Friend Marc Schulman explains some views to a Republican friend, below. Marc is a fellow former Republican--the kind of Republican who was a concerned advocate for the effective, efficient and fair functioning of a vibrant market economy, but also of government in its important roles of social support and protection. And that includes provision of the public goods and services that form a material part of the social contract and foundation that supports and strengthens that market economy. But there was also a clear sense that government needed to function more effectively, more efficiently, with more budget and cost accountability.
But that Republican Party doesn't exist any more, and therefore, neither do many of those kinds of Republicans. The new GOP even has a name for those few that remain: RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. I chose not to be one. Here's how I saw and experienced the extinction:
It was evolving well before President George W. Bush, but he changed things, materially, in abandoning budgetary integrity with unjustified tax cuts (albeit done in the name of the Gipper), his misadventure instigating an unjustified war in Iraq, and the resulting unfocused approach to the war in Afghanistan. And all the while, he turned a colder, more insensitive shoulder to the needs of the poor, infirm, aged and unable. His inherited budget surplus became a gaping budget deficit, and he left the world a more dangerous and unstable place while damaging America's credibility and role in global leadership--and he left it all with no resolutions in sight. (Although, in fairness, he does get credit for a flawed but well-intentioned education initiative in "No Child Left Behind," and better providing for prescription drug coverage for the poor and elderly.)
Evolving behind Bush and beside him was a new-wave Republican Party that sought ideological purity around rigid, often superannuated political, economic and societal values. Those values appeared to some of us to abandon all sense of public responsibility and accountability, and any appreciation for the importance of strong and effective government in a world of increasing economic and societal complexity. Yet, their prescriptions failed to acknowldge the need for more effective, more equal education, healthcare and social services to support that society and economy, and that it would take more effective, more efficient government, and in some areas greater government resources, not less. In fact, their views were very much to the contrary, as was their agenda.
More, it seemed clear to many, and to me, that the challenges of world leadership increasingly required a more consultative process. But the U.S. under Bush chose unwisely to go its own way--to cowboy up--and arrogantly try to dictate to the world. They actually succeeded in bullying their way through for a time. But the folly of it all became apparent as the fruit of that arrogance was realized in broadly soured international relationships. (Fortunately, President Obama has healed and restored trust and respect in those allied relationships and shared leadership on global issues.)
In that context, and in all those areas, the new GOP appeared to many of us to be looking back to the past rather than forward to the future for its ideas, motivations, and vision for our country and its leadership. And in the financial crisis, when they looked back to the economic policy responses to the Great Depression, and the recession within a depression, most Republicans ignored the research findings, the understandings gained, the lessons learned.
(Now, here again I must pause and give credit to President Bush for calling on and trusting the well-informed work of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who along with Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulsen ably led us through the early days of the financial crisis. But with the election of President Obama, and his wisdom in keeping Chairman Bernanke (a Republican) on the job, and appointing Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary (another former Republican, now Independent), the Republican congress would turn on both Bernanke and Geithner. And more, they would ultimately embrace and advocate for the society-rending Ryan budget proposal and the policies dictated by it. They have put on the table the phasing-out or material reduction of essential government social services. It's become about purity of ideology and party.)
That view of the GOP today, that analysis and those opinions, unavoidably register as misguided understandings, misperceptions, or fighting words for most new-wave, 21st-century Republicans--including some of our old Republican friends. But as you likely know, we are not uninformed or fools. You know there is a substantial percentage of highly successful executives and professionals who hold those same views, whether now Democrats or Independents, many are also former Republicans. Having traveled and lived on most sides of the issues and arguments, we like to think we understand and appreciate both sides better than most. We are now Democrats or Independents, many with extensive educations who have spent our careers at the centers of market capitalism, whether on Wall Street, in major multinational corporations, in the legal, financial or management consulting firms that advise them, or in the government agencies that regulate them. But, as Marc says below, we do see society, the world and the future differently.
Marc comes out of a Wall Street career that put him at the center of thinking and data on capitalism, the market economy, and corporate competition and culture. He was a highly regarded stock analyst on Wall Street, where he worked for some of the biggest investment banking houses. I spent 18 years as a tax and financial executive for major multinational corporations, and sometimes led M&A projects. We are advocates of strong, efficient markets--but that also means we understand the necessity that they be intelligently, effectively regulated. And we understand why universal education, universal health care, and financial support of the poor, infirm, unable and aged, are essential for the lowest cost, most effective work force, and the most stable society. (And if it took us some time for these understandings to evolve, if that evolution at all coincided or overlapped with our professional retirements, it might be surmised that the interests and demands of our professional environments reshaped--or co-opted--our views to emphasize more the interests and concerns of those market environments--views that later, more freely, migrated back toward their more natural disposition and balance.)
