Nine questions for Reihan Salam

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

19:14 GMT +00:00

Posted by: Biodun Iginla of the Economist.com | NEW YORK

Categories:ConservativesInterviewsRepublicans

AS REPUBLICANS think about the future of their party, they'd do well to listen to Reihan Salam. Mr Salam is the co-author (with Ross Douthat) of "Grand New Party", an original, thoughtful and practical prescription for turning around the GOP. (Think of his answers below as a free preview.) Previously an associate editor at the Atlantic, Mr Salam is currently a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. He also writes regularly for National Review, Forbes.com, the Daily Beast, Slate, Foreign Policy and the American Scene. This week we asked him some questions about the state of the opposition.
DIA: In a piece for Slate, you wrote, "I'm far more optimistic about the prospects for conservatism in large part because I see today's anger as a transitional phase, one that will steadily work its way out in hundreds of thousands of roiling conversations in office parks, shopping malls, living rooms, and lecture halls." As this anger works itself out, do you see the Republican Party growing more or less conservative?
Mr Salam: The Republican Party will eventually have to embrace balanced budgets, and that will mean curbing the growth of spending and raising taxes on consumption—unless, that is, Democrats do it first, or a massive nanotechnology-driven economic boom leads to an explosion in tax revenues, both unlikely scenarios that I'd welcome. In a sense, this turn toward fiscal discipline would make the GOP less conservative in that movement conservatives are strongly committed to fighting any and all tax increases. Interestingly this isn't true of self-identified conservatives in the voting public, at least half of whom support rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Another way of looking at the return of fiscal discipline is that it will make the party more conservative, but in an older and more intuitive sense. William Niskanen of the Cato Institute has argued, persuasively in my view, that serious spending cuts only happen in tandem with tax increases, and he suggests that this has to do with making the burden of public spending more salient to voters. This is part of why I think Republicans would be wise to back a very transparent VAT that will make the cost of government clear in virtually every transaction. As Michael Graetz has suggested, we could then supplement this VAT with a flat income tax that applies only to high earners.
The obvious objection to my line of thinking is, "Can you imagine today's congressional Republicans demanding tax increases?" Of course not! Doing so wouldn't be instrumentally rational for Republicans in the Obama era who want to remain in office. One can imagine, however, that the country's public finances will continue to deteriorate over the next decade, and that a Republican president will have no choice but to do the right thing. Recently, a number of congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, have suggested that we might need a VAT, and the Wall Street Journal has registered its firm opposition. I understand why Ms Pelosi's remarks raised hackles: we don't want to simply add the VAT to high rates of income tax. Rather, we need a broader root-and-branch reform, one that will increase the attractiveness of America as a destination for FDI and that will curb work disincentives. But I also think that Ms Pelosi deserves credit for taking the looming fiscal emergency seriously. It's possible—remotely possible—that the Democrats will make some significant move on the revenue side. I can't, however, see them doing much good on the spending side, apart from aggressively shrinking the size of the defence budget in a post-Afghanistan landscape. So just as George H.W. Bush's infamous Richard Darman-inspired tax increase made it possible for Bill Clinton to balance the budget, an Obama VAT could allow Republicans to get America on the path to a leaner, more efficient federal government.
DIA: You've said that "Republicans need a new approach to domestic policy." What do you mean by that?
Mr Salam: In "Grand New Party", my co-author Ross Douthat and I had a very particular idea in mind—that the Republican Party was increasingly the party of working- and middle-class voters, and that its agenda should thus be more responsive to the interests of these voters. I still believe that this is true, but the most pressing issue is the kind of responsiveness. For example, the Republican defence of Medicare during the debate over health reform has puzzled many of those who believe that the party of small government should favour efforts to curb Medicare cost growth. That was, after all, a commitment that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress of the mid- to late-1990s took very seriously. But seen through the lens of the real-world composition of the Republican base, which is disproportionately old, white, and middle class, it makes far more sense. So responsiveness alone isn't enough. Ideally, the GOP would frame policies that are responsive to the long-term interests of its voters and the country. Given that we have expensive congressional elections every two years, this is easier said than done.
But I do think that the voting public is very eager for truth-telling. A Republican Party that both talked about the scale of the fiscal problems the country faces and that offered serious solutions would, I believe, perhaps ingenuously, be rewarded at the ballot box, just as Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, has done surprisingly well despite his stinginess and lack of Obama-like charisma. Because Mr Daniels never sugarcoats, he comes across as someone who takes voters seriously and so deserves to be taken seriously in turn.
More broadly, I think that Jim Manzi, a contributing editor at National Review, is right to suggest that conservatives have made a serious mistake in believing that accepting a premise embraced by liberals means embracing a liberal conclusion. For example, liberals believe that climate change is real. They are absolutely right to believe this. They also tend to believe that the only way to deal with the threat of climate change is to create a carbon pricing mechanism coupled with a sweeping industrial policy designed to remake the economy. Suffice it to say, conservatives tend to be uncomfortable with this conclusion, and for good reason. Instead of attacking the conclusion, conservatives have too often fallen into the trap of attacking the premise. And that's both substantively wrongheaded and politically counterproductive. Fortunately, this is changing. The right is moving towards a more constructive strategy of accepting that climate change is a real threat and proposing solutions that are appropriately scaled to the problem. I don't think conservatives have gone far enough, but the movement is headed in the right direction. In Britain, the Conservatives have proposed a carefully designed loan programme designed to spur "green home makeovers". The government would capture some of the savings on utilities bills, and so the loans would be painlessly repaid over time. It's a very clever—and very fiscally sound—idea that a number of American conservatives, including Kevin Hassett of AEI, would likely embrace.
