why Mitt Romney failed the presidency

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

– On the back left corner of my desk right now are threerecent books: Arthur Brooks’ The Battle, Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, and Nicholas Eberstadt’s A Nation of Takers.Together, they constitute an important intellectual movement, which alsohappens to be a large part of the reason that American conservatism today haslittle that is constructive to say about managing the economy – and littlepurchase on the center of the American electorate.
But let’s back up historically, to the founding of what wemight call modern conservatism in early nineteenth-century Britain and France.There were some – Frédéric Bastiat and Jean-Baptiste Say come to mind – whobelieved that government should put the unemployed to work buildinginfrastructure when markets or production were temporarily disrupted. But theywere balanced by those like Nassau Senior, who spoke out against even faminerelief: Although a million people would die in the Irish Potato Famine, “thatwould scarcely be enough.”
The main thrust of earlyconservatism was root-and-branchopposition to every form of social insurance: make the poor richer, and theywould become more fertile. As a result, farm sizes would drop (as land wasdivided among ever more children), labor productivity would fall, and the poorwould become even poorer. Social insurance was not just pointless; it was counterproductive.
The proper economic policy was to teach people to venerate the throne (so that theywould respect property), the paternalhearth (so thatthey would not marry imprudently young), and the religious altar (so that they wouldfear pre-marital sex). Then, perhaps, with women chaste for half or more of their childbearingyears, the surplus population would diminish and conditions for the poor wouldbe as good as they could be.
Fast-forward 150 years to post-World War II America, and tothe original Chicago School critique of the New Deal version of socialinsurance – that it created “notches”that pervertedeconomic incentives. The government, Milton Friedman and others argued, toldthe poor: make more money and we will take away your free housing, food stamps,and income support. People are rational, Friedman said, so they will not workfor long if they get nothing or next to nothing for it.
The big difference between the Malthusian conservative critics of socialinsurance in the early nineteenth century and the Chicago critics of the 1970’sis that the Chicago critics had a point: Providing public support to the“worthy” poor, and then removing it when they began to stand on their own feet,poisoned incentives and was unlikely to lead to good outcomes.
And so, from 1970 to 2000, a broad coalition of conservatives (who wantedto see the government stop encouraging immorality), centrists (who wanted government money spenteffectively), and leftists(who wanted poverty alleviated)removed the “notches” from the social-insurance system. Presidents JimmyCarter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and even George W. Bushand their supporters created the current system, in which tax rates and eligibility thresholdsare not punitivedisincentives to enterprise.
So what is the problem that America’s new generation ofconservative critics of social insurance sees? It is not that raising poorpeople’s standard of living above bare subsistence produces Malthusian catastrophe, or that taxesand withdrawal of welfare benefits make people work, at the margin, fornothing.
For Eberstadt, the problem is that dependence on governmentis emasculating,and that too many people are dependent on government. For Brooks, it is thatknowing that public programs make one’s life easier causes one to vote fornon-Republican candidates. For Murray, it is that social insurance means thatbehaving badly does not lead to catastrophe – and we need bad behavior to leadto catastrophe in order to keep people from behaving badly.
The crucial point is that America’s conservative elitesbelieve Brooks, Eberstadt, and Murray. To this day, Mitt Romney is convincedthat he lost the presidency in 2012 because Barack Obama unfairly gaveLatino-Americans subsidized health insurance; gave women free reproductivehealth coverage (excluding abortion); and gave other groups similar “gifts.” Hecould “never convince them that they should take personal responsibility andcare for their lives.”
In fact, it would be a tough sell for any candidate toconvince Americans who receive government benefits that they are dependentrather than empowered; that it is bad for people to vote for politicians whomake their lives better; and that good public policy seeks to create humancatastrophe rather than to avert it. The problem for American conservatives isnot their choice of candidates or the tone of their rhetoric. It is that theirideas are not politically sustainable.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：Romney failed resid Ency Fail important managing failed center reason

On the back left corner of my desk right now are threerecent books: Arthur Brooks’ The Battle, Charles Murray’s ComingApart, and Nicholas Eberstadt’s A Nation of Takers. Together,they constitute an important intellectual movement, which also happens to be alarge part of the reason that American conservatism today has little that isconstructive to say about managing the economy – and little purchase on thecenter of the American electorate.
The main thrust ofearly conservatism was root-and-branch opposition to every form of social insurance:make the poor richer, and they would become more fertile.The proper economic policy was to teach people to venerate the throne (so that theywould respect property), the paternalhearth (so thatthey would not marry imprudently young), and the religious altar (so that they wouldfear pre-marital sex).

Fast-forward 150 years to post-World War II America,and to the original Chicago School critique of the New Deal version of socialinsurance – that it created “notches”that pervertedeconomic incentives.The big difference between the Malthusian conservative critics of socialinsurance in the early nineteenth century and the Chicago critics of the 1970’sis that the Chicago critics had a point: Providing public support to the“worthy” poor, and then removing it when they began to stand on their own feet,poisoned incentives  was unlikely to lead to good outcomes.
And so, from 1970 to 2000, abroad coalition of conservatives (who wanted to see the government stopencouraging immorality),centrists (whowanted government money spent effectively), and leftists (who wanted poverty alleviated) removed the“notches” from the social-insurance system.


So what is the problem that America’s new generationof conservative critics of social insurance sees?
For Eberstadt, the problem is that dependence ongovernment is emasculating,and that too many people are dependent on government. For Brooks, it is thatknowing that public programs make one’s life easier causes one to vote fornon-Republican candidates. For Murray, it is that social insurance means thatbehaving badly does not lead to catastrophe – and we need bad behavior to leadto catastrophe in order to keep people from behaving badly.
The crucial point is that America’s conservative elitesbelieve Brooks, Eberstadt, and Murray. To this day, Mitt Romney is convincedthat he lost the presidency in 2012 because Barack Obama unfairly gaveLatino-Americans subsidized health insurance; gave women free reproductivehealth coverage (excluding abortion); and gave other groups similar “gifts.” Hecould “never convince them that they should take personal responsibility andcare for their lives.”

In fact, it would be a tough sell for any candidate toconvince Americans who receive government benefits that they are dependentrather than empowered; that it is bad for people to vote for politicians whomake their lives better; and that good public policy seeks to create humancatastrophe rather than to avert it. The problem for American conservatives isnot their choice of candidates or the tone of their rhetoric. It is that theirideas are not politically sustainable.