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
SwM,
Jeb is the anointed one … if he wants it … remember Romney … nothing has changed
I honestly have no real inkling what the Democrats are planning … Hillary, Biden or another unknown like Obama? I just don’t know
Bron 1, March 24, 2013 at 12:33 pm
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 …
============================================
A capitalist is anything a capitalist wants to be to get as much money as possible, which boils down to greed all too often.
It is the ultimate shape shifter ideology, which along with its user crosses ok from time to time on its way to this or that form of oppression.
Like many other “isms.”
I recently read the article “Is Capitalism Moral” and commented how inane such a question is.
It is like asking “is a hammer moral”, because both are inanimate.
Any idolaters who worship hammers or capitalism are, shall we say, “imaginative.”
Paul Ryan is imaginative concerning Ayn Rand, from whom he got his ideology and purpose for “public service”, as I noted up-thread.
Others have correctly observed of her:
(Ayn Rand: Patron Saint of The Plutocracy – 2, emphasis added). You not only have it wrong Bron, you are not even in the ballpark.
Ayn Rand is as unAmerican as any psychotic ever, and has nothing to do with capitalism, except for using it as an evil tool of various psychotic plutocrats.
Her mind was ravaged with everything wrong on this planet and in this country.
Lawrence:
I wasn’t just referring to the logjam that you have suggested, which I would agree with you, I am talking globally about both their irresponsibility to the public for putting our country into the situation it is in; especially with regard to the mounting debt and the other inequities that have resulted. I don’t like their overbearing approach to civil liberties or getting us into actions that young men and women have to bear the must tragic of pains (such as wars or lost opportunities or economic subjugation.)
rafflaw, This post is about pandering to the poor and that’s about which I spoke.
Indigo, You’re preaching to the choir w/ me and speaking in tongues to the duopoly sycophants.
Blouise, Jeb Bush will be the moderate in the race. Rand Paul is attempting to get the Santorum vote with his “personhood” bill. He is courting the libertarian and christianist vote at the same time. Don’t know if it will work. Hillary might be able to expand the Obama coalition from 51% to 54%.
Thanks, Blouise. I ‘ll make that correction.
“Priebus and the five authors of the report – Henry Barbour (nephew of former R.N.C. chairman Haley Barbour) of Mississippi, Zori Fonalledas of Puerto Rico, and Glenn McCall of South Carolina, all members of the R.N.C., along with Sally Bradshaw, an adviser to Jeb Bush, and Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to George W. Bush – were far more blunt in their analysis than many expected.” (NYTimes) (The report was released on 3/18)
Jeb Bush at CPAC dinner on 3/15:
“In our country today, if you’re born poor, if your parents didn’t go to college, if you don’t know your father, if English isn’t spoken at home, then the odds are stacked against you. You are more likely to stay poor today than at any other time since World War II.”
” … The face of the Republican Party needs to be the face of every American, and we need to be the party of inclusion and acceptance. It’s our heritage and it’s our future and we need to couch our efforts in those terms,”
“Our central mission as conservatives is to reignite social and economic mobility in this country.”
Straight out of Growth and Opportunity Project
@bron,
I wish Ron Paul would have run as an actual libertarian.
If he got 5% of the popular vote, he could have qualified a libertarian party for federal matching funds the next season. Instead he ran as a Republican, and with the Citizens United ruling, the federal campaign matching system is now irrelevant. That’s a real opportunity missed.
INDIGO:
you mean vote Libertarian? I can do that with no problem if they give up anarchy and just talk about limited, small government.
Darren and Nick.,
First of all, the idea that the Democrats are just as responsible for the logjam in congress is not borne out by the facts. Just who has filibustered bills over 300 times since Obama took office? How many times has the House voted to repeal Obamacare since it began 3 years ago, when they as a group knew it would not pass the Senate or be signed by President Obama?
I am not suggesting that the Democrats are not looking after the corporations and the wealthy more than they should, but to suggest there is an equal responsibility for deadlock is not accurate.
Secondly, The only way any progress in the political system will occur is when the money is taken out of politics. Members of Congress have to continually fund raise for their next election. Senators have 6 years to fund raise, but they have to raise even more money for a state wide campaign. Get the private money out of the system and you will jump start any reform, imo.
@darren, nick, bron,
If you’re sick of the two party system, nothing will change so long as you keep voting for Demoncrats and Republicans. If you think polarization is a problem in American politics, more polarization is unlikely to be the solution.