It's easy to imagine this same approach applying to many different policy domains. For example, the left is concerned about stagnant wages. How is this not a legitimate issue for the pro-growth, pro-mobility right? Again, the real question is which mix of policies best addresses the underlying problem. Conservatives believe that decentralised approaches work best, and, as a conservative, I think they're right. Yet that's only a start. We need a more empirical frame of mind.
DIA: One of the problems with the Republican Party is that it is largely seen as the party of "no", defined by its opposition to Barack Obama. Do you think the party needs to lay out a substantive policy agenda in order to counter the Democrats, electorally and legislatively?
Mr Salam: I would very much like for Republicans to devise alternative policies. It is by no means clear to me, however, that this makes sense as a political strategy. In 2005, the Democrats did not offer an alternative package of Social Security reforms for the obvious reason that they disagreed amongst themselves—indeed, many believed and continue to believe that the programme is basically sound and in no need of structural reform, a view that I find quite extraordinary. Many people are convinced that the "Contract with America" was vital to Republican success of 1994. My understanding is that the Contract itself was fairly inconsequential. The 2010 elections won't rest on the creation of a coherent Republican legislative agenda. Rather, it will rest almost entirely on how many people bother to vote and how that minority of eligible voters happen to feel about Barack Obama.
Over the longer term, I think it is very clear that Republicans at the national level need to have more to say about domestic policy than that we should eliminate porkbarrel spending, drill here, drill now, fight online predators, and cut taxes. Creating a freer and more prosperous American economy will require a lot of difficult reforms of our labour market and welfare state. There are congressional Republicans who've thought very deeply about these issues, like Paul Ryan and Tom Petri of Wisconsin, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. We need more of them.
DIA: Is today's Republican Party too beholden to social conservatives?
Mr Salam: A number of studies, including a recent Pew survey, have found that while Americans have increasingly embraced the idea of equal rights for lesbians and gays, they are slightly more inclined to favour restrictions on abortion. This is particularly true of younger voters. At the same time, young voters don't consider the abortion issue to be very salient. This could reflect a belief that the abortion status quo isn't likely to change very much, a view that I think is basically correct. Roe has been reaffirmed very recently, and it's hard to imagine this Supreme Court overturning it. Indeed, one wonders if Justices Roberts and Alito would be willing to overturn Roe outright rather than continue to narrow its scope. The familiar "culture war" issues will still be with us in a decade, but I sense that they will be less central to party politics at the federal level. That said, one can also imagine new cultural conflicts emerging as the demographic composition and religious affiliation of the population changes.
To answer your question more directly, I think the answer is no. Rather, I think that social conservatives need to continue broadening their agenda. Family breakdown is perhaps the most pressing social issue facing the country, and it is closely related to policies dealing with crime, job creation, traffic congestion, child care, and much else.
DIA: I'm going to throw out some names of people and you tell me if you think they are good or bad for the Republican Party:
Mr Salam: I'll do my best.
DIA: Glenn Beck
Mr Salam: I'm of the perhaps eccentric view that Glenn Beck is good for the country and bad for the Republican Party. He is good for the country because he gives the small fraction of cable-watching American adults who are seriously alarmed by the threat of communism taking hold in the United States the sense that they are being listened to, and my instinct is that this will keep them from embracing more extreme views. I suspect that he is hurting the Republican Party because his apparent popularity leads elected Republicans to believe that they must pay careful attention to what Mr Beck thinks about the issues of the day—there is a widely-held view that he is the authentic voice of the conservative base, a view that doesn't strike me as very sound.
DIA: John McCain
Mr Salam: John McCain is an extremely impressive politician, one who is motivated by a deeply-held sense of honour. On defence and foreign policy, and also on trade, he is and will remain an agenda-setting voice in the party. On domestic policy, I worry that his views are often well-intentioned but ill-considered. In a broad sense, Mr McCain is good for the Republican Party. I don't, however, see him as the right man for righting the ship.
DIA: Sarah Palin
Mr Salam: If Sarah Palin focuses on energy policy and devises a brilliant programme to decarbonise the American economy and create millions of high-wage jobs, she will be very good for the Republican Party. The same will be true if she energises conservatives with a pro-jobs agenda in the 2012 Republican primaries before losing to a more experienced and effective candidate. Otherwise, I'd have to say bad.
DIA: Ron Paul
Mr Salam: This is the hardest of all to answer. My suspicion is that non-interventionism is going to enjoy a rebirth among conservatives. As memories of 9/11 fade and casualties continue to mount, a desire for an independent foreign policy with an inward focus—I won't call it isolationism—will reassert itself. Though I'm a firm believer in a more forward-leaning foreign policy (my instincts are more McCain than Paul), this is a good and healthy debate to have. So in that sense, Mr Paul is good for the party. I worry, however, that the Paul movement represents a turn from political realism. Call me unprincipled, but I'm very confident that America's federal government will never return to its pre-New Deal state. And so having a large and vocal faction of the GOP that advocates dismantling the New Deal, the Great Society, the Progressive Era, and that's uncomfortable with Abraham Lincoln's Yankee Leviathan is not going to win over swing voters or contribute much to a 21st-century governing agenda. All that said, the Paul movement is incredibly diverse, and his "Campaign for Liberty" has energised moderate libertarians as well as goldbugs. Overall, I'd say Mr Paul is a slight net positive.
DIA: What are some areas where you think Republicans can successfully work with Democrats in the future.
Mr Salam: In the far future, I imagine that there will be bipartisan cooperation on space colonisation and efforts to terraform Mars. In the nearer term, I'd like to see Republicans work closely with the Obama White House on education, an area where Jeb Bush and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, agree on everything important. I'd also like to see cooperation on Medicare reform, but that won't happen. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on giving states and local governments more flexibility when it comes to designing transportation initiatives and welfare-to-work programmes. Efforts to decentralise government united congressional Republicans and the Clinton White House, and perhaps we'll see more of that under Barack Obama.

