GOPideas... ideas done right

A previous post, outlined the notion of a social contract, which references the idea that governments are formed when individuals cede rights to a government in exchange for certain protections of other rights. This simplistic definition has served political discourse well since the days of Hobbes and Locke, but blunt messages that dominate current political discourse have obfuscated the tenets upon which this notion of social agreement is based. Specifically, a social contract is not an agreement between a government and its citizens, but rather a compact among citizens that is operationalized by the formation and functioning of a government.

This seemingly insignificant rhetorical distinction lies at the heart of the current debates regarding the role and purpose of government in citizen's lives. By not focusing on this rhetorical distinction, Republicans cede the moral, rhetorical and political high ground to the Democrats, harming the party's ability to compete. Republicans need to reframe this debate by restating the terms of the contract to reflect the reality they belie: government is merely a rhetorical placeholder for "fellow citizens." This is especially important when discussion redistributive policies: when citizens receive a good or service from "government," they are actually receiving it from their fellow citizens --- "government" merely facilitates the transaction.  This distinction is crucial because it lays bare the essential issue: whenever a transaction occurs (taxing or spending) someone wins (receiver of expenditure) and someone loses (person or business taxed). Some goods are national (military), but most of the federal budget composed of helping individuals (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, loans, grants, etc.)

Republicans need to seize on this distinction in two ways: identifying the losers in the Democratic schemes and asking the winners to demonstrate responsibility for their new benefit. Republicans always hammer the first theme: small businesses will lose (tax policy), family farmers will lose (estate taxes) and seniors will lose (health care). However, Democrats and the public know who the real losers will be: high wage earners, high net worth individuals and health insurance companies. Given the relative financial dominance of these groups, the public is not roused to oppose these measures. Thus, Republicans need to focus on the latter: asking the winners what they will provide to the losers in return for the wealth that is being taken.

Note that Democrats have no problem asking the winners for something in return for government largesse --- when it benefits Democratic constituencies. Would you like $4,500 for a new car? You get it, if you buy the kind of car we want you to buy. Would you like to go to college? You get it, if you agree to take low pay in a job we choose after graduation. Would you like a grant of taxpayer funds? You get it, if you meet these criteria, regardless of the quality of your work.

Republicans have a natural aversion to government-mandated behavior, which is a good thing. However, this cedes the field to Democrats: if they want something from a particular group (owners of SUVs, college students or small business owners) they put conditions on money, thus disqualifying citizens who disagree with their social aims from receiving money. Republicans do not even raise the question, only focusing on what can be done to stop government. Going forward, Republicans need to eliminate their rhetorical aversion to all government and instead focus on what should be expected in return from government largesse. My suspicion is after Republicans start asking citizens for something in return for government help, citizens will find ways to receive the good or service without government strings attached. For information on what happens when government requires certain behaviors in exchange for largesse, examine the results of welfare reform in 1996.