Conservative positions on income inequality are often cast by the wayside. In a certain way, they are considered as fossils: They can teach us about the failures of the past, but they are never considered as any type of solution.
This isn’t without reason. After all, as Josh Barro, politics editor at Business Insider, told the HPR, “when you cut taxes, you’ll have more income inequality.” By this standard, so the argument goes, conservative policy of the past could have exacerbated the problem of income inequality. It is this kind of policy, progressives claim, that shows that conservatives don’t care about fixing the issue of the increasing economic divide.
This characterization, however, seriously underestimates conservative ideas. The image of conservatives as heartless plutocrats is not only misinformed; it’s dangerously naïve. At the same time, though, many conservatives’ refusal to cobble together a comprehensive plan to tackle growing inequality ensures that this image will remain firmly planted in the public’s mind.
Half-Measures
In order to better understand where conservatives come from it is important to first note the gripes that they have with the current conversation regarding inequality. As several studies have noted, most notably those done by Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez, income inequality has been in an upward trend since the 1980s, extending to the present day.
Nevertheless, according to Aparna Mathur, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former consultant to the World Bank, these statistics present only “half the picture.” According to her, the “poor are increasing their income.” If you were to compare those in the lower classes today with those twenty years ago, their lives would be better off, in many respects.
This argument itself, however, can be misleading. After all, one’s ability to own a microwave or a computer speaks more about the increasing technological advances of our society than anything else. This is something that the inequality studies of the past have not taken into account; after all, the census data comes “pre-packaged for consumer income,” according to Kevin Hassett, the Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. When considering only consumer income, you leave out other important measures that give us a fuller picture of inequality
Bullet Points
Nevertheless, trying to change the conversation doesn’t suffice in actually dealing with the issue. Even though current measures may exaggerate how big of an issue inequality is, it is still very much a problem. As Barro mentioned several times, 95 percent of the economic gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent of Americans. No matter your ideological leaning, this is not healthy for an economy.
So, what can be done? Hassett puts it succinctly when he mentions that the government’s role is not to “police inequality, but poverty.” Even conservatives believe that the government has a role to play in improving the economic condition of those in the lower classes. Exactly what the course of action should be, though, is a hotly contested point, especially among the right.
This schism is especially evident when it comes to globalization, an issue that conservatives agree the government can regulate. Matthew Continetti, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, is quick to point to the negative effects that globalization has had on lower-income American workers. It’s not really a point of contention; after all, without globalization, America would have a tighter labor market, which translates to more jobs for Americans.
But Barro contends that the issue isn’t that simple: inequality is a global phenomenon; and “[putting up] additional barriers is not desirable if you’re looking at the issue from a global basis.” Instead of focusing solely on American interests regarding inequality, we need to be aware of the effects that our policies will have around the world. Barro, though, is in the minority of conservatives who hold this view.
The issue does not necessarily lie with a lack of low skilled workers themselves, Hassett says. Rather, it’s the fact that low skilled workers have no other jobs to do that shows the true nature of the problem. “Politicians,” says Hassett, “need to recognize the long-term unemployment problem.” Rhetorically, he advocates calling this issue a “national emergency” and putting Washington to work in subsidizing workers who want to go back to school to acquire new skills. This proves a reality that seems to have gone unrecognized in today’s political climate: conservatives don’t always want less government, just a more efficient one.
This applies especially to welfare measures. Mathur speaks of the many tax credits available to those in lower socioeconomic brackets that people simply don’t know about. According to Mathur, more effort should be placed on campaigns to make people aware of benefits such as the child-tax credit. This coincides with a tax reform plan introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) which includes extended credits for families with children.
Face-Off
Even these ideas, though, are not enough to convince many on the left of the need for reframing the debate After all, income inequality gap is very easy to run on as a politician. As Continetti says, though, this is “not a left-right issue.”
Hearing it from many on the left, however, would make you draw a different impression. Hassett is quick to point out that he doesn’t think that many politicians are being disingenuous when they talk about inequality. But he chuckles as he says, “It’s a proven political strategy.”
Of course, conservative haven’t made it easy on themselves. Continetti and many others are firmly against immigration reform because of the previously mentioned globalization effect. In his words, we have to “cut off the supply of illegal immigrants” if we hope to leave these low wage jobs for Americans at home. This position is controversial among some on the right, not to mention on the left.
This same tone carries over into the minimum wage debate. After all, if we hope to keep jobs here, increasing wages makes it harder for domestic companies to maintain those same jobs. That defeats the purpose, says Hassett, of giving companies incentive to not relocate offshore.
These two areas already invite controversy, even without considering the proposed tax reform advocated by Republicans. Despite the good ideas presented in Senator Lee’s plans, he is still in effect calling for a congressionally unpopular flat tax rate. All of this amounts to a conservative agenda that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have rallied against. In the end, it’s difficult to see any substantive solutions being proposed in the near future.
Moderates like Barro may be the best hope of actual substantive reform that incorporates both conservative and liberal ideas. While a small tax hike on the upper income brackets would not affect our economy, he states that it is not a long-term solution. Although it can’t hurt, it doesn’t help, and such a politically contentious proposition would serve more as a moral point than anything else.
Dead Freight
America doesn’t need a lesson in morality; both parties have tried this approach to explain their worldviews. What the nation needs are real, long-term solutions. The issue of inequality is one that covers a wide range of topics, almost all of which are thorny. Nevertheless, many of the conservative ideas that would help fix the problem are not politically feasible.
There is still hope, however. Hassett’s calls for dealing with long-term unemployment, undertaken in part by this administration, have proven effective in bringing people back to the workforce with new, dynamic skills, something this writer’s family can personally attest to. Mathur’s emphasis on making people aware of the tax benefits available to them, while not a long-term solution, is a way to make sure that those that need help get it. Even Continetti, whose views would place him near the far right of the political spectrum, is focused on bringing back much-needed manufacturing jobs. These are all issues that those on the left and the right can agree to work on.
In the struggle against inequality, conservative ideas should not be fossilized as we go forward with more progressive ones. Many of these ideas are still relevant, and their reforms represent plausible solutions that both sides can work with. The current grandstanding in Washington, though, prevents any of this from happening. If this pointless fight continues, Continetti says, “the poor will be frozen in amber.” And that’s the type of fossil that comes back to haunt us.
Image Credit: Alex Proimos, Fotopedia.com
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.