By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Stung by the historic defeat in last year’s presidential election, the GOP has embarked upon a relaunch of its ideology. RNC chair Reince Priebus has approved a strategy paper (click to read) composed by Republican bigwigs Henry Barbour (Haley’s nephew) and Ari Fleischer that makes a remarkable discovery:
The Republican Party must be the champion of those who seek to climb the economic ladder of life. Low-income Americans are hard-working people who want to become hard-working middle-income Americans. Middle-income Americans want to become upper-middle-income, and so on. We need to help everyone make it in America.
Yep, the party who deifies the man who made lots of political hay denigrating mythical “welfare queens,” and whose successors famously referred to President Obama as the “Food Stamp President” has figured out that in this democracy votes still trump principles — even long-held despicable ones. Republicans, it seems, can read a demographic map and, due in large part to the anti-poverty positions they have rammed through Congress (sometimes with the help of Democratic presidents), the Nation is mostly poorer. In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. That’s about 46 million Americans living below the poverty line.
Poverty in America charts remarkably close to the party in power — at least for some population groups. In the 1950s, overall poverty was an astonishing 22.4%. A steady decline through the 1960s was fostered by the much maligned, but factually effective, “War On Poverty” of the Kennedy, Johnson (and yes), the Nixon Administrations. Poverty bottomed out in 1973 with the rate standing at roughly 11%. During the ensuing decade, poverty remained more or less constant at between 11.1 to 12.6%. Then came the right-wing Reagan Revolution in 1980 where being poor was somehow seen as akin to being criminal. Reagan made that connection explicit for any GOP dolt too dull to spew the bile on their own, and the “War To Resume Poverty” was on. During the 80s, the US poverty rate climbed steadily back to 15.2% representing about 35 million Americans. Reagan was an unrelenting slasher of programs such as Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), and subsidized housing. But, Reagan was careful not to hurt programs for the elderly who formed a core of the Republicans’ voting base. In fact, the poverty rate for US citizens over 65-years-old actually steadily declined from its high point in the 1960s.
Came the 90s and the Clinton Administration. Poverty again made a sea change and began declining. Such factors as the growing economy had its effect, but Clinton was a proponent of Reagan’s policy of “workfare” and his historic reform of welfare undoubtedly hindered that process despite the overall poverty rate decline to 11.3% in 2000. Predictably the poverty rate has increased under succeeding Republican administrations to its 2010 level.
The effects of poverty haven’t hit across the board as many know. Here’s how the National Poverty Center explains the level of poverty for various socio-economic groups:
The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.
Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2010, 31.6 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 15.8 percent of households headed by single men and 6.2 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.
There are also differences between native-born and foreign-born residents. In 2010, 19.9 percent of foreign-born residents lived in poverty, compared to 14.4 percent of residents born in the United States. Foreign-born, non-citizens had an even higher incidence of poverty, at a rate of 26.7 percent.
What the Republicans have discovered — with a cold slap across the face in 2012 election — is that these populations vote. As they become larger segments of the voting class, their impact is made known. How else to explain the plethora of GOP backed voter fraud laws requiring picture id? Republicans know full-well the group least likely to own a car and hence possess a readily obtainable picture id are the poor.
Predictably, the Republicans paint a rosy picture of this sad demographic in the strategy paper:
The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious [Republicans’] position has become. America is changing demographically, and unless Republicans are able to grow our appeal … the changes tilt the playing field even more in the Democratic direction.
Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson takes the issue head-on: “One of the biggest brand challenges for the GOP is to credibly demonstrate they are a party for everyone, not just the rich.” Take that Gov. Romney and your 47% quip. Here’ s the exiting polling from the 2012 election by income level. Note the disparity:
The old GOP canard about low-income folks not voting has finally been exposed for what it was. One of the reasons the Republicans were so astonished at their loss at the polls was their belief the American people would punish Obama for the bad economy. Central to that tenet was that low-income groups were most affected by the bank-driven recession and would throw the bums out. That political calculation was turned on its head as poor whites joined poor ethnic voters to elect Obama.
