Religious Right Lipstick on a Reaganomics Pig
Ed Kilgore’s piece yesterday on conservative attempts to make the working poor the new welfare queens is incredibly important. The consequence of the GOP’s new emphasis on the “makers and takers,” the “job-creators and the moochers,” is that such extremism leaves little room for nuance about the plight of the working poor and the middle class.
This Randian worldview has led to a seemingly upside-down world in Washington where Republicans in Congress are now blocking a Democratic President’s proposed tax cut because it will disproportionately benefit middle- and working-class families. The new conservative truthiness, of course, holds that only the rich are overtaxed while all the other “lucky duckies” clearly pay too little.
As Kilgore notes, this is just a rehash of the tried and true “welfare wedge” political strategy of demonizing the poor as spoiled, selfish freeloaders. Such framing allows politicians to circumvent the traditional American aversion to kicking people when they’re down and provides moral cover for their draconian agenda of decimating protections that help the vulnerable make ends meet.
But at least some conservatives recognize that boasting about attacking struggling families during the worst recession in 70 years might not be the most effective messaging strategy. Led by the Religious Right, they’ve spent the last few months resuscitating an alternative narrative to advocate for the same policies in more publicly palatable ways.
Reflecting the tone of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” this “moderate” approach spins the story of the poor as victims of big government programs that trap them in a “cycle of dependency.” In this frame, conservative faux-deficit hawks are not only responsible adults making the tough decisions, but also heroic abolitionists freeing the poor from their enslavement.
On the surface, these two arguments would seem to conflict. One casts poverty as a result of individual moral failings while the other allows conservatives to show sympathy for the poor by putting the blame squarely on government. In reality, they’re just two sides of the same coin, with the “dependency critique” serving as a softer, though ultimately more insidious version of the “welfare queen.”
The key is to recognize that the dependency critique indirectly alleges the same character defects as the “moocher” narrative. It’s just a kinder, gentler way to say the poor are government-enabled welfare addicts who are too lazy to work. So long as they can live large on the taxpayer’s dime, the theory goes, they have no incentive to change. “Breaking the cycle” then means cutting them off cold turkey like parents kicking out a shiftless adult to give him the motivation to finally get a job.
Clearly, behind the compassionate rhetoric lies the same policy agenda–with the added bonus of taking a side swipe at the entirety of government itself. So far, in the midst of heated budget standoffs and the Republican presidential primary campaign, this approach has mostly taken a backseat to more traditional base-rallying red meat. But as we move closer to the general election and the Republican nominee attempts to appeal to a broader swath of the American electorate, I expect we’ll see a subtle transition to victimization and dependency language. Hopefully Americans will see through this rhetorical ruse.
Tara Culp-Ressler contributed to this post.