For months, former senator Rick Santorum has been talking about working-class woes and promoting a working-class-friendly economic agenda, and in late January President Obama’s State of the Union speech placed working-class concerns at the center of the election debate. Nevertheless, Santorum remains in third place in the GOP race. Does this suggest that Republican efforts to address working-class angst are politically ineffective?
No, it doesn’t. The problem is twofold: Santorum has not emphasized this aspect of his campaign enough, and the agenda he has presented seems designed to resurrect an idealized past rather than to lead worried workers into a new future.
Advertisement
Santorum is trying to resurrect the Reagan general-election strategy of 1980 — first and foremost, to win over the conservative base on fiscal and social issues by portraying himself as a man of principle, the only candidate who will not waver. This means that for most Republican-primary voters, Santorum is a strong conservative first and an advocate of the working class a distant second, if at all.
But Santorum’s greater problem is that he is out of touch with today’s blue-collar reality. His message presumes that white-working-class voters are essentially the same as they were in 1980. Reagan Democrats in the Midwest — the Santorum target — were characterized in 1980 by their religion and their occupations. They were disproportionally Catholic, serious about their faith, and likely to work in manufacturing or live in manufacturing-dependent neighborhoods and towns.
Santorum’s Iowa victory speech made it clear that he believes these characteristics are still true of the working class. He noted that he grew up in a steel town, that his first congressional wins were in districts with abandoned steel mills, and that he won because he “shared the values of the working people” in his districts. Those values center on “faith and family”; working people “understand that when the family breaks down, the economy struggles.” Santorum’s proposals follow from these premises: support the family by tripling the child tax deduction, encourage manufacturing by giving corporations engaged in it a corporate-income-tax rate of zero, and promote religion by making public professions of faith a central part of presidential rhetoric.
But it is no longer the early 1990s, when Santorum won those congressional districts. An entire generation of working-class voters has grown up with no experience working in manufacturing, or even any expectation of doing so. Today’s white-working-class voter — whose vote is much more likely to be up for grabs than those of his black or Hispanic peers — increasingly works in industries that have mushroomed in size since the Reagan years, such as retail. Over 1 million people work for Walmart, for example, a company that few had heard of in 1980. But we can see the Santorum dilemma more acutely if we look at a classic blue-collar industry: trucking.
Trucking was deregulated by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, leading to an explosion in the number of trucking firms and trucks on the road. Today, there are over 3 million truckers; they constitute 2 percent of American workers. Major companies, such as Federal Express, have come into existence because of the growth in trucking.
Outstandingly stupid, Olsen. You see a static situation. What Santorum sees is a dynamic one of countering policies that have driven or lured American manufacturing outside the nation. But it must be an altered manufacturing sector, no longer held back by management stultification, union intransigence and government over-regulation.
And by the way, he realizes more clearly than other candidates the need for reining in entitlements in a way less harmful to those who depend upon them.
Wonderful and perceptive article. Santorum is so out of touch with his "working class" rhetoric. Times have changed, he is trying to appeal to a manufacturing base that no longer exists.. We don't need another Senator (12 years in the Senate, 4 years in the House) in the White House. The clueless ex-Senator that we have now as President is a good example of this argument. We need someone who has actual experience in other things than government.
For the “manufacturing is outdated” crowd, the idea that we can be a strong, prosperous nation and not produce anything is absurd. Currency is valued by demand (and supply). If we produce nothing the world wants, our currency is weak. With a weak currency, everything we buy from abroad is expensive, lowering our standard of living. Perhaps , we can rely solely on exporting commodities? For a nation the size of the US, this is doubtful; furthermore, they deplete. Services? They are largely valuable only within our borders. An R&D economy? Research and development are integral to manufacturing; you cannot have one without the other , in the long run. (If in doubt, there is a good article by Andrew Grove of Intel on this.) Finally, none of this addresses the need for manufacturing to provide for a national defense. We are tied to manufacturing ---whether elites who have disdain for anything unfamiliar or manual– like it or not. If we hope to have a strong nation going forward, we better start finding a way to support it. Mr. Santorum is on the mark here.
This needs to be said, over and over. Another point is health care. Trying to move toward more individual control of insurance and away from employer-provided policies, makes it easier for workers to change jobs when they get older and may have developed some pre-existing condition. It will allow people to try self-employment, which might turn into owning a small business. The government shouldn't make it harder for people to adapt to change. Simplify taxes, cut back on senseless regulation, recognize effort and success, and stop trying to put everyone into some victim box.
It is time for Mr. Santorum to be vetted. His record of voting to raise the debt ceiling 5 times and his support of government over-spending needs to be addressed. He is a nice guy but does not have a record of fiscal conservatism, nor does he have executive experience. I support his social conservatism, but his fiscal record is not a fit for the challenges of the times.
