Paul Crist, August 13, 2010
The anger on the Tea Party right, and the frustration on the left, mostly emanate from the same economic phenomena. The difference is that those on the right have been coopted to a set of beliefs that are actually in opposition to their own economic interests. They vote their aspirations, rather than their reality. But the ideas they support actually make it ever less likely that they will achieve the wealth and self reliance to which they aspire.
The right demands lower taxes and ever smaller, ever more impotent government, focused only on national security, administration of justice (essentially punishment), and promotion of the orderly but “unfettered” conduct of business. There is, of course, the social conservative right, but there is evidence that that movement is beginning to lose steam, at least while the country is in the throes of a deep economic downturn. So the focus here is on the phenomenon of economic conservatives, many aligned with the Tea Party movement, who are currently dominating our national political discourse.
There is incontrovertible evidence that it was the strength of government that created the middle class between 1940 and 1960. It was during this period that the middle class expanded rapidly, thanks to the introduction of a social safety net and government regulation; expansion of educational opportunity; civil liberties and progress toward equal treatment; public service; and promotion of an economy that benefits a large proportion of the population. In other words, the middle class was built thanks to traditional progressive values dominating American politics and policy.
And it is government’s growing impotence that has allowed the middle class, the bedrock of American prosperity, to be nearly destroyed in the last few decades. The right believe they are overtaxed (because they’ve been told repeatedly that they are), but the US government budget, at 15% of GDP, is lower than it has been since the early 1940’s, at the beginning of the period when the middle class was created. And the government budget is also now the lowest of any wealthy country. While we could debate the fairness of the tax system, whether it ought to be more or less progressive, etc., the gross numbers hardly indicate an overtaxed American populace.
The right thinks government is corrupt and does nothing well. In fact, it is corrupt. But it is corrupt because we’ve allowed the owners of capital, conservative corporate interests, to have an outsize influence. Those interests are not aligned with the interests of middle class workers whose principal asset is their labor. And government doesn’t do a lot of things well because we’ve gutted it, privatized it, and turned it over to particular interests over the last three decades. Agency and regulatory budgets have been steadily slashed; and functions that ought not to be subject to the profit-making motive (e.g., environmental protection and regulatory oversight, worker protection oversight, even national defense and security) have been shifted to profit-focused private contractors. The effect of outsize influence for the owners of capital has skewed US trade and industrial policies in ways that have devastated working families who grew up believing in the American dream.
That dream can be revived, but until we reverse the course of the past thirty years, it will not be. Unfortunately, the right remains wedded to the ideology of supply-side, capital-dominated economics that is essentially the same as that which prevailed just prior to the Great Depression. To change that allegiance, the left must make some fundamental changes in the way we communicate our ideas, beliefs, and strategies.
How did ordinary working Americans become so devoted to an ideology that is opposed to their own economic interests as the owners of labor?
The owners of capital have done a remarkable job of framing their messages in such a way that they are perceived as “the people,” when in fact, they are anything but. They used language brilliantly to frame the debate, taking advantage of widespread discontent following the Vietnam War and the economic stagnation of the 1970’s. The left, conversely, has done a poor job of framing the debate and developing winning language and messaging based on conceptual frameworks.
There are many examples. George Lakoff , a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, uses the example of the word “revolt” which implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes that they are being ruled unfairly. And it creates mental images of people throwing off that unfair rule. The idea of throwing off unfair rule is perceived as a good thing.
We hear the term “revolt” paired with “voter,” and ordinary Americans, who identify as “voters” see themselves as the oppressed people, and the government as the oppressor. If the voters revolt against government, then, everything will be good again. This is the language that is behind the anti-incumbency mood in the current election cycle. If we “throw all the bums out,” and elect new leaders who are “not Washington insiders,” then things will get better. Of course, it simply never turns out that way, and so every election, we hear new calls to again “throw the bums out.”
But what has the right done differently from the left? Why have they done such a superior job of framing the political discourse? In a word, the answer is money. The right, the owners of capital, has invested billions of dollars researching language and idea messaging. They have established conservative think tanks, and encouraged wealthy individuals to set up professorships. They have invested in media outlets dedicated to disseminating conservative ideas. Today there is an overwhelmingly conservative message dominating talk radio, cable news, print publications, and online information sources.
The investments of economic conservatives have created an “army of the right” that is constantly updating and honing the messages, reinforcing the conceptual frameworks, and ensuring that conservative ideas dominate the national political discourse, crowding out opposing ideas that are less well articulated. As businessmen, the right understands the long-term value of investing and they have done an outstanding job of building the infrastructure, of “marketing the message,” necessary to preserve and defend their interests.
The left has a very different conceptual view of human nature and the human condition. The left gives money to grassroots organizations and demand that it all go “to the cause.” Those causes are about helping people in need, nurturing, and taking responsibility for others. Money spent on administration, communications infrastructure, and career development for progressive leaders is a diversion of money that is intended to “help.” This is a fundamentally different worldview from that of the right, who see “good” people as those whose discipline and personal responsibility have already allowed them to become wealthy, or at least self reliant. The conservative worldview says that “helping” spoils people, gives them things they have not earned, and keeps them undisciplined and dependent. This conceptual difference, as framed by the right, explains why conservatives have done better at dominating our political discourse and direction.
When one projects these divergent worldviews onto the nation, it is easy to see that taxes “take away” resources that have been earned by “good, disciplined, self reliant” people and give those resources to the “undisciplined and dependent” people who have not earned it. Tax “relief” is how the right frames the debate about taxes, implying that taxes are an affliction that must be overcome. To oppose tax relief, therefore, is to be a villain, even unpatriotic. Consequently, Democrats have been forced to adopt language of the right, and by doing so, policies must follow.
In order to move the debate in ways that benefit workers, the owners of labor in our economy, we need to find a fundamentally different linguistic framework to talk about taxes and the role of government. We need language that defines taxes as the price of being a patriotic American. Taxes paid by previous generations are what made possible the infrastructure on which we rely now…the highways, the education system, the electric power grid, and the justice system…all of it. Tea Party conservatives seem to view themselves as self reliant, but they are failing to recognize the enormous public and social infrastructure on which they rely and that makes their way of life possible. We need to convince ordinary Americans on the right that the infrastructure on which they depend must be maintained and enhanced in order for our way of life to be sustained or improved.
In fact, by not paying the taxes needed to maintain our national infrastructure, by not paying the dues for being an American, we are borrowing from the past and robbing from the future of our country. Paying taxes should become an issue of patriotism, but instead, those who oppose taxes are now able to portray taxation as somehow unpatriotic.
Reframing the public discourse is a long-term project. The right began investing in the infrastructure needed to frame public debate in the 1970’s. By 1980, they had Ronald Reagan, who was able to use the infrastructure the right had developed and win the presidency. The left needs to begin to invest in the same sorts of infrastructure that the right has been building for decades. That won’t be an easy transition, based on the worldview of the left, but it must be done.
Progressive Democrats need to focus on identity and ideas, and move away from marketing issues they think will resonate with voters. And above all, they need to learn how to talk about identity and ideas in ways that ordinary Americans can understand. It seems that when Democrats do talk about ideas and identity, they open themselves up to charges of elitism, East- and West-Coast intellectualism that is removed from the realities of working Americans. That is a failure of conceptual framing of our public discussion. We live in a sound bite era, and Progressives have yet to figure out how to talk about ideas and identity in sound bites. The right does this very well. And that is why they win at the ballot box.
Paul Crist Post 