Reihan Salam cites Luis Zingales’s suggestion that Romney run as a “pro-market populist.” Romney could run as a businessman for greater fairness and broadly rising living standards and against entrenched business interests that have allied with the government. It is a good idea in principle, but even if Romney picks up such an argument, I doubt he will press it for very long. Just the same, I think a message of “pro-market populism” would serve the GOP (and the country) well in the medium-term.
I think that the biggest political difficulty with “pro-market populism” is that even many people who might be unhappy with the current situation still have a lot to lose. The entrenched interests seem big, but they are even bigger than they look. Many people dislike rising health care premiums. Our current method system of “health insurance” that amounts to pre-payment of medical costs, lack of price transparency, and limits to entry of new health care providers increases costs to the general public. So health care is the ideal place for some “pro-market populism” right? Not so fast. Our current system likely contributes to above market wages for those who work for entrenched medical providers. That’s a pretty big interest group and one that is pretty popular to boot. But it doesn’t stop there. Our current system might leave people unhappy about rising health care costs, but tens of millions of Americans are happy with the quality and security of care they get from their employer-provided health care plans. A pro-market populism that seems to pose a near-term threat to employer-provided care will face broad-based resistance – including among its intended beneficiaries.
This isn’t a counsel of despair, but it does give some idea of the complications and difficulties of focusing on a pro-market populism that tries to turn health care recipients into cost-conscious consumers and tries to open the door to cheaper, more productive medical providers. In 2012, the kind of candidate that would seriously pursue such a strategy would be one that really believed it was urgently good policy. Pro-market populism isn’t (yet) a political strategy of expediency. But it might become one in the near future. More tomorrow.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…