Social Issues and Movement Conservatism

It is my belief that Movement Conservatism (most memorably defined by Ronald Reagan as standing for the proposition that government is the problem, not the solution) has been the dominant force in American politics since approximately 1981. I was 4 when it came to prominence.

Notwithstanding the hysterics no the AM dial, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama (the two democratic presidents in my adult life) is a wide-eyed socialist. Indeed, both of them generally sit somewhere on the left/right spectrum between Eisenhower and Nixon. Neither is as far left as FDR or LBJ.

Given that Movement Conservatism and its ideas have dominated our nation's politics for a generation, I believe that we should assess its strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately its level of success. Notably, to those who say, "real conservatism has never been tried," I would direct you to that pesky thing called "reality" that dictates what can and cannot be accomplished.

Ross Douthat, one of the NY Times' conservative apologists, recently wrote about what he characterized as "The Health Care Cul-de-Sac." Therein, he made the following observations:

What are the biggest threats to the American Dream right now, to our unity and prosperity, our happiness and civic health?

I would suggest that there are two big answers, both of which played crucial roles in getting a carnival showman who promised to Make America Great Again elected president. First, an economic stagnation that we are only just now, eight years into an economic recovery, beginning to escape — a stagnation that has left median incomes roughly flat for almost a generation, encouraged populism on the left and right, and made every kind of polarization that much worse.

Second, a social crisis that the opioid epidemic has thrown into horrifying relief, but that was apparent in other indicators for a while — in the decline of marriage, rising suicide rates, an upward lurch in mortality for poorer whites, a historically low birthrate, a large-scale male abandonment of the work force, a dissolving trend in religious and civic life, a crisis of patriotism, belonging, trust.

I tend to agree with Mr. Douthat. However, as I noted yesterday (really, Doug Masson noted it, to be fair), it seems to me that our economic stagnation is due to the fact that we have disincentivized work for so many people. When the boss holds, literally, ALL the cards and only gives raises when he absolutely has to, what is the point of working harder to improve oneself? When jobs are viewed as at the sufferance of the employer, how is one supposed to build a career on that? Jobs used to be stepping stones for careers. Now, upper management has succeeded in making nearly every job out there, save a select few, a veritable temp-to-hire position, where the hiring never actually happens. 

Further, we see employers bemoaning the supposed shortage of qualified workers. Well, what do you expect? If you don't offer any stability in the career, why would someone devote years of his life training for it? Why would someone devote years and thousands of dollars to learn, for example, advanced manufacturing, when the boss may or may not move the plant to Mexico (ahem, Carrier, ahem) to increase his already profitable business? Where does that leave the worker? Broke, unemployed, and in debt. 

Who blames the worker for avoiding that problem?

On to the second crisis we have: the degradation of our neighborhoods. I believe that this is related to the first. If the breadwinner is treated as temp-to-hire (and never hired), how is he supposed to find the time to run for school board or town council? He may lose his job tomorrow and find himself unable to make his mortgage payment the next day. Further, given the dynamic explained above that discourages people from bettering themselves, doesn't that same dynamic apply to bettering communities? 

I could go on and on, but I think that what this represents is a wholesale failure or, alternatively, an overextension of conservative dogma. If the dominant political dogma of the past generation has resulted in significant problems, perhaps its time to rethink the dominant political dogma. I would note to my conservative friends that its not always 1981; the answer is not always to cut taxes for the wealthy and do your best Ronald Reagan impression (Mike Pence does a pretty good Ronald Reagan impression, no?).

(Incidentally, I would say the same thing to my civil rights warrior friends: It is not always 1968. Racism is not the root of every problem.)

My point here is that when our dominant belief system, and all of its inherent assumptions, has produced some measurably bad outcomes, perhaps we need to rethink our assumptions. Is government the problem? Does cutting taxes result in more government? Should all employment situations be "at will" or should employees have additional rights? What about the "shareholder value" doctrine? Is creating wealth for shareholders the ONLY purpose of a corporation? If so, why do we grant corporations such expansive rights?

A few thoughts.