Comments on David Frum on Republicans and inequality

David Frum has a thought-provoking piece in yesterday's New York Times, "The Vanishing Republican Voter". An outline of Frum's argument:

1. Income inequality is positively correlated, cross-sectionally, with voters choosing Democrats.

As a general rule, the more unequal a place is, the more Democratic; the more equal, the more Republican. The gap between rich and poor in Washington is nearly twice as great as in strongly Republican Charlotte, N.C.; and more than twice as great as in Republican-leaning Phoenix, Fort Worth, Indianapolis and Anaheim.

2. The correlation also holds over time. And I may be misinterpreting Frum, but I think he is arguing that it's not just correlation, it's cause.

As America becomes more unequal, it also becomes less Republican. The trends we have dismissed are ending by devouring us.

3 The middle part provides details--mostly anecdotal--on these two correlations. Frum doesn't cite any academic papers, but I assume that he has some in mind. (I haven't looked, but the work of Andrew Gelman might be a good place to start.)

4. The next-to-last part chastises conservatives.

Yet the conservative response to this trend verges somewhere between the obsolete and the irrelevant.

Conservatives need to stop denying reality. The stagnation of the incomes of middle-class Americans is a fact. And only by acknowledging facts can we respond effectively to the genuine difficulties of voters in the middle. We keep offering them cuts in their federal personal income taxes — even though two-thirds of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, and even though a majority of Americans now describe their federal income tax burden as reasonable

5. Finally, Frum briefly offers his thoughts on how conservatives should respond. He mentions two policy issues.

What the middle class needs most is not lower income taxes but a slowdown in the soaring inflation of health-care costs. . . .

. . . the challenge of developing policies to ensure that as many children as possible grow up with both a father and a mother in the home. Over the past 30 years, governments have effectively worked to change attitudes about smoking, seat-belt use and teenage pregnancy.

On health care, I agree that we should do better, and conservatives should lead. But it should be noted at the outset that high tech, high quality health care is expensive now, and it will be for the foreseeable future. Economists from all points on the political spectrum seem to agree. (See, for example, Arnold Kling's piece, "Bernanke, Orszag, and Kling on Health Care".)

But we should try to break the tie between employment and health insurance; we should remove the current legal impediments to low cost "no frills" health insurance that would protect against catastrophies but require people to pay for routine health care (people should have the option of buying health insurance that is similar to car insurance); and we should experiment more at the state level with different approaches, including health savings accounts. See two more fine Kling pieces: "Massachusetts Health Reform Failure" and "Do HSAs Work? Singapore, Singapore, Singapore". And let's not forget Epstein and Hyman.

On Frum's other issue, I agree that it's important--and becoming ever more important--to help families raise young kids. (If you have any doubt, look at Nobel prize-winning-economist James J. Heckman's ongoing, massive research project into "dysfunctional families". A brief, non-technical summary is here.)

But it's not at all clear how much government can do about this. The three instances in which Frum claims "governments have effectively worked to change attitudes" are simpler, by an order of magnitude, to address than dysfunctional families. Governments have increased taxes on smoking, passed laws requiring seat belts, and reduced somewhat--I assume Frum has welfare reform in mind here--the incentives for teenagers to have children. But I doubt there are any such relatively simple ways for the government to induce people to parent better. (This article, mentioning the Harlem Children's Zone, is interesting. But note that the Zone is currently funded "mostly from private donors". Perhaps some local government money should be added and attempts made to replicate the program. But experience suggests that heavy involvement by the federal government would be likely to weaken, even destroy, the good results.)

Last, Frum should have mentioned the public schools, which I believe are capable of being improved significantly by governments, and again conservatives should lead. We now know more about public school choice--primarily voucher systems and charter schools--and we should proceed--cautiously--to offer these alternatives to more students.

Comments

[kyle8]

This somewhat goes along with my own view that for any conservative/right/libertarian party that it's goals should be at all time to increase the size and well being of the middle class.

It is the middle class that is the foundation of most dynamic growth as well as the moral center of a nation.

Agriculture subsidies, ethanol subsidies, unrestricted illegal immigration, higher taxes, none of these things help the middle class.

[JorgXMcKie]

I think it would help if we could get people to quit talking about 'income' as if that were all we work for and started talking about 'compensation' which *is* what we work for.

'Income' is typically a product of labor for hire. 'Compensation' is for more than just your labor, as it were. Unfortunately, some compensation benefits, like health insurance and pensions got tied to, but thought separately from, income.

Middle class compensation has been increasing all along, thankyouverymuch Mr. Frum. Buying into the liberal mantra of 'a growing income gap' is your problem.

Second, it would help if we quit confusing having health insurance with having access to health care. Perhaps a better understanding of the difference between the two might lead to better functioning between the two.