In today's NYTimes, George Herbert evaluates 2 big ideas of Jack Kemp, a non-racist conservative Republican (according to Herbert) who died recently of cancer. Herbert really captures the legacy of voodoo economics but stops short of connecting why Southern poor whites would jump on board a policy that enabled a small percentage of wealthy Americans (guaranteed to be white) while hurting themselves, and that is their deeply embedded racism. Those Southern Republicans have always connected welfare to poor black women, never mind the number of whites who spend time on the roll, never mind the amount of money U.S. farmers get. Anytime I hear Republicans talking about big government, it's code for welfare government. They don't mean to rail against the social security check their grandma gets. They don't consider that socialism nor do they consider a good public school as evidence that sometimes we serve ourselves to share the costs of something that benefits us all. They certainly never mean to identify big government as one who shifts our money to wealthy corporate friends of politicians through government contracts or spends a ton on unnecessary wars or building up the military. No they're all for that waste. It's never REALLY about how much the government wastes on tax shelters for corporations, and the poor Republicans know it. It's a long-held belief that the only lazy people in this country are black, and government money enables them to be lazy. Have you ever seen statistics on how much the government spends on poverty programs? It's unbelievably small.
So I wish he had gone further.
I've almost copied Herbert's whole article here. So, here's the link in case you want to visit the original site.
George Herbert, May 5, 2009, New York Times:
Kemp’s good idea was that the Republicans should vastly expand their tent, get past their narrow-mindedness and begin actively seeking the support of blacks and other ethnic minorities.
The G.O.P. would have none of it. It was, after all, the party of the southern strategy, and there was precious little that was racially enlightened about its conservative wing. One of the writers who influenced Kemp’s thinking about politics, William F. Buckley, was at the opposite pole of Kemp’s progressive thinking about race. Buckley took a scurrilous stand in the aftermath of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that desegregated the nation’s public schools.
Whites, being superior, were well within their rights to discriminate against blacks, according to Buckley. “The White community is so entitled,” he wrote, “because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ...”
Kemp was whistling in a hurricane.
The bad idea, advanced by Kemp with fanatical energy and devotion, was supply-side economics — “voodoo economics,” as George H.W. Bush so famously and rightly derided it. Supply-siders saw tax cuts as the answer to every prayer. Cut taxes, they argued, and watch the economy take off like a rocket.
What they never spelled out for the electorate was that most of the tax cuts would go to the rich, that the rich would harvest most of the money from the increased economic activity, and that the radically reduced tax revenue would send government budget deficits streaking toward the moon.
Kemp professed not to be worried about the deficits. He seemed to have believed that somehow everything would work out. The ultramilitants to his right, people even further out in their orthodoxy than Kemp, were delighted by the deficits. They wanted to “starve the beast,” reduce the government’s revenues to the point where elected officials would have no choice but to cut programs and services that benefited people who were not rich. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were primary targets.
“Our goal,” said Grover Norquist, “is to shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Norquist, a driving force behind the George W. Bush tax cuts, once called John McCain a “tax-increasing Bolshevik.” We are talking about weirdness of a very high order here, and that weirdness dominated the economic policies of the United States for years.
Working people were told they should sign onto this craziness because the economic benefits of supply-side tax policies would ultimately benefit everyone. As every scheme imaginable was developed to bolster the fortunes of the rich, ordinary people were left in the humiliating position of waiting for some of the goodies to trickle down to them.
We’ve seen how it all worked out.
The way to look at the endless theoretical and intellectual posturing of the right is to look at who actually does well when the so-called conservative policies are implemented, and who doesn’t. Inevitably it’s the rich who benefit.
Jack Kemp meant well, but the great irony that cloaked his entire career was that it was not possible to achieve the ends he sought using the means he pushed with such zeal. He wanted to help the middle class and the poor. He wanted the nation’s inner cities to thrive, and he wanted America’s prosperity to be broadly shared.
But he chose as his vehicle the party of the rich. The changes he advocated and helped shepherd into law went far beyond correcting excesses in the tax code. They radically transformed the economic system in ways that proved a boon to those who were already wealthy, were harmful to the very people he wanted to help and eventually left the overall economy in ruins.