In today’s WSJ, Arthur C. Brooks scolds Republicans for allowing the Democrats to dominate the political landscape by claiming to care for the poor.
Brooks correctly points out that graphs and charts proving Republican policies are better for most people are useless when placed alongside a Democrat who claims to “care.”
I believe that Brooks is correct. As a Hollywood screenwriter, I can attest to the power of emotion over cold reason. My job, bluntly put, is to manipulate the emotions of a mass audience. This is something Democrats understand and in which they excel.
Tragically, my fellow Republicans and Conservatives, fail to comprehend that we are losing a propaganda war to a ruthless opposition who will do and say anything in order to win.
Those on the right believe that simply speaking the truth will win the day.
Excuse the pun, but nothing could be further from the truth.
We have to be smarter about how we frame our arguments, for in truth, Democrat policies are inherently immoral, and Republican policies are truly decent and caring.
Conservative values and money issues are worth less than concern for the poor.
In the waning days of the 1992 presidential campaign, President George H.W. Bush trailed Bill Clinton in the polls. The conventional wisdom was that Mr. Bush seemed too aloof from voters struggling economically. At a rally in New Hampshire, the exhausted president started what was probably the fourth campaign speech of the day by reading aloud what may have been handed to him as a stage direction: “Message: I care.”
How little things have changed for Republicans in 20 years. There is only one statistic needed to explain the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. An April YouGov.com poll—which mirrored every other poll on the subject—found that only 33% of Americans said that Mitt Romney “cares about people like me.” Only 38% said he cared about the poor.
Conservatives rightly complain that this perception was inflamed by President Obama’s class-warfare campaign theme. But perception is political reality, and over the decades many Americans have become convinced that conservatives care only about the rich and powerful.
Perhaps it doesn’t matter. If Republicans and conservatives double down on the promotion of economic growth, job creation and traditional values, Americans might turn away from softheaded concerns about “caring.” Right?
Wrong. As New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown in his research on 132,000 Americans, care for the vulnerable is a universal moral concern in the U.S. In his best-selling 2012 book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Mr. Haidt demonstrated that citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak. By contrast, moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority—to which conservative politicians often give greater emphasis—resonate deeply with only a minority of the population. Raw money arguments, e.g., about the dire effects of the country’s growing entitlement spending, don’t register morally at all.
Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support—care for the vulnerable—to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.
The irony is maddening. America’s poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare-induced dependency to failing schools that continue to trap millions of children.
Meanwhile, the record of free enterprise in improving the lives of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular. According to Columbia University economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin, the percentage of people in the world living on a dollar a day or less—a traditional poverty measure—has fallen by 80% since 1970. This is the greatest antipoverty achievement in world history. That achievement is not the result of philanthropy or foreign aid. It occurred because billions of souls have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship.
The left talks a big game about helping the bottom half, but its policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable. Labyrinthine regulations, punitive taxation and wage distortions destroy the ability to create private-sector jobs. Opportunities for Americans on the bottom to better their station in life are being erased.
Some say the solution for conservatives is either to redouble the attacks on big government per se, or give up and try to build a better welfare state. Neither path is correct. Raging against government debt and tax rates that most Americans don’t pay gets conservatives nowhere, and it will always be an exercise in futility to compete with liberals on government spending and transfers.
Instead, the answer is to make improving the lives of vulnerable people the primary focus of authentically conservative policies. For example, the core problem with out-of-control entitlements is not that they are costly—it is that the impending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare imperils the social safety net for the neediest citizens. Education innovation and school choice are not needed to fight rapacious unions and bureaucrats—too often the most prominent focus of conservative education concerns—but because poor children and their parents deserve better schools.
Defending a healthy culture of family, community and work does not mean imposing an alien “bourgeois” morality on others. It is to recognize what people need to be happy and successful—and what is most missing today in the lives of too many poor people.