Thus the GOP stands at a cross-road between their extreme right-wing, every-man-for-himself ideology and recognizing political reality. Wrought by policies they espoused, the poor have roared back to take away what the Right deems most important of all — an unfettered, perpetual deed to the White House. Some in the GOP haven’t gotten the message yet, like firebrand Paul Ryan. Ryan recently announced his plan to slash $1.4 Million from Medicaid. A paltry amount by Washington standards but hugely important from a symbolic point of view. To add some insult, the staunchly religious Ryan (who claims the budget is closely in line with his Catholic upbringing) proposed 3.3 trillion dollars in budget cuts over a ten-year span with a full 66% of that amount coming from programs specifically designed to aid the poor, all the while reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In addition his plan –passed by the House this week but rejected by the Senate — would severely limit eligibility for most other programs. You can read about the specifics of the plan in the Huff Post article here.
All in all, the GOP has quite the conundrum. Accede to the most radical elements of its party and watch its political power ebb, or embrace the view of more moderate elements and accept a “Big Tent” strategy. The decision hinges mightily on the feelings of the poor — a circumstance that could not be more irritating for the party who helped create them.
Source: Salon; Huff Post; National Poverty Center, and throughout
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Ari Fleischer… Wasn’t he the one advising Tiger Woods after being a mouthpiece for Dubya? Is he back? Fantastic! We were beginning to run out of red meat.
Great job Mark. It is amazing that the Republicans think that saying out one side of their mouth that they want to include everyone in their tent, and then pushing for and voting for a budget that cuts the heart out of the poor and middle class in order to protect the tent owners, the rich and corporate entities, out the other side of their mouths.
Meet DirtyDog. He is new to the marina and Dogpac. He is guide dog to blind guy with boat and he guides while blind guy steers the tiller. They leave the fenders out on the side in case of collision. Another new dog to the pac is Early&OftenDog. He was a Democrat and former Party Hack in his prior life as a human.
How did the Party of Lincoln end up so far South. It used to be that a Red State was someplace in Eastern Europe. Now ya got Red State/Blue State, north and south. Southern Strategy of Lee Atwater worked out fine. Except that Obama won the Electoral Vote and Mittster won the South. Solid South for Mitt. And Haley.
Is Haley Barbour from Mississippi or Alabama?
@ Dredd, Bron
“Bailing out banks is not capitalism but fascism or socialism and most of us free market types were manifestly against from the beginning.”
Actually, the first central bank, set up by Alexander Hamilton, was a rats nest of insider info and coflict of interest by the Founding Fathers.
It was chartered for 20 years to pay off the national debt. The first Congress, who created the bank, knew the bank would succeed because they had a plan to discharge the debt, so when they themselves bought stock in the bank they created, with a congressional plan to make the bank succeed, I don’t really think that’s what “free markets” are really about.
The debt they were paying off was 4/5 domestic debt, in the form of depreciated government IOU’s issued to revolutionary soldiers. The soldiers sold their depreciated IOU’s to recoup some of their losses. It was the urban financial interests who had disposable income enough to buy up the depreciated debt.
An important part of Hamilton’s debt repayment scheme (read: the Founding Fathers, acting as speculators on the success of the new government, organized a payout for themselves) involved paying off the IOU’s at face value. There was no market mechanism to support this payout: it was pure abuse of power.
As I indicated earlier, though, this was part of a larger cultural milieu that treats the poor as poor due to moral defect, and the wealthy as entitled to wealth due to moral superiority. It is the same reasoning that slave-holders applied to their chattel: it was their Christian duty to teach the the African brutes civilization through bondage.
The Founders (and there were many of them who were not named Jefferson) left plenty of evidence as to their views on these matters. As I indicated earlier, the Articles of Confederation is one of the most unequivocal pieces of evidence they left:
Article IV of the Articles of Confederation begins:
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states.”
Note, “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice” are “excepted” from the “privileges and immunities of free citizens.”
Not only to blacks and women not count, but hippies and the poor were classed with criminals.
FartinDog always relates to the smelly parts of the RepubliCon anatomy.
Ari Fleischer and Haley Barbour. Now there is a pair. Neither rhymne nor reason can keep the world safe for democracy when such a Twain shall meet. Nice southern accent brings the Southern Strategy. Articulate California accent brings the business strategy.