I looked at Mr. Olsen's critique of Rick Santorum.
" But he’s [Obama's]also proposing to increase public-private job-training partnerships through community colleges “that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now.” One can ask what government’s role in this sort of endeavor ought to be, but at least the president talks about building a future and not just bringing back the past."
This was fine at one time, but the issue is that by the time a student graduates his/her skills might already be outdated. Companies know this, and no company with it's financial head screwed on straight would make a financial commitment to do that.
Companies are not interested in what specifically the person knows. They want good employees; they want to make money-that's why they exist. Santorum wants to help them by making the tax code fairer and simpler by increasing domestic oil, and natural gas, production. That will also increase jobs. The returning corporations will further increase jobs, It's amazing how that works.
Let me get this straight. Your first main critique of Santorum runs as follows: If Santorum succeeds in increasing manufacturing in this country, then the trucking industry will suffer. Really?
This is so asinine I just don't know where to begin.
You simply declare that new manufacturing jobs would lure truckers into those positions and that this, consequently, will drive up costs in the trucking industry.
There are myriad things wrong with this, but let me state the obvious first two that jump to mind: 1. You assume the labor force would be drawn substantially from the trucking industry. (Your sense of "blue collar" workers is wonderfully stereotypical. Truckers-manufacturers -- They're interchangeable!)
There's substantial unemployment, particularly in the (formerly) industrial heartland. There's a significant labor pool to be tapped.
2. You ignore the fact that the products resultant from increased manufacturing -- as well as all the materials needed to do the manufacturing in the first place -- would require transportation as well.
So you lost me on that initial, incredibly weak point. But then you go on to say we don't need someone to build a bridge back to the past. Actually, we do. You're rhetoric, which smacks of progressivist assumption that anything old must be passe, takes as axiomatic the idea that the past is something to transcend.
But in many respects, it's something to aspire to. I'd love a bridge back to the past, a bridge that returns us to a robust manufacturing sector in America. What, precisely, is wrong with that?
And then there's your nod to Romney's rhetoric against China, as if that's somehow a preferable solution -- or a solution at all. As for the doubletalk about training people for the jobs of the future -- I hear Solyndra is hiring! -- haven't we heard those empty promises for 3 decades now? (Maybe our unemployed Rust Belt friends can retrain for a gig at Bain Capital?)
Glad you caught that. Normally see the possessive "your" used for 'You're" (drives me crazy :-) ) so that did stand out a bit. Also glad you, unlike so many others apparently, know the difference.
The bridge to the past exists nowhere - so not only is Santorum wrong, so are you and Olsen.
Manufacturing jobs as a percentage of the workforce are dropping everywhere - not just the US. Are there still examples of manufacturing moving offshore? Yes. There are also examples of jobs moving back. The increase in costs to do business in India and especially China are running headlong into the US worker's higher productivity and modern inventory practices which view 6 weeks on the water as lot of money on a boat earning nothing. But the number of manufactruing jobs will continue to decrease and there is nothing any politician, editorialist or person can do to stop it. Of course what is left unstated is that fact that the regulatory environment for employers, expanded NLRB actions, ObamaCare, threat of Cap and Trade, increased UC taxes, Workers Comp etc, do more to chase away US jobs than any wage rate these days. Obama may be talking to them, but he is drying up their opportunities. Our unemployment rate should be below 6% at this point in a recovery. As it is, in reality it is still above 10 except for some govt statistic sleight of hand keeping it a little over 8. The fact that the population realizes it si still tough to find work is telling by itself.
Illegal immigration is unpopular with a majority of just about every voting demographic out there, as is amnesty. The GOP needs to keep pounding on that. The hispanic votes that may cost you aren't going to vote for you anyway.
What Olsen does a nice job with is the "social" metrics for the poor white class, and their plain frustration with the new economy and their place in it. The problem is that this group was most susceptible to loosening moral standards and the influence of govt "help". They are becoming more and more dependent. The education system ignores them because college is valued over physical labor. Greater investment in technical and vocational training is needed in HS. We need carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. These are good paying jobs that don't require college degrees. Govt social services have made the poor white father an afterthought, and of no value to the poor white mother. We should assume over the next 20 years that the illegitimacy rate of this group will achieve parity with the poor black rate - which is reported to be above 70%.
How do you help fix that? Excellent question. But I believe it is a combination of reform of no fault divorce laws, welfare for children policies, UC, disability programs, and a restraining of the overall reach of govt. If you give a person no reason to form and maintain adult households, instead treating them like middle schoolers, we would we expect and get better.
"Of course what is left unstated is that fact that the regulatory environment for employers, expanded NLRB actions, ObamaCare, threat of Cap and Trade, increased UC taxes, Workers Comp etc, do more to chase away US jobs than any wage rate these days."