• Share
  • Del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • more?
• Permalink

Comments Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) SIR –
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first | Readers' most recommended

• 1
• 2
• 3
• >>
• Last

Heimdall wrote:
October 19, 2009 21:46 Interesting answers from a conservative. Nearly unbelievable, in fact, given his break from the orthodoxy of "tax = Bad" and his eagerness for truth telling. I agree w/the blogger that Republicans would do well to listen to him.
Regarding fiscal discipline, I'd like to see more of what he has to say about health care reform. I imagine that he'd oppose single-payer health care on principle, but wonder about how he feels about it pragmatically: every country with single payer health care pays less per capita for health care than the US, both in terms of dollar value and percent of GDP. And most of those countries have much better public health outcomes.
In short, government intervention (no matter how small) may be odious philosophically, but if the result is better care at half the price, the outcome is certainly "conservative" of citizen funds overall.
Re a VAT, I'd like to see some details. Given that a straight VAT is about the most regressive tax seriously considered (e.g., no one talks about taxing solely the poor, which would arguably be more regressive), what would the implementation look like?
Ideally, a VAT wouldn't tax necessities, but only disposable income. But there's the rub. Would food and medicine be exempt? What about junk food and "lifestyle" prescriptions? Would transportation be taxed? Or just transportation above some baseline (e.g., no VAT on used cars < $10k, but VAT on all new cars)? Would income taxes be eliminated entirely? What about payroll taxes?
A straight VAT would be simple, yes. But I'm not sure that a realistic VAT would be any less complex than the current situation. Especially after all of interest groups whose oxes are getting gored apply their significant political and financial pressure...
Recommend (1) Report abuse M. B. Moon wrote:
October 19, 2009 20:17 "For me, the question of whether the costs in life, blood, and treasure were worth the ending of slavery is a difficult one. I guess its not for you." aman
Like I have asked twice before: Why was the US the ONLY nation to have REQUIRED a bloody war to end slavery?
That war alone killed almost as many people as every other US war combined. Now, think of faces shot off before plastic surgery was invented.
Sharecropping replaced slavery in the South even before cotton picking machines become available so that was one non-slavery solution even before technology rendered slavery obsolete. That terrible war was not necessary so that makes Lincoln a monster in my book.
But Lincoln aside, we have the spectacle of G. W. Bush. I reckon he has done the GOP in. Perhaps history will praise him after all for that accomplishment.
Sorry to offend manapana. A myth has grown around Lincoln that I have little patience with. We tend to justify American history so we can maintain our illusions of uniqueness. However, we are in deep do-do and that did not occur overnight. Hamilton, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, LBJ and GW Bush have led to this mess. All of them betrayed the American ideal and now we wake up to their mess.
Recommend (2) Report abuse amanaplanacanalpanama wrote:
October 19, 2009 19:47 Your quick to diminish others. And yet, to assert that economics itself would have ended slavery is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard uttered.
No one's arguing that the way was primarily about Slavery. Of course, to say it was about one thing, even if its money, is overly-simplistic.
And you say slavery would have ended anyway? How? When? Your assertions are hollow. You do bring up the same point we do. "Was 620,000 lives and countless maimed worth a shortening of slavery that resulted in racial strife for a hundred years afterward?"
I think its entirely conceivable that slavery would have lasted at least 50 more years, and not without much less strife.
For me, the question of whether the costs in life, blood, and treasure were worth the ending of slavery is a difficult one. I guess its not for you.
Recommend (2) Report abuse M. B. Moon wrote:
October 19, 2009 19:14 "But to call another commentator ignorant because he suggests that the war would have taken place with or without Lincoln is off base."
