any political persuasion, thinking outside the box. I’m really getting sick of the same tired old arguments; we need some fresh and creative thinking. Thanks First Things, and keep it coming!
November 18th, 2012 | 7:59 pm
I think Mr. Reno that you have a narrow view of the problem. Blaming globalization is like one football team blaming the rain for their loss. Did it not rain on the other team too? Whether one agrees to it or not, globalization was agreed to even by the US.
Globalization opened markets for weaker countries – one can argue the merits or demerits of it. But to compete one has to have a lower cost. That means for the US to compete against low wages in China it has to have more productivity, more competitive wages, and a lower tax environment (to reduce cost of business). Instead, we have had more regulations which has stifled the productivity we saw in the past decades and higher business costs. Most countries with big “progressive” (I hate this hypocritical word) burdens are the ones suffering now because they choose to expand these programs in a globalized environment.
I think it is the progressive movement and the Democrat Party that does not see their errors. You are right that globalization is the reality but handing out money to people without a corresponding increase in productivity is just kicking the can down the road and will eventually hurt the people you want to help.
To equate this to Marxism is a real low comment. This is macroeconomics based on Capitalism. Sure they both deal with materialism but that is the scope of the topic and to suggest that it is its entirety is being misleading on your part.
November 18th, 2012 | 8:03 pm
And I hope you are not joining the teams of progressive armies that single out one topic to attack – such as politically motivated gifts – without seeing the entirety of the progressive movement – abortion, gay marriage, contraception, attack on religious freedom, destruction of the family, etc. Those are closer to Marxism and Communism than any comment Romney has made.
November 18th, 2012 | 10:48 pm
Maybe those who deny the existence of corporate welfare, which panders benefits to Romney’s class, would like to explain how Hawaii became an American territory.
November 19th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Republicans became Marxists the minute they put economic determinism at the heart of their party’s mandate. This will not change until the (economic) libertarian wing is curtailed and supply side economics is publically admitted to be a policy failure. This will happen no time soon, as too many powerful constituencies within the GOP, including the Chamber of Commerce, refuse to give up such a useful worldview.
November 19th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
While Mr Romney seems like he may be crying over spilled milk with his comments they are fundamentally correct. Any politician who would truly try to reform American politics(Not saying Romney was) would never get elected. Virtually every group in American society has been promised to many “gifts” by the politicians and many must be reduced or eliminated altogether doesn’t sound like a recipe for winning the next election cycle. You can”t take candy from a baby and the government are the candymen and we the people are the babies aren’t we.
November 19th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
@ Carl Marks:
First you made a disingeneous argument about dependency, asserting that the public services are the same as private goods delivered by the government.
Now, you discard that argument and conflate insurance with welfare and I suppose sensing the logical insupportability of that argument, just make an ipso facto declaration of “entitlement”.
The reason you need insurance isn’t because other people are “entitled”-it’s because you might kill or maim people with your four-wheel missile. But your argument fails on two fronts, because your insurance ensures that people YOU HARM are indemnified and you rely on other people to make a similar arrangements in the event you are harmed. In short, there’s reciprocity.
Are there some people who”need” welfare isn’t the question. For some, who are injured, have defects or deformities, in a time when private relief is displaced by the government, yes.
However that’s not the question. The question is, should there be welfare that is unending, without condition or even expectaction, creates a moral hazard and allows leftist parties politicians and the Marxist weevils that infest them to defile and debase politics. The left has all kinds of bloviate to support it’s kleptocraptic mindset, but it is still be theft-and theft with the purpose of reducing people to malleable chattel and denying them the dignity God intended. Then again, I know where I stand and where you stand.
@VDD
Amen!
@Howard
Who denies the existence of corporate welfare? Worse, people hear phrases like “agricultural subsidies” and they imagine farmer Smith working his 40 acres-not Archer Daniels Midland or Conagra. Now if you could just imagine how much corporate welfare is wrapped in nice labels like “social service”. Here’s a question for you-ever wonder why so many credit card statements have payment addresses in Wilmington, DE?
@VDD:
“But to compete one has to have a lower cost”.
Only if you can’t provide better value. There are plenty of examples of people and companies that compete on value-one you might even have taken a bite out of.
November 21st, 2012 | 3:44 pm
94% of R Senators vs 73% D Senators voted for the 1965 Act. 82% of R congressmen vs 78% of D congressmen voted for the 1965 Act.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact