President Obama proclaimed it the “defining challenge of our time.” The New York Times published a series of articles entitled “The Great Divide.” Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century became the must-read book of the spring. Political discussion on the Left had seemingly become about two words: income inequality.
Democrats in academia and politics have been harping on this issue to great effect, and though they found success hard to come by in the most recent midterms, polling data has shown the public trusts Democrats more on everything from “protecting the middle class” to issues like raising the minimum wage, and believes that Democrats, not Republicans, “are more concerned with the needs of people like them.”
Yet Democratic emphasis on income inequality has failed to translate to comprehensive policy ideas. Democrats have rallied around increasing the minimum wage, but have failed to make any progress on the issue nationally. Such a gap between message and action creates an opportunity for the Republicans now in total control of the legislative branch to propose a policy agenda aimed at addressing questions of inequality, chipping away at their reputation as the “party of no” and regaining an identity as the party of ideas. They can do so by focusing on education reform and the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and if they unite under one strong, respected leader, they may be able to do just that.
It’s Education, Stupid
Education is an issue that could prove especially vulnerable for Democrats in the income inequality debate. Should Republicans bring the issue to the forefront of the national debate, Democrats would be hamstrung by their traditional association with teachers unions and resistance to changes in tenure policy, school choice, or the use of standardized testing as a means of accountability.
“Numerous Republicans would like to take on entrenched interests in the education space over things like tenure that are keeping the current education system in a state that is less adaptive and less innovative,” explained Republic strategist and Daily Beast columnist Kristen Soltis Anderson in an interview with the HPR. “I would love to see the Republican Party take a strong focus on education. If Republicans want to take up the mantle of ‘we want to fix education in this country,’ it’s a mantle ripe for the taking.”
The pieces of such an agenda are starting to come together. Republican governors like Chris Christie (R-N.J.) have been successful in passing sweeping reforms regarding issues like teacher tenure, an especially impressive feat in a blue state like New Jersey. But systemic problems require systemic solutions, and piecemeal legislation passed on a state-by-state basis may have few tangible benefits.
Luckily for Republicans, as Michael Petrilli, president of The Fordham Institute, a conservative education policy think tank, argued, a bold, broad conservative education reform platform already has strong ideological foundations. It involves an emphasis on traditional Republican policy ideas like expansion of vouchers and charter schools, which, Petrilli notes in an interview with the HPR, “have been overwhelmingly positive for poor students … particularly African-Americans.” Such strategies give students a chance to escape failure-ridden schools, increase accountability and teacher tenure reform, and promote acceptance of non-traditional ideas like tracking. Equally important, however, is a reversal in the education reform movement of what Petrilli calls an “obsession with college,” a fixation President Obama undoubtedly added to with his “everyone should attend college” comment.
Obama’s dream is currently far removed from reality. As Petrilli explained, “Only 10-15 percent of low-income students ever earn a college degree.” Raising that to 100 percent is simply unattainable. As such, the tracking solution, where students with the greatest chance to succeed academically take challenging classes with other high-potential students, deals with this alarming statistic in two ways: by giving low-income students who previously lacked the necessary preparation for college a boost to succeed and graduate, and by giving other students who lack the academic skills necessary for college success training in technical and career education, earning them a ticket to the middle class. And as Petrilli notes, a form of tracking already exists in wealthy suburban schools, where top students enroll in AP and IB classes that place them in prime position to compete and succeed in a college atmosphere.
Republicans should also focus on reforming the federal Head Start program, which provides pre-kindergarten classes for low-income children. Reform measures could include increasing accountability via evaluations that analyze students’readiness for kindergarten and making the program much more academically focused, as Petrilli advocates. These reforms would help reduce the advantage wealthier students have before even setting foot in kindergarten classrooms.
And the timing of an emphasis on educational reform could prove especially problematic for Democrats as President Obama completes his last term in office. He has generally supported school choice and suffered a sometimes less-than-cordial relationship with teachers unions. Hilary Clinton, in contrast, has been a much closer and more consistent friend to the teacher’s unions.
Expanding the EITC to Fight Poverty
Republicans also have the policy and ideological blueprint to offer meaningful, means-tested policy solutions to aid low-income citizens today. The key, as Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute explained in an interview with the HPR, is for Republicans to advocate for an expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit as a more effective anti-poverty tool than the minimum wage. In an AEI article, Strain highlights IRS estimates that show the EITC, which specifically targets low-income, working households via a federal subsidy, brought nearly seven million citizens out of poverty in 2009 alone.
In contrast, the minimum wage fails to target the households nearest the poverty line. According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will result in an increase $31 billion in wages for workers. But, as Strain explains in his article, “it turns out that 29 percent of the $31 billion of those extra earnings would flow to families with household earnings of more than three times the poverty level. Only 19 percent of the $31 billion of extra earnings will accrue to households below the poverty line.” In terms of efficacy, Republicans have the facts to make a compelling, specific anti-poverty proposal that could put Democrats on the defensive. Rather than simply filibuster a proposal that enjoys majority support among the public, they have the means to put forth credible legislation.
And most importantly, this way of thinking specifically manifests empathy for the poor. It bypasses the age-old debate over whether raising the minimum wage actually kills jobs, and frames the debate in way that mitigates the traditional Democratic branding of an out-of-touch, nonsensical, and economic theory-driven Republican Party. The messaging is simple: Democrats want to raise up the poor? So do we. The difference is, our policy does it better.
Reagan, Where Art Thou?
But all this ideological and intellectual legwork risks wasting away in think-tank land if Republicans do not unify under a commanding, strong leader. According to Strain, “Many Republicans don’t embrace the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, because the truth is that it is expensive.” The greatest threat to the reform conservative movement may not be the intellectual heft and response of the Democrats but rather the internal dysfunction and extremism of the GOP itself. The radical deficit-hawk, shrink-government-at-all cost wing of the party has taken advantage of a lack of strong Republican leadership, growing to represent a sizeable and serious portion of the party.
This ideological shift remains a large barrier to the reform conservative resurgence insofar as it maintains a strict distaste for any government-aided solution. By putting vague ideological principles above policies that have the potential to empower an amazingly large chunk of the American population, the Rand Paul libertarian wing of the party risks reinforcing the party’s classic branding as one for the rich. As former Republican congressman and current Republican strategist Vin Weber (R-Minn.) explained in an interview with the HPR, “Conservatives believe in solving a lot of these [income inequality-related] problems, though they believe in dealing with them somewhat differently than the Democrats. But the libertarians take the view that there can’t be any proper government role in the solution of any of these problems, which seems to me an insurmountable gap between what I call communitarian conservatives and libertarian conservatives. They’re incompatible.”
This makes the resurgence of the #RonPaulRevolution and its transition to Rand ever more concerning. Rand Paul cannot be the face of a Republican Party that succeeds nationally and solves problems like income inequality, especially when conservative policies that have the largest chance to succeed rely on at least some government action. Strict scrutiny of spending and zero tolerance of spending amount to two distinct ideologies; with issues like the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, Republicans need a leader that adheres to former rather than the latter.
Simply put, the party needs another Reagan. Not in regards to specific polices, per se, but rather a figure that unifies the party and rejuvenates it—a leader that embraces new ideas, rather than simply rejecting old ones. If that happens, Democrats beware.
The “greatest challenge of our time” might actually be solved by a Republican.
Correction (1/28/15): A previous version of this article incorrectly spelled Thomas Piketty’s name. The spelling has since been changed
Image source: Wikipedia
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.