Would it have occurred after Lincoln? We'll never know. But slavery would have eventually ended anyway if for no other reason than economics. So Lincoln was not essential to the ending of slavery. Was 620,000 lives and countless maimed worth a shortening of slavery that resulted in racial strife for a hundred years afterward? Would we spend them today if there were slaves in Afghanistan?
Lincoln merely used the slavery issue to seize moral high ground but like today, that war was about money first and principle second.
Recommend (3) Report abuse AbdlWahab wrote:
October 19, 2009 18:45 It is plain silly of the present day Republican party adherents to suppose that saying "NO" to every and all things Obama makes for good.
It is sad to listen to some of the so-called angry town hall old men. It is a re-enactment of Gingrich's doctrine of racial purification of the 90s', when he coined the term "angry white -men take over government".
I think the true conservatives in the party, have to stand up to their ideas. There is nothing wrong in guaranteeing health care to all citizens.Recall that even convicts get health care. What then should stop a law abiding citizen from getting access to health care?
Since when does the presence of only 2 companies in the market place become competitive?
It is a known fact that most health insurance markets in US is dominated by a handful of insurers. How do we get premiums down?
Remember that budget deficits are not found in government spending alone,individuals and families run budget deficits. So if the Republican party supports balanced budgeting in the public sector, it must encourage doing same with private persons.
One way to ensure that private individuals don't get into red, is to provide safety net, in services that they almost cannot do without. Assuring the citizens that their premiums are protected, while their access to quality health care is guaranteed is a first step.
Any health care system that leaves its subscribers to vagaries of monopoly is an invitation to disaster.
Another disturbing trend in the party is the rise of hate mongers, Glen Beck and Limbaugh. These radio boys just ooze out rubbish in the name stepping of blacks.
What a spectacle to see that no one party faithful, particularly the elected ones, is able to stand up to these hate mongers.
Yes the Republican party will find a way to win again.
Recommend (5) Report abuse OneAegis wrote:
October 19, 2009 18:44 M B Moon -
As far back as Jackson the threat of Civil War was there. It was not a sudden spark set off by Lincoln; it was the ending chapter of a book that had begun to be written long before.
Yes, money was absolutely involved. But to call another commentator ignorant because he suggests that the war would have taken place with or without Lincoln is off base.
Recommend (3) Report abuse M. B. Moon wrote:
October 19, 2009 18:37 "Civil War may have happened without Lincoln, but without Lincoln it may not have ended with an end to slavery (certainly most Republicans didn't want that)." amanaplanacanalpanama
That is breath taking in its ignorance.
You should run for office in the GOP but I fear your fellow party members would snigger behind your back.
Still, I just dropped by here to gloat over the eminent demise of the evil party (Ron Paul excepted).
Now to educate the dumb party ...
Recommend (3) Report abuse amanaplanacanalpanama wrote:
October 19, 2009 18:08 Culture, politics, and money both played a role in making it hard to end slavery. The South's economy, political system, and culture were intimately tied to it. Civil War may have happened without Lincoln, but without Lincoln it may not have ended with an end to slavery (certainly most Republicans didn't want that).
Recommend (3) Report abuse ombudsman wrote:
October 19, 2009 16:17 If he were alive today Lincoln would most likely be a Democrat. You can't cherry-pick these points from the mid 19th century to try to make your point. It's all about context.
Recommend (5) Report abuse ombudsman wrote:
October 19, 2009 16:14 Salam makes some good and interesting points but I'm still convinced that the present-day Republican party needs to spend some more time in the woods, or in the corner wearing a pointy hat, before they should be allowed back at the grown-ups table. Some of the abject nonsense cluttering the current debate over the health insurance reform bills certainly illustrates this point. The party of no? No thanks.
Recommend (4) Report abuse...