The period from 2009–2012 saw a bizarre change within the
culture of the Republican party. Party elites found it a good idea to express
resentment and contempt for workers who were just on the other side of the
earnings median. Republicans paid the price of this contempt in 2012, and
recent signs indicate that Republican politicians have learned their lesson and
are working toward a limited government politics that is more inclusive of the
concerns of working families.
This resentment of lower-earning workers seems to have
started as a response to left-wing attacks on high-earners. This Republican
response crossed the party’s usual factional divisions. From the Republican
establishment, former George W. Bush Press Secretary
Ari Fleischer
responded to President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on high-earners by
writing a
Wall Street Journal column
complaining that the bottom forty-percent of workers paid too little in income
taxes and were imposing too heavy a burden on high-earners.
From the party’s Tea Party populist wing, Erick Erickson
created the “We Are The
53%” tumblr. This was obviously in response to the Occupy movement’s attacks
on the wealthiest 1% of the population. Individuals would hold up pieces of
paper explaining why they were in the 53% that had a net income tax liability. They
were in the 53% because they worked hard and were responsible. It was not much
of a mystery what we were supposed to think of those who were in the 47%. Of
course, the idea was not to personally insult every last American who worked a
low-wage job. The real targets of the “We Are The 53%” tumblr were
probably Occupy activists, but Erickson (like Fleischer) chose a frame that
made just about everyone under the earnings median seem like a social parasite.
It also made conservatives (at least implicitly) the party of the tax increase—as
long as the taxes weren’t being raised on the rich.
Republican politicians picked up on and amplified this
resentment of lower-wage workers.
Michele
Bachmann
said that, under her tax plan, everyone would have a net income
tax liability even if it was only “the price of two Happy Meals.” In
announcing his presidential campaign, Texas Governor
Rick
Perry
simultaneously came out for lower taxes and railed against “the
injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.
Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent comments make a lot more
sense when they are placed in this context. The 47 percent gaffe wasn’t a
result of some personal foible. Romney was a product of a political culture
that had adopted a resentment-based hostility to those just under the earnings
median. That many of those workers had a net payroll tax liability and were
struggling to support their families on meager wages seemed irrelevant. Republican
politicians had become used to talking of these workers as burdens on society
who needed their taxes increased so they would know that (in the words of
Michele Bachmann) “freedom isn’t free.”
This goes beyond individual statements. Most Americans never
heard a full Bachmann speech and were not listening to Rick Perry’s campaign
announcement. Even Mitt Romney’s poll ratings only fell
slightly
in the days after his 47 percent comments were revealed.
That might be because the public had already gotten the
message in other ways. The 2012 Republican National Convention was a constant
defense and valorization of the high-earners who “built that.” Romney’s
across-the-board tax cut offered little to people around the earnings median
while sharply cutting tax rates on high-earners.
The one great exception to all this was Rick
Santorum. Santorum was the Republican presidential candidate who could point
out that many American working families had problems that could not be
ameliorated simply by cutting marginal tax rates on high-earners. Santorum
focused on the struggles and the
earned
dignity
of people who might not make much above the earnings median.
Santorum’s ability to carry this message was limited. His
campaign had modest organizational capacity. Santorum himself was rhetorically
undisciplined and would let himself get suckered into
self-defeating
culture war battles. Santorum’s conception of the American working-class was
also
badly
outdated.
But to his credit, Santorum insisted that people around the
earnings median were valuable contributors to society and that those people had
interests that were not merely derivative of the interests of high-earners.
Santorum is still at it. Santorum is
still
arguing
that Republicans need to find an economic language that appeals to
people who are not entrepreneurs or high-earners. Santorum is still arguing
that a limited government politics has to recognize the contributions and
concerns of people who want to go to work, come home, and raise their children. These
people might not own a business, but they contribute to building our society.
The good news is that Santorum is being joined by other
Republicans. Utah Senator Mike Lee
proposed
a tax plan that would cut the tax burden on many working parents below the
earnings median. Not only would these workers continue to have zero net income
tax liability, they would also pay less in payroll taxes. Lee explicitly took
on his party’s 2009–2012 thinking:
And, finally, some might worry that
increasing the child credit would take more people off the income tax rolls
altogether.
And it would.
But then again, people who pay no
income
tax do pay federal taxes—payroll taxes, gas taxes, and various others.
Working families are not free
riders.
Others have joined Lee. Florida Senator
Marco
Rubio
has come out for converting the earned income tax credit into a wage
subsidy for low-income workers. Perhaps the most interesting artifact was a
letter
sent to President Obama by a group of House Republicans.
The letter was organized by Mo Brooks and one of its
signatories was Arkansas Senate candidate and party rising star Tom Cotton. The
House Republicans complained that the Senate’s immigration bill that President
Obama supported would sharply increase low-skill immigrations even as current
low-skill residents struggle with high unemployment and stagnant wages. The
letter also describes the Senate bill’s expanded low-skill immigration as a
giveaway to connected businesses in order to reduce the bargaining power of
low-skill workers. The letter asks, “Is it the position of the White House
that the hotel industry cannot be asked to find employees from among the
legions of unemployed residing here today?” Another of the signatories was
Michele Bachmann.
One can see the outlines of a conservative populist agenda
on taxes, wage subsidies, and immigration. Santorum, Lee, Rubio, Cotton, and
others have a chance to change the Republican party’s political culture. They
have a chance to produce a Republican agenda that combines limited government
and solidarity with working families who earn under the median. Will they take
it?
Pete Spiliakos writes for First Thoughts. His previous columns can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
