he conservative political class is committing one of the most disastrous acts of political malpractice in recent memory.
When Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre chided Americans for complaining about the price of staples such as milk and eggs, she did serious damage to the Democratic Party. Many voters backed Donald Trump because they trusted him to address inflation and the broader affordability crisis. Now conservative pundits and influencers are repeating the same mistake, telling consumers that everything is fine and that only economic illiterates think groceries, gas, and housing cost too much.
Elections are not won by lecturing voters that their problems are imaginary. This is Politics 101. Professional political actors adopting the strategy months before the midterms is both bizarre and dangerous.
Affordability is not a Democrat talking point or a socialist catchphrase. It is real, and it will dominate every foreseeable election. Republicans understood this when Biden occupied the White House. The problem did not disappear when Trump returned.
People can feel that the economy is not working for them. They can see the American dream drifting farther out of reach. Conservative pundits may produce charts, cite aggregate statistics, and explain that certain indicators look healthy. None of that will save the GOP any more than it saved Democrats who insisted that “Bidenomics” was working.
The party cannot dismiss this anger as a failure of messaging. Voters do not experience the economy as an abstraction. They experience it at the checkout counter, at the gas pump, when the insurance bill arrives, and when another year of saving still leaves a starter home beyond reach. Their judgment is concrete and entirely rational.
The price of some discretionary goods, such as flat-screen televisions, may have fallen. The essentials of ordinary life have not followed the same path. Food, health care, child care, education, insurance, housing, electricity, and gasoline remain punishingly expensive. Gross domestic product and a surging stock market may comfort those already winning in the economy, but they are poor measures of the daily experience of a family struggling to stay afloat.
Many of the underlying problems are nearly untouchable in a democratic system. The hard truth is that buying votes is often the optimal electoral strategy. No candidate wins by promising voters that their benefits will shrink, their home values will fall, and their taxes will rise.
Trump understands this better than anyone. He promised not to touch major entitlements, pledged to protect home values, and proposed eliminating taxes on tips. America may be on a slow collision course with fiscal disaster, but no politician wants to lose an election by volunteering to hold the bomb when it explodes.
The American version of this problem has modern features, but the core dilemma is ancient. Large civilizations require immense resources. When rulers can no longer obtain enough through ordinary taxation, they manipulate the currency.
Roman emperors knew little of modern monetary theory, but they understood that reducing the precious-metal content of coins allowed the state to mint more of them. The apparent solution eventually helped destroy confidence in the currency and contributed to the collapse of hard money across much of Europe.
There is only so much Trump can do about structural inflation and accumulated debt. He can, however, avoid taking actions that make the problem worse.
Gasoline is the literal fuel of the economy. Higher prices punish voters at the pump and then reappear in the cost of every product that must be transported. Energy bills, food prices, and fuel costs hit households immediately and simultaneously. Voters will remember that squeeze more clearly than any lecture about macroeconomic fundamentals.
The war with Iran has taken on a disturbingly familiar shape. Its champions mocked anyone who warned that the conflict might last more than a few weeks. Now the country approaches a critical midterm election with no end in sight.
This was predictable. Once a war begins, the ability to control its scope and duration rapidly diminishes. Machiavelli put it plainly: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.”
The same pundits who demanded war now tell voters they are stupid or selfish for noticing its economic consequences. They will inevitably blame any disastrous midterm result on the people who opposed the conflict, but the political reality is obvious.
The central issue is not that voters have developed a sophisticated position on Iran. Many probably care little about the strategic details. They care that everything costs more. Telling them they lack economic literacy has roughly the same electoral appeal as shooting a puppy on live television.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.