Ari, ari bo barbie, bannan fanna for barbie, fee fi mo barbie, Ari.
–Name game!
Dredd:
a plutocrat is not a capitalist. John Galt was not a plutocrat, he was more of a hippie, he wanted to be left alone to do his own thing in freedom and peace. A hippie without the bad hair and clothes and who used his mind to better his lot in life.
Ayn Rand was against plutocracy, oligarchy, dictatorship and any other similar form of tyranny. All the Objectivists I know wanted the government to stay out of the banking industry.
Bron 1, March 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Dredd:
Bailing out banks is not capitalism but fascism or socialism and most of us free market types were manifestly against from the beginning.
==============================
Agreed.
Mark,
I noticed this discussion of a Brookings Instutite report:
(Huffpo). Anyway, thanks for bringing the topic up for discussion.
Dredd:
Bailing out banks is not capitalism but fascism or socialism and most of us free market types were manifestly against from the beginning. The market should have been allowed to work to iron out the malinvestment, the bail-out prevented this and we are still feeling the pain 5 years later and may feel it for much longer. Look at Japan, they have refused for 20 plus years to allow market forces to work.
Republicans are going to ignore the cause of poverty and become more like democrats.
Isnt that just great.
Instead of examining the causes of powerty, they are going to throw more money at the problem instead of taking steps necessary to eliminate the cause.
Wealth creation is the only way to eliminate poverty, the superior system for wealth creation is capitalism.
More economic and political freedom is the way to reduce or eliminate powerty, not less.
Bron 1, March 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm
“Any economist who suggests he has a complete answer to the causes of affluence should be viewed with suspicion.We do not know fully what makes some societies richer than others.
==================================
Oh contrare.
Say the word “plunder” when explaining what has happened to the American middle class.
(and see this).
Good post, Mespo. The hypocrisy of this Republican pitch tops the paternalistic way Dems treat the poor and people of color.
Bron, I would refer you to the Mike S series of posts on feudalism and plutocracy.
“Any economist who suggests he has a complete
answer to the causes of affluence should be viewed
with suspicion.We do not know fully what makes some
societies richer than others. However, we can make
guesses based on correlations. Start out by rankingcountries according to their economic systems. Conceptually
we could arrange them from more capitalistic
(having a larger free-market sector) to more communistic
(with extensive State intervention and planning).
Then consult Amnesty International’s ranking of countries
according to human-rights abuses.Then get World
Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest
to lowest per capita income.
Compiling the three lists, one would observe a very
strong, though imperfect, correlation: Those countries
with greater economic liberty tend also to have
stronger protections of human rights.And their people
are wealthier.That finding is not a coincidence, so let us
speculate on the relationship.”
Poverty Is Easy to Explain
B Y WA LT E R E . WI L L I AMS
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/May11.pdf
Dredd, Yes, Netflix has “Marjoe” (I left the “e” off up thread- sorry). It won the 1972 Oscar for best documentary. Not much has changed in the business model. Look it up on IMDB or Wikipedia if you’re not familiar with it. True believers and the business of fleecing them revealed by one of their own.
Pat 1, March 24, 2013 at 11:12 am
… it all cannot be blamed on the Republicans.
Democrats have been the majority in congress and the President was also a democrat for the last five years …
========================================
True it can’t all be blamed on the Republicans, but this post is about their ideology.
Paul Ryan, who is chair of the House Budget Committee, which is charged by the U.S. Constitution with preparing the budget, is a follower of Ayn Rand (In his own words I quoted up-thread).
The House has been Republican for two election cycles now, and they are in charge of starting the budget:
(Wikipedia). Either the House, the Senate, or the President can shoot down budget legislation, since it is a bicameral congress, and the president can veto.
It has turned into an infantile game of chicken since the Republicans have threatened to shut down government for years, and so far the Democrats have not called their bluff sufficiently.
The gerrymandering of House Districts by Republican State legislatures following the 2010 census can only keep the Republicans in for so long.
Because there is a census redistricting only every ten years, but an election every two, they are continuing to damage their prospects for holding the House in 2014.
How Not to be Poor-
Public Service Announcement from Dr. Walter E. Williams: