Have you heard about “libertarian populism” yet? If not, you will. It will surely be touted all over the airwaves and the opinion pages by the same kind of people who assured you, a few years ago, that Representative Paul Ryan was the very model of a Serious, Honest Conservative. So let me make a helpful public service announcement: It’s bunk.
So begins the Nobel Laureate economist in his
New York Times op ed today, titled
Delusions of Populism, which is well worth your read.
If I might make a brief excursion, yesterday Krugman made a post in his "The Conscience of a Liberal" blog at the Time that is relevant. It was titled Fields of Expertise, where he took on those who criticize him for writing on any topic but economics. While noting tongue firmly in cheek that the likes of Tom Friedman never write on economic matters (hah), he reminded people that the column is on the op ed page, which he argues gives him a certain amount of latitude. He also offers this paragraph:
Still, I do try to focus mainly on matters economic, with a few nods to quantitative political science, which isn’t my field but has enough methodological affinity with economics that I feel fairly comfortable reading the academic papers. And in general, yes, if you’re going to hire a “name”, what you presumably want from that person is insights into the things he or she knows about.
That is relevant to today's op ed. A good part of the argument for "libertarian populism" is that it is an economic approach to governing and politics, which puts it firmly within Krugman's expertise. He also makes reference to the research of Alan Abramowitz and Ruy Teixeira who have
concluded that the missing-white-voter story is a myth.
That notion is based on the work of Sean Trende, who argues that had Romney turned out the whites who had stayed home, he would have achieved victory.
But what is "libertarian populism" and why does Krugman call it "bunk?" Please continue below the cheese doodle as I further examine the column.
Krugman reminds us that the Republicans tried to position themselves as the party of ideas, with their exemplar being Paul Ryan, who perhaps mainly for that reason was selected as Romneys' running mate.
But the famous Ryan plan turned out to be crude smoke and mirrors, and I suspect that even conservatives privately realize that its author is more huckster than visionary.
So the GOP went looking for its next big thing and
Enter libertarian populism. The idea here is that there exists a pool of disaffected working-class white voters who failed to turn out last year but can be mobilized again with the right kind of conservative economic program — and that this remobilization can restore the Republican Party’s electoral fortunes.
The appeal of this approach is that the Republicans would not have to rethink their economic approach, they could reclaim "their former glory" and regain power by simply doing a better job of reaching out to those "disaffected working-class white voters." Krugman finds this "delusional" on at least two levels.
The first reasons is that it is dependent upon the analysis of Sean Trende, which as he notes is thoroughly dismantled by Abramowitz and Texeira. In reading this portion remember what he said in the blog post previously referenced, about his own comfort level with quantitative political science.
The second is the notion that Republicans can inspire more enthusiasm among working class whites. To address what that might be, he offers this paragraph:
Well, as far as anyone can tell, at this point libertarian populism — as illustrated, for example, by the policy pronouncements of Senator Rand Paul — consists of advocating the same old policies, while insisting that they’re really good for the working class. Actually, they aren’t. But, in any case, it’s hard to imagine that proclaiming, yet again, the virtues of sound money and low marginal tax rates will change anyone’s mind.
Krugman then does a detailed analysis of the kinds of issues the Republicans are touting, which as he notes are "inimical" to the interests of working class whites. He writes
Neither a flat tax nor a return to the gold standard are actually on the table; but cuts in unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicaid are.
Krugman goes on to note that the Ryan plan would have slashed such social programs, and what the Republicans seem to ignore is how many lower-class whites are dependent upon the programs of the social safety net.
There is something perhaps missing from his analysis, and that is the implied racism. After all, whites of Appalachian background tend to be more heavily low-income than whites in general, and they are also tilting more heavily Republican in large part because Obama is black. Remember, Bill Clinton carried many of the states containing substantial numbers of Appalachian whites, including his home state of Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. Obama has carried none of those. Beyond racism, there is often among that population a reluctance to take advantage of part of the social safety net - note that I said "parts."
Returning to Krugman, he provides statistics on utilization of the social safety net, for example
in Ohio, 65 percent of households receiving food stamps are white. Nationally, 42 percent of Medicaid recipients are non-Hispanic whites, but, in Ohio, the number is 61 percent.
This higher utilization by whites is a characteristic of swing states. Thus if Republicans are bashing, for example, food stampts (technically Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP), blocking the expansion of Medicaid, and cutting back the length and value of unemployment compensation, while they may be disproportionally hurting "Those People" (which you might imply as people of color to avoid having to deal with Romney's "47 %" remark), Republicans, according to Krugman,
are also inflicting a lot of harm on the struggling Northern white families they are supposedly going to mobilize.
I would add in something else - the "libertarian" approach dismissed the idea of government intervention to save jobs, specifically in the auto industry. As we saw in the last election, that had a huge impact in several swing states - specifically Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is worth noting that the latter two also have chunks of Appalachian whites, but these are more than balanced by the ethnic white communities heavily connected with the auto and related industries.
Krugman concludes with again mentioning that "libertarian populism" is "bunk" and then offers these final two sentences:
You could, I suppose, argue that destroying the safety net is a libertarian act — maybe freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. But populist it isn’t.
And with that reference to the words of Kris Kristofferson, he ends this powerful column.
Read the whole thing.
Pass it on.
You'll be glad you did.