The Republican Party Bumble
As a contest among candidates of varying trajectories, a normal presidential primary rewards a party's best possible foot forward. In this year's Republican primary, however, one wonders whether the fates are conspiring to do the opposite; to place before the electorate a borderline buffoon, or perhaps an out-and-out crank case.
Whatever the particulars, it seems all but inevitable that the party finishing second in five of the past six presidential ballots will want to somehow reinvent itself if it loses yet again. This would be akin to the Democratic party's move to the center under Carter and Clinton after a flirtation with the left that was the '60s and George McGovern. Herewith I lay out positions that those undertaking such an endeavor might consider.
#1: Money. This one's easy. Simply chart a course based on Econ. 101. Give up the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that is Supply Side theory: that cutting taxes will increase government revenue; been there, done that under Bush--disastrous. In general, Econ 101 recommends expansive monetary and fiscal policy when a recession threatens, and belt-tightening when inflation becomes a problem.
#2: Safety Net. Here's a no-brainer. Social Security, Medicare and other assorted safety net programs are popular, they're relied on, and aside from efficiency tweaks here and there, the status quo works well. The fate of George W. Bush's second term, with his famous line that he'd spend political capital on privatizing social security, should serve as a warning: simply put, he courted yet another disaster.
#3: World. While US standing in the world has improved under our current president, there's little interest here in this country in more foreign adventure, thanks to the demoralizing mess that was the Iraq war. In fact, foreign aid is by far the least supported government function. So, shake it up.
Zero out all foreign aid and instead, channel humanitarian aid through the Red Cross and other similar agencies, and reconfigure the rest--minus some budget reduction--into a reward-for-good-behavior style competition. Individual nations would be ranked by international experts using various metrics like education spending, human rights, environmental preservation, government transparency, etc., Self-selected countries would submit development plans, and if meeting a minimum rank could be the winner of loans and grants. The loans would be from a revolving fund invested for profit in specific locations and endeavors. There would also be general grants to a government's agencies for infrastructure, education, health, protecting wildlife, etc.
Each global region might have an annual semi-final contest, with the final selection announced to the world in a varying location each year, much like the Olympics. The strength of each country's plans would be weighed against its 'good-behavior' rank. The winner's plans would then be described in a video made following the awards ceremony.
Nice, but why would this be any more likely than giving our allies aid packages as we do now?
First, consider magnitude. If a developing country's economy receives $100 million for infrastructure, that might raise the country's GDP by a fraction of a percent. If instead, the amount is in the billions (ideally, other wealthy countries would join the project and multiple winners could be chosen each year), the effect would be to raise an average-sized economy out of recession and set it on a growth trajectory.
Second, consider incentive. A country's leaders charting a future for their people will have an additional reason to choose what's best for their nation in terms of education, human rights, environmental protection, etc. This would be especially so once a neighboring people enjoy a rising standard of living thanks to winning a previous contest.
Because some countries have larger populations and economies than others, judges would want to select recipients as if an endowment were being tapped. So, if the Gambia were to be jump-started one year, perhaps there would be enough for Peru or Afghanistan the next.
Essentially, Republicans would be taking a Democratic solution, multilateral initiative (instead of military goofs), and giving it a Republican twist: competition, and may the best plans win.
#4 Social Issues. Here, there's no sense in abandoning conservatism, just in shading towards a libertarian viewpoint, which would mean consideration by enough voters to reach a winning 50%. The extra voters added would be those turned off by government telling them what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. When applied to certain hot-button issues, this will upset core conservatives; but given the liberalism of the Democratic party, Republican base voters will still vote red, and any trade-off will be worth it for Republicans, if they eventually win. So, a move towards treating drug addiction as a medical condition; a de-emphasis on abortion (perhaps brought about by the Zika virus) and LGBT matters, as well as taking a few steps towards controling police overreach (asset forfeiture laws, for example).
#5 Taxes. The toughest nut to crack when re-imagining Republican principles is likely to be tax policy. There have been enumerable alternatives proposed: flat taxes, value-added taxes, even eliminating the IRS; all usually involving the removal of deductions and special interest tax breaks.
Whatever the plan, the effect should be to target the average worker, rather than the rich. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to bring in a handful of tax experts, have them critique a Republican candidate's plan, and adjust the details until the particulars meet the criteria; working stiff or bust. This alone would change the image that many Americans have of Republicans as a party that helps the super rich at the expense of everyone else.