Consider the following novel approach to protest voting:
Voting behavior has a minimal impact on policy in large part because it is primarily a means of legitimating the power structure from which both parties derive their influence. The current power structure prevents citizens from effectively lobbying Congress, replaces dignified work with automation, uses higher education to turn students into indentured servants, and provides no viable means to halt the post-911 erosion of civil liberties. Leadership is not a viable means to enact social change because belief in political leadership is itself a tool used to enforce conformity. Conformists don’t bring about social change.
An alternative to 3rd party voting, which is often denigrated as “throwing your vote away” is to use voting as a means to coordinate the attitudes of the disaffected — that is, to use the existing electoral system for a purpose other than installing an individual in office. Such an alternate use of voting would be to vote for yourself as a write in candidate coupled with the determined advocacy of this same tactic.
The advantages of such a voting tactic are multi-faceted:
1. Focuses on individual initiative rather than rely on some external organization for efficacy
2. If enough people participate, will create a spectacle that the media can’t spin.
3. Lets disaffected voters know how many others like them are out there as a pre-requisite for more organized behavior
4. Gives voters the choice to vote for what they believe in rather than against what they fear
5. Non-violent
6. Inexpensive
7. Able to distinguish the angry voting abstainers from the apathetic non-voters
It is important to the success of such a tactic that participants vote for themselves and not a third-party candidate as a “protest vote.” The objective is to create a numerical anomaly in the election results that neither the media nor the political establishment can spin by creating a disparity between the number of ballots cast and the number of votes leading candidates receive. The purpose is to refuse to legitimize a corrupt system.
If a prospective participant is afraid of becoming a “spoiler” and tipping the election in favor of “the other side,” then, first and foremost, advocacy of this tactic should be directed towards non-voters who don’t vote for major parties anyway.
Also, keep in mind another way of interpreting how close our elections have become:
In 2000, the Florida recount was triggered by statute because less than 0.5% of votes separated Bush from Gore. If one denies that the election was rigged, one must then accept that an election settled by less than the statistical margin of error by definition says nothing about voter preference. An election so close might as well be settled by chance.
A statistically-significant degree of participation in such an action would be 5% of the popular vote, as this is what is required for federal election matching funds. This could be the youth vote. The purpose is to create a numerical “black hole” that the nation will have to examine, both in terms of voter preferences and with respect to the integrity of the voting system overall.
If you’re like most voters, then you believe polarization is a problem in contemporary American politics. Voting for Democrats and Republicans will only lead to more polarization, and is not a viable solution. At some point, citizens are going to have to take just a little bit of a risk and change their behavior. Anybody who looks towards the risks taken by protesters in the Arab Spring should consider engaging with this more modest risk.
Bron:
That’s a tough call.
mespo:
I would vote for Obama for a third term before I voted for Jeb Bush, 2 of them are enough.
Blouse:
Funny thing is that he’s not even mentioned in the strategy paper though Rubio, Ryan and plenty others are as GOP leaders who appeal to young or Hispanic voters.
Jeb Bush played an active role in the development of this re-branding … it’s his candidacy in 2016 that;s at stake.
The Republican party as a whole has no desire to actually help the poor. They only desire to keep themselves in power to make themselves richer.
That said, you are only fooling yourself if you think the Democrats are much better.
Obama is a Wall Street puppet. Time to face the facts.
Darren, Amen brother. My attitude is summed up in the rap song by Senator Jay Bulworth.
Both political parties on the federal level are responsible for the legislative and fiscal mess forced upon the citizens of the US. Unfortunately for all of us when one party becomes out of favor, the response is to switch alignment to the other side with the belief they will be the saviors. In time, even that will swing the other way, the worst case scenario for either party is to be delayed a bit until it swings in their favor later. Neither party is completely a saint or a sinner, but in my view they are both failing the citizenry greatly for their own agendas or benefit.
I would certainly like to see a benevolent thrid party come forth that won’t be crushed politically or legally by either party. But, the two are too entrenched to be displaed that easily. Voting every incumbent out of office would be a good start.
When any individual or group’s political commitments trump their commitment to the facts expect gibberish like the Growth and Opportunity Project to emerge.
Mark has done us a huge favor in analyzing this latest bit of nonsense.
Lotta is also correct that this is the new re-branding phrase. It will replace past phrases such as Family Values, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Tea Party with GOP, the Growth and Opportunity Party. And just as there were no values within the family or actual morality within the majority, there will be little opportunity or growth within the project or the party.
So I repeat: When any individual or group’s political commitments trump their commitment to the facts expect gibberish like the Growth and Opportunity Project to emerge.