Exactly. Add to that list that employees in America can sue their employer for virtually anything. There's more to add, but I won't go into that here.
Excellent post, though we might try to build a bridge to past values of hard work, thrift, and self reliance.
Your comments are right on point. This is a weak reasoning at best. Since when is it a bad thing to have more jobs causing wages to increase. I guess we should just stick with huge unemployment and no increase in employment because that keeps wages stable. This has to be a Romneybot hit piece.
That was my thought, too. There hasn't been any real hits on Santorum yet, so NRO decides to commission a hit piece. These guys are something else.
As for the article itself, some of Olsen's points are fairly made. But the point of the manufacturing criticism is less so. As we all know, attitudes change depending upon where the money is in the economy. The fact that Santorum is using what Olsen calls a "1980s strategy" doesn't affect the notion that something has to be done to get manufacturing jobs back into this country. At least, to halt the decline in manufacturing in this country. If those jobs come back, people's attitudes will change (at least in terms of why and how they work; nothing will bring back the change in morals and culture without some sense of purpose). I think Olsen analyzes the problem far too much. As for job training and "public-private partnership," those code words remind me of the JTPA and what a waste of tax dollars that program was. The code words stand for "central government control of the economy." Sorry, Henry Olsen, you and AEI are starting to bark up the wrong tree with me.
Weak article. Manufacturing jobs can and will come back to America if given the proper incentive. Dr. Hanson's article yesterday outlined how that can happen. Santorum's policies would encourage company's to build here.
What next from NR....a critique of Santorum's failure to properly recognize the tatoo artist industry?
This is a very thoughtful analysis. Republicans should pay attention to the plight of the white working class, but they won't, for this simple reason: most Republicans are mentally bogged down in blind worship of the Free Market. The establishment Republicans - big business, agribusiness, etc. - want cheap illegal immigrant labor, even though these immigrants, when eventually granted the right to vote, will support politicians who favor expropriation of wealth. For corporate GOP types, it's all about short-term stock options and bonuses. Those CEOs will be long gone by the time the Leftist majority imposes confiscatory taxes on income and wealth.
Also, most GOP folks couldn't care less if medical costs drive the poorly insured or uninsured into bankruptcy. Because the Great Men of 1787 didn't specifically provide for government financed medical care in the original Constitution, we can't help people in 2012 - 10th amendment and all, you know.
The bottom line is that the family values loving conservatives who control the GOP don't really care about the financial security of blue-collar families. The "Magic of the Market" will do wonders for those folks.
As the Democrat party is bankrolled by George Soros and the John Corzines of the world?
Yeah, the middle class really LOVES that ObamaCare stuff, huh?
And, it's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 that bars ObamaCare, not that you actually care. You know, that is the part of our fundamental law that outlines the very limited powers of the federal government.
Thanks for proving your ignorance.
Suddenly, ObamaCare's more popular than sliced bread. And the middle class wants MORE government, not less. And if we cut government programs, that would be so heartless.
I mean, the average dolt is better off with government assistance, right? As opposed to providing for themselves. That's such a caring and thoughtful attitude to have about people! How impressive.
John Webster probably has never labored one second in his life for the poor people he claims to care about. He just likes to make himself feel better by pretending he helps them every year on April 15th.
I've actually labored much more than most people have for poor people: many years as a mentor in Big Brothers, volunteer reading tutoring in local schools, etc. I was joined in these efforts by lots of people with all kinds of political views.
The U.S. Supreme Court long ago recognized the constitutional authority of legislatures to enact social welfare programs. Name even one Justice, however conservative, who in the last 40 years has advocated ruling, say, the New Deal measures unconstitutional. While you're at it, please estimate what percentage of elected Congressional Republicans would vote to abolish Medicare, Social Security, etc.
The ideological ranting shown above is exactly why most blue-collar whites and many others don't trust the GOP. Welcome to four more years of Obama.
The fact that they haven't doesn't say anything about their constitutionality. Until FDR literally threatened the court and stacked it with his followers, all of these programs were unconstitutional.
The warnings about Medicare were correct - and it amongst all the craziness is what is threatening to bankrupt us. State govts have police powers which the Feds do not. The fact that everyone wishes to just ignore that fact does not make it false. This willingness to ignore these inconvenient truths are why the whole thing may come tumbling down. We are broke. One political party is just sticking its head in the sand for votes. The other one is partly doing the same.
I am happy you help in your community - it usually is the best help give.
"The "Magic of the Market" will do wonders for those folks."
It will do wonders for them, if they can participate in it. Republicans need to present ideas of how to help more people stop being mere wage earns, and become capitalist again. Wage earners need to believe they can become capitalist.
Expanding the safety net does not make more capitalist.