By making the vulnerable a primary focus, conservatives will be better able to confront some common blind spots. Corporate cronyism should be decried as every bit as noxious as statism, because it unfairly rewards the powerful and well-connected at the expense of ordinary citizens. Entrepreneurship should not to be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not. And conservatives should instinctively welcome the immigrants who want to earn their success in America.
With this moral touchstone, conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, “We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not”—and truly mean it. In the end that approach will win. But more important, it is the right thing to do.
Ariel Chaim Avrech, ZT'L, May His Righteous Memory be a Blessing.
12 Comments
Mark Steyn has pushed this same point in a few pieces since the election, that the Republicans are clueless when it comes to selling the message.
Personalities have a lot to do with it – Tony Abbott, Opposition Leader and likely to be Australia’s next Prime Minister, is a volunteer bush fire-fighter and surf lifesaver. He has a blokey appeal to the electorate.
Meanwhile, Julia Gillard, the incumbent PM, heads off to Sydney’s western suburbs, the ALP heartland, to ‘connect with the people’ and stays in a 5 star hotel and has dinner in a private dining room with invited guests. She walked through the public area to get there!
Tony would have happily mingled with the regular folks over the $10 buffet dinner. He’s the type of personality the Republicans need if they’re ever to win a presidential election.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Robert:
Lead the way. Possible you could be John Galt…Ah…You don’t know about him.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Still have not read the book.
It’s on my list.
Sorta.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
“ruthless opposition who will do and say anything in order to win.” Anyone doesn’t see that is whistling in the dark. Robert I agree with you totally. Also the republicans need to say no to all democrat ideas, policies, and governmental moves regardless of the perceived political fallout and stick to it come hell or high water. They would have alot more support than they think.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
As long as the Democrats hold the political power in Washington and, just as importantly, inside the media, I don’t see the Conservatives being able to frame a successful argument with the voting class.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I have yet to see these Republicans in Congress even get into the arena of ideas and have an argument.
Romney was perceived as someone who became rich by closing companies – I never saw him argue how what he did actually saved so many companies – Staples being the biggest example.
Then, of course, is support of a MA style “ObamaCare’ nullified any ability for him to criticize the national version.
Reagan went out and talked to everyone – I remember him wlking the streets of Detroit talking to blue collar auto workers. Didn’t matter what the UAW leadership told them – many voted for Reagan.
Add to all of this it is far more difficult trying to present a sane alternative to not making the children bondaged servants to an unserviceable debt – when the other side can convince people they “care” and there is a check for you if you support us.
I think there is going to be a financial Armageddon in the near future – whether Republicans will even be relevant on the other side remains to be seen.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Bill:
Romney (and his talking heads) never mentioned that Romney vetoed the worst parts of Romneycare and the state legislature overrode the vetoes making it more expensive and different than planned. They were so afraid of the subject they conceded the Obama talking points (which only consisted of ‘Romney did it first’).
It wasn’t until the convention that you had others talking about how Romney personally helped them with his time and money. Obama once gave a guy on a street corner a nickel for coffee yet he was portrayed as the kind and compassionate candidate. The media was all too eager to make the race the mean rich guy against the nice struggling guy and Romney never figured it out (just as McCain never figured out the media didn’t like him when he actually ran against a Democrat and not another Repblican).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Johnny – I heard several stories of how Romney – as a bishop in his church – helped people with his time and money – of course that is the problem – I think – no matter one’s religion, every one pretty much agrees that it is most pleasing to G*d in doing good works quietly – Romney certainly wouldn’t have “blown his own horn”.
While Romney wasn’t my first choice I came to see him as a good and decent man who could have turned this financial mess around before it was too late.
Good points Robert made about “caring” – or to make my statement more accurate – the perception of “caring”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This last election was proof that the Democrats with the able assistance of the media have flipped JFK’s ‘ask not’ admonition. Government programs are not graded on whether they actually work (have they ever) but on how much is budgeted and spent. A growing budget is evidence that we care.
