Republicans Are the Party of the Poor and Middle, Dems of the Rich
It is bizarre that so many Republicans would embrace The Once and Future Worker – based on industrial strategy and social policies to keep alive unproductive jobs and counter-productive local economies – as a manifesto for the future. It sounds more like a Democratic Party policy book from the 1980s. Why then are Republicans welcoming Oren Cass’s statist proposals? Politicians are easily attracted to the latest shiny thing. But what makes this particular shiny thing more appealing than ever, and more appealing to Republicans?
It may be that the Republican Party is looking desperately for a safe port in an ideological storm, and this is just the recent stage of the search.
Mitt Romney’s rather vacuous endorsement of The Once and Future Worker is by itself not too surprising; Romney is not known for a commitment to a defined set of principles. But what about commentators like David Brooks, who has described the book as a response to “working class voters (who) tried to send a message in 2016 and are still trying to send it"? What about thought leaders like Yuval Levin? What about J.D. Vance, who is in most respects a libertarian.
There are separate, individual rationales for many of these bizarre positions. Vance for example, is looking for ways to bolster the precarious socio-economic position of the people he grew up with, as described in his book Hillbilly Elegy. But there is, in fact, one overriding explanation for the transition in the thinking of many Republicans: The party has shifted its base, becoming the party of the working class. Therefore, it must focus on policy prescriptions that will satisfy its new base.
It isn’t at all unusual for a political party to gear its policies to the groups and regions that give it support. Building and maintaining a political constituency is much like building and maintaining a commercial brand. The regional nature of political support is obvious to anyone who has looked at a red-and-blue electoral map of the United States. But the regional nature of a party’s support isn’t just driven by a party’s policies. Its policies also reflect its regional support base. The antebellum south wasn’t a Democratic Party base just because Democrats supported slavery. Democratic Party support for slavery was largely drive by the need to maintain the party’s southern base. Similarly, African-Americans’ support for more recent Democratic policies have made them a magnet for the party, influencing its choice of policies and candidates.
The ideological transformation of the Republican Party mirrors a transformation of its base. Once the party of the upper-middle-class and university educated, Republicans have increasingly become the party of the working class and the under-educated. In the 2016 presidential election, for example, the counties Hillary Clinton carried represented 64 percent of national GDP, a significant shift since the 2000 election, when the two parties were about even in that regard. In fact, the counties Clinton carried represented 73 percent of economic growth. Perhaps the most important forward indicator of growth and prosperity is the level of digitization a region has been able to achieve. Of the 10 most digitized states, seven voted for Clinton. Of the 20 least digitized states, 17 were carried by Trump. This trend has become even more intense. In the 2016 election, Democrats carried 13 of the 15 wealthiest congressional districts. In 2018, they carried all 15.
It is not surprising that Republicans would feel pressure to offer something to its growing base of blue-collar voters. Overwhelmingly, the GOP represents the supposed losers in the globalization stakes, people who feel the apparent heat of free trade, and see the benefits of technology as something not accruing to them.
What about the Democrats? Are they likely to take over the Republicans’ role as defenders of the free market? As Chou En-Lai said when asked what he thought about the impact of the French Revolution: Too soon to tell. The two parties, like the Prince and the Pauper, seem to be swapping clothes. But while the Republicans have embraced their new garments, the Democrats seem to be inspecting theirs closely. In some respects, the Democratic Party is well-positioned to pick up the support of those who are pro-globalization and for unobstructed markets. The private sector unions appear to be weakening. New collar support for Democrats has grown significantly. President Trump’s nationalism has prompted a counter-reaction.
However, it is not easy to teach a dog new tricks. The growth of the Democratic Party’s so-called progressive wing stands in the way of a Democratic shift to the center.
In this environment, it is easy to see how Cass’s policy formula would have appeal to Republicans. Essentially, it puts a respectable sheen on Trump’s nationalism, offering an intellectual underpinning for big-government policies. The combination of government expansion and interventionist micro-policies that Cass is offering is bound to be appealing these days to a Republican desperate for a policy position that appeals to the party’s new friends, while not necessarily offending its traditional ones.
Free marketers had best beware. If Republicans continue to slide away from market policies – and Democrats stay put – those who believe in limited government, free markets, and individual-driven policy solutions rather than government imposed ones, may find themselves without a dog in this race.