#6 Women's Rights. This is arguably the most important change that could be made. Until Republicans can better appeal to female voters, nothing else will matter. Unfortunately, this is an attitude that simply can't be taught. Either one legitimately wants to help working mothers and their children, for example, or one doesn't.
#7 Energy. As with #4, there's only so much change possible without alienating too large a segment of the Republican base. One possible solution is to eliminate all 'special interest' energy subsidies, meaning no loan guarantees for new nuclear plants, no tax write-offs for oil and gas drilling, etc.
A more likely approach would be to gradually roll out an admission that climate change must be dealt with and explain this change as the conservative thing to do. Emphasize the sacrifices made by those who lived through the 1930s and '40s and frame the necessary changes to be made as a latter-day off-shoot of that era's grit and determination.
#8 Immigration. Since it would be all but impossible to convince a majority of Republicans to rethink their views on Immigration, all that is left is a different emphasis for essentially the same policies.
Rather than speak of the undesirability of certain people, focus on the traditionally 'conserve-ative' notion that our natural world is being stretched thin by an ever expanding population, and that immigration is the primary driver behind that increase; therefore, cutting back on immigration is conservative-minded, has nothing to do with excluding certain groups, but rather, serves to preserve nature.
#9 Guns. It's obvious that too many criminals and mentally ill people are getting a hold of guns. But "Gun Control" and "Background Checks" are terms that the conservative base has learned to hate, so a new slogan is needed; one such might be Only Good Guys Get Guns, or O, Gx4, for short.
#10. Voting. If there is anything that would signal a significant shift in the direction of the Republican party, from white, male, fat cats to the all-inclusive, big tent of yore, it would be the abandonment of efforts to restrict voting (voter ID requirements, denial of voting rights to the formerly incarcerated, under-funded and insufficiently numerous polling stations--in select precincts, resisting the move to vote-by-mail, and on-line voting, etc.)
#11. War. After the invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush it was thought unlikely that the US would allow itself to be dragged into yet more conflicts overseas. But as populations continue to grow, resources like water and land grow ever scarcer, and climate becomes ever less benevolent, there will be an ever increasing temptation for 'action' in one part of the world or another. The Republican party could erase much of the stigma of the Iraq debacle by laying out parameters on overseas military action that effectively limit the future temptation to getting involved in regional conflict.
#12. Wealth. There are essentially three ways for a government to increase wealth: 1. increase it by investing in infrastructure; 2. redistribute it so that it grows at a faster pace; and 3. raise worker enthusiasm, and thus productivity. Republicans, historically, have focused on #1. Democrats usually emphasize #2. And both parties address #3.
Examples of #1 are the Transcontinental Railway, Land Grant Colleges, the Panama Canal, and the Interstate Highway system. An example of #2 is the graduated Income Tax coupled with the federal government's safety net. For Republicans, #3 is normally seen as protecting the interests of the self-employed farmer and businessperson. For Democrats, #3 is seen as encouraging worker-owned businesses, where profit is shared.
For the most part, modern Republicans have abandoned any talk of developing infrastructure, and instead focus all their attention on business. The modern workplace, however, where a vast majority of Americans find themselves every day, has seen the birth of another kind of worker enthusiasm. This involves the gamification of labor, where, when done well, worker enthusiasm is rewarded with a large share of profits resulting from increased productivity.
Gamified labor is essentially the 21st century's answer to the self-employed population's dwindling numbers, voters who are traditionally Republican. Here we have what is perhaps the most likely basis for a Republican reboot.
How would the federal government encourage gamification? First, by enforcing labor laws (including a living minimum wage), so that gamification is done well, with a large share of the increase in worker productivity going to workers; this, as opposed to mere plaques, twinkly stars worn around necks, reduced base wages and the like. Second, by implementing gamified labor in the federal workforce wherever possible. And third, by developing a tax break for increases in productivity experienced in the years following a business' implementing gamification.
I describe gamified labor's potential in my own workplace.
#13. House Mind. There has always been a gap in America's representative democracy, between what the people want and what their representatives put forward. If your House member is beholden to special interests for his re-election purse, there is always the temptation to bend the will of the people to suit his money-bags' interest.
But what if modern polling techniques and the internet could force politicians to bend to the will of constituents, instead of the other way around? Here's a plan that accomplishes just that, and all Republicans need do is claim credit for cleaning up our political process.
No comments:
Post a Comment