The Politics of Poverty

Mona Charen wrote a convincing article for National Review Online last week on the political upside for Republicans to talking about poverty.  Of course, she's a conservative who believes conservatives have the right answers on poverty, but the unique insight here is on the politics of the issue.  Her conclusion:

[Paul] Ryan is right to see an opportunity for Republicans in talking about poverty. It might improve the Republican brand in the eyes of all voters. It opens a door to talk about the best anti-poverty program — economic growth, which has been conspicuously absent under Obama. It also highlights a fact the Democrats want to bury: All Americans are poorer as a result of Obama’s policies, but the poor are hit hardest.

The article begins and ends with references to Paul Ryan, seemingly the conservative standard-bearer on poverty (and a lot of other issues) right now.  I wrote about his attention to the issue in my first post on this blog.

What I think Charen hints at, but doesn't spend enough time on (perhaps because of space constraints), is that Republicans can use the issue of poverty to win votes, even if they don't win the votes of the poor.  It's going to take an awful lot of work before we change our culture and educate voters to the extent that the poor will vote against hand-outs in favor of economic growth (and the socio-economic mobility and opportunity that come with growth).  I think it will take a lot less work to change the attitudes of voters in other classes when it comes to anti-poverty policies.

My sense is that there are many upper- and middle-class voters who vote against Republicans because they feel charitable toward the poor when they vote for Democrats.  For some, there's a genuine belief that Democrat policies are better for the poor, and that group is going to be difficult to persuade otherwise.  For others, however, there's an uneasiness with Democrat policies (especially no-strings-attached hand-outs), but a greater uneasiness with perceived Republican indifference or hostility to the poor.  These voters can be swayed.  Just talking about poverty would peel off some of the votes Democrats typically receive by swing voters concerned about the poor.  Indeed, I think a sustained push by Republicans just to talk about poverty would astonish a lot of these voters - in a very positive way!  Talking about it persuasively - that is, making the case that Republican policies increase upward mobility and provide a path out of poverty, instead of mere hand-outs - would certainly peel off even more voters.

Conservatives should fight the good fight on poverty because it is a good fight, not because it is a political winner.  But I do believe it is a political winner, and for better or worse, only that argument can convince Republican politicians to talk about it.  So, we should make it.

Incidentally, Charen wrote a book about 10 years ago that struck a chord with me by synthesizing and articulating some ideas that only had been rattling around in my head in my younger years.  Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help provides example after example of the ways in which liberal policies purportedly (often genuinely) designed to help the poor instead have the opposite effect.  That's certainly one of the insights I hope to explore in this blog.  Kudos to Charen for keeping up the good work.