And scholars propose that those natural dispositions are largely dictated by biological and environmental factors, or more accurately, by the attitudes and identities resulting from them. Some researchers of the genome have found combinations of genes that appear associated with attitudes toward the individual, society and government. And social scientists point out the powerful conditioning and shaping effects of family identity and associations. Some combinations of these factors are more associated with the view that "it takes a village," a strong sense of the value of shared, supportive community, and the importance of supportive, protecting government roles viewed as critical to both individual health and success, and to that of the polity and country. Think Democrats. Another group of gene's and factors appear to be associated with the need for a strong sense of individual independence in choice and action, of self-determination, and more an aversion to community requirements and government dictates. Think Republicans. Now, I have taken some liberties in my paraphrasing and fleshing out these ideas and implications, but these same types of observations have been made by researchers in a range of fields.
So it appears our political identities and and social policy preferences may not be so much a purely deductive, intellectual decision making process, choices we intelligently make. (Might it be relevant, then, that I was born to a multi-generational New England Republican family, and a fiercely self-reliant father who was an entrepreneurial small businessman? But also that my mother came from a Southern Democratic, Southern Baptist background and was always emphasizing the desperate circumstances and needs of the poor--and the importance of helping provide for them? Hmmm.)
Others have noted that my migration of policy emphasis was temporally associated with two other experiences. The first was retiring, yes, but to pursue a doctorate in higher education policy at Harvard. (Due to illness, I left after two years with an Ed.M.) The thinking goes that I was misled and brainwashed with too much liberal thinking. If that means being exposed to credible research findings, convincing evidence that advanced some of my thinking, I can only agree and be thankful for that. The second was a more personal movement in my faith or spiritual life, placing more emphasis on contemplative, prayerful reflection on the most basic charateristics and teachings of Christ, including love/charity, forgiveness, compassion, and generosity in helping provide for the poor and to heal the sick. And if I'm accused of embracing more and internalizing more deeply these spiritual callings, and if my orientation to social policy is better informed as a result, I can only be thankful for that as well.
Regardless of the mix of reasons and processes that may have led me and others here, it is both dispiriting and politically unhealthy that there is no room for people with our evolving views in today's Republican Party, and has not been for some years. We like to think our reasons are well thought out and compelling in their support of both markets and the society they serve. Naturally, some of us now feel much more welcome and at home in the Democratic Party, and most all of our central views now track more closely with those of the Dems. Others of us feel safer, their integrity more self-defined and protected, as Independents. I prefer to see myself as an independent, pragmatic fiscal centrist and social progressive, more or less. But regardless, I do support President Obama's re-election. He is the only hope for views and values such as mine. That does not mean I agree with all his policies or views, but just that he has proven himself a good, strong and pragmatic president in extraordinarily difficult times--and that he will likely prove to be the president we need to lead us into the best directions in the areas that matter most to America, the world, and to me, at least as I understand them.
Still, I will hold close my sense of friendship, or at least friendly relationship, with many old Republican friends--however strained or more difficult it can become in public policy discussions. Staying among the Republican ranks means they must toe the line to what I see as an ever more rigid ideological and backward-looking conservatism. And I increasingly travel, read and share views with a range of people with different economic and societal orientations than those. But in all this, I have found that good people are still good people, whoever they are and wherever you encounter them--and many of these old friends are still just that, good people. I hope they still think the same of me.
So, we keep working at respectful exchanges with these old friends, people we otherwise still like and respect. I include below Marc's views shared with a Republican friend, views his old friend does not, likely cannot, share. But can there still be respectful listening and understanding, or at least patience and tolerance, when each rightly feels as much moved by personal integrity as personal regard and respect to share openly and honestly? Yes, there often can be, but it can also be frustrating. It's just difficult when we live in worlds of increasingly different, often mutually-exclusive, economic and societal values. Of course, we could just ignore the elephant in the room, just talk of common experiences, interests and views. There's nothing wrong with that. And that's exactly what we try to do when it's the only way to preserve a valued relationship.
Greg
And now, this from Marc:
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Schulman
To: Marc Schulman
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Try this argument on independents and possibly persuadable Republicans
I've been having an email debate with a good friend who sees the world very differently than I do. In other words, that friend is a Republican – and a Republican who voted for someone other than Romney in the Florida primary.
Here's the latest installment from my side of the debate:
I agree that spending growth must slow. This will hurt the middle class and the poor, who are the primary beneficiaries of government spending. The wealthy aren't nearly as dependent on government spending. if spending reductions are the only way we attempt to get our budget deficit under control, everyone except the wealthy will bear the burden. That's what the Ryan budget proposes.
So, if you believe that everyone must sacrifice for the sake of our children – and you say you do – how can the wealthy sacrifice? There's only one way: by paying more taxes. Then everyone bears the burden: the middle-class by taking less and the wealthy by giving more. That's what I call fairness.
Take a look at the following chart, which tracks the top 1 percent's income share. The U.S. (in black) has the greatest concentration of income in the hands of the top 1%. Income concentration has been trending upward since the early 1980s, which explains why the wealthy have been paying a growing share of income taxes. In the U.S., income is now as concentrated as it was in 1928 – and we know what happened in 1929.
--Marc
Top 1 Percent Income ShareSource: Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, Paris School of Economics' World Top incomes Database
No comments:
Post a Comment