And the party that pushed welfare reform in the ’90′s can’t argue against a budget process where a cut means the increase is not as big as some previously determined amount. So the shills on MSNBC can say with a straight face that Obama has already cut 4 trillion from the budget. Somewhere in D.C. clerks are printing budgets with 20% annual increases into eternity so politicians can claim to saving trillions (that were never going to be spent.) Baseline budgeting is an abomination – has any Republican not noticed the problems grew out of control after the Budget Act of 1974? Is it that hard for a politician to figure out the system is broke, not our compassion?
Speaking of MSNBC, I am usually at the gym on Sunday mornings when I’m drawn to tuning into Up With Chris Hayes. Wow! Talk about an echo chamber. About once a month they will add a conservative to a panel. The rest of the time it is Hayes and four liberals all agreeing the government doesn’t spend enough money, conservatives are dumb and if they were in charge the world would be all unicorns and rainbows. Had Hayes and his panelists lived in Russia back in the good old days they would have been enthusiastic members of the Politburo making sure communism was done right and eagerly sending dissidents to the gulags. I suspect they address each other as comrade during commercial breaks and talk longingly about ‘Uncle Joe’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Sorry that my cites came out in html script. If you please delete my prior comment, Robert, let me revise it with this one.
As Yeat’s wrote in the Second Coming:
. . . Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. . . .____________
You will forgive me if I feel that I am living through his poem for a host of reasons, but of particular import to this comment is the final line. The far left have passion and live on emotion while having only a tenuous relationship to reality. The right, with all the facts on our side and at least a foot in reality, seemingly lack any passion and are unable to stir emotion. It is maddening to me. As I have been screaming about for years now, our biggest downfall has been the inability of our leadership to communicate with passion and intensity. A second is, as Mr. Clark notes, that we have written off blacks and those in poverty for targets of our communications</a>, ceding them wholly to the left who, in reality, are the greatest nemesis of these groups. Thus we are being overwhelmed. The 2012 election should be a wake up call to everyone on the right to this reality.
And it seems that many have. It is difficult to express my relief at seeing just a bevy of messages from the right recognizing these issues, you and Mr. Clark included. There is much more to it. I would strongly recommend that you likewise see two other offerings on this existential issue for the right, one a magnum opus by David Horowitz ( http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2013/03/republican-election-strategy-horowitz.html ), the second Newt Gingrich’s briefing to Republicans in Congress on election strategy going forward ( http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-gingrich-election-strategy-memo.html ). Horowitz puts this all in perspective – we are in an existential war with the left for whom reality does not matter. If we cede the moral and emotional arguments to the left, we are lost. Gingrich, for his part, touches on the same themes while analyzing how Obama and the left will seek to win the next two election cycles.
It’s not that conservatives need to change their values or goals in order to win elections. It is beyond argument, however, that we need to completely revamp our messaging and communications. We need passion, intensity, intellectual honesty, and a message that aims to emotion at least as much as to reason. We need a willingness to directly challenge, in colorful, attention getting terms, the utter ridiculous attestations of the left that make it into the media without seemingly a single notable response from our congresscritters on the right. And as Mr. Clark points out, we need to take moral and emotional aim at the victim groups the left pretends to champion. I would add that we need to do that not for simply an election strategy, but because it is fully in keeping with the actual values of conservatives.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
GW:
Thanks so much for your articulate comment. As always, you illuminate the issues with remarkable clarity. I did read the David Horowitz piece. In fact, you, and all my readers, might like to know that David will be the featured speaker at the annual Ariel Avrech Memorial Lecture, scheduled for June 9, 2013.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Yea, I saw the other version of that poster, when I was sitting in a Starbucks. Now say whatever you will of Starbucks, but I don’t recall the manager being an overseer with a whip, nor do I recall any manacles being present behind the counter to chain the associates to their stations.
Personally, I do not think real reform will happen. I do think that reforming would avert a lot of bad stuff down the road even now, if only by giving the rest of the world confidence that we were truly willing to do what it took to get back to fiscal and social sanity. But I don’t think it will happen, and I’m doing my best to plan my life to get along in a world where it doesn’t happen. That depresses me immensely, but… what else can you do?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0