One of the more striking, if unremarked, differences between this year's Presidential campaign and the 2008 contest is the relative silence of the evangelical Christian right, at least since Michele Bachmann washed out of the race. The reason may have to do with the evangelicals' discomfort with Mr Romney's religion -- they may feel that if they seem too vocal in their support of the candidate himself, it could raise uncomfortable questions.
Even so, the Christian right's social agenda remains on display, especially in the form of the efforts to block or roll back gains in marriage equality and reproductive rights. It may also be part of the impetus for Mr. Romney's ominously hawkish attitude toward just about everyone, especially Iran. The portion of the Christian right that actively embraces the notion that the End Times are near, and that they will come out well on the Day of Judgment, seems only too happy to risk stoking a conflagration in the Middle East. The End-Times mentality may also be playing out in another aspect of the Republican candidates' positions -- their attacks on Social Security and Medicare.
Let's think about public assistance in general, and about Social Security and Medicare in specific. We support the social safety net for a variety of reasons, one of which is the recognition that through bad luck or bad choices any of us might find ourselves depending on it in the future. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, the feeling is even stronger -- barring accident, fatal illness, or unexpected riches, we all will eventually need to depend on those programs. We support our parents and grandparents in their old age, in the expectation that our children and grandchildren will support us in ours. It's a social contract we agreed eighty years ago, and while flinty-eyed financial analysis is important if we want to keep the programs alive, future generations will make up any supportable shortfall that they believe won't swamp their successors.
John Kay put it well in today's Financial Times:
The only individualistic solutions to the problem of ageing are to store bread to eat, or sell, when it is stale and you are old; or to take the opportunity when young to bribe younger people to look after you in your dotage. [The economist Paul] Samuelson showed these outcomes were inferior to the outcome of the social security contract for every generation except the one alive on judgment day.
Paying into Social Security and Medicare today is a good deal only if I expect the next generation to be paying in when I'm old. But what if one of my underlying life assumptions is that there won't be a next generation? If I'm convinced that the end is nigh, why should I pay into something I'll never enjoy? Or, as Kay put it, if I expect to be in the generation alive on judgment day, then I'll prefer an individualistic solution. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan seem to be offering one.