Legacy: Rapid economic growth and a return to the debate about reforming entitlements.
Reform: New conservative solutions to new challenges like China, inequality, technology, financialization, which may mean a different role for government.
Policy agenda: (2/5)
Legacy: First, free trade. Second, geographic mobility. Americans have to be willing to get up and move.
Reform: Investment, labor, education. Policies should make the economy work for for people, not demand that people up and change for the economy.
Conservatism vs. populism: (3/5)
Legacy: Populism celebrates the instant desires of large numbers of people, isn't conservative.
Reform: Populism also means taking seriously people's concerns and respecting their sentiments and traditions, which is fundamentally conservative.
Working class vs. establishment: (4/5)
Legacy: Cognitive stratification of modern society is inevitable. We must not discover yet another entitlement, to preserve a way of life.
Reform: The establishment must try harder to narrow and bridge social gaps.
Future leaders: (5/5)
Legacy: @BenSasse, who has a history PhD, though agenda TBD.
Reform: @marcorubio, @SenTomCotton, @RepAGonzalez. People rethinking economic policy and showing the way toward a multi-ethnic, working-class conservatism.
The inaugural @AmerCompass essay series, Rebooting the American System, makes the comprehensive, conservative case for a return to robust national economic policy. This was the American tradition from the Founding, and paid enormous dividends. (1/11) americancompass.org/rebooting-the-…
The series opens with forewords from @marcorubio and @SenTomCotton, who situate the concept in our present context: a once-in-a-century pandemic and a generation-defining contest with China. Both highlight vital national priorities that the market will not address on its own.
Senator Rubio emphasizes the inevitable tradeoff between efficiency and resilience. A market economy geared only toward maximizing the former will inevitably erode the latter, but the nation needs both and public policy must help to strike a balance. americancompass.org/essays/marco-r…
This @wellscking interview with @TenreiroDaniel@NRO crackles with the tensions in conservatism. Wells articulates the @AmerCompass focus brilliantly, but I'm actually most fascinated by the questions, which really bring the status quo to life:
First, the idea that "economic" and "cultural" are two distinct categories and a given problem must be assigned primarily to one or the other.
Second, and relatedly, the idea that decades of economic stagnation and divergence in fortunes isn't a big deal and probably doesn't have a lot of explanatory power because it's not "economic devastation."
Thread (1/16). How is that our economic statistics suggest workers have been making slow but steady progress in recent decades, while popular perception is that their family finances are coming under increasingly untenable pressure? I've been working on this, here's my answer:
2/ Punchline: Popular perception is correct. In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four's major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary. By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.
3/ Why do our inflation-adjusted data say otherwise? Because inflation does not assess affordability. You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a neat study by Nobel laureate Robert Shiller making the point, as cited by Fed economist Michael Bryan: econintersect.com/b2evolution/bl…
Here's a fascinating illustration of the dead-end that a segment of the right-of-center has driven itself into: refusal to acknowledge that unions and the labor movement had a positive effect on early/mid-century America. 1/5
You can see the logic, I suppose... if we acknowledge that unions did some good, then we'd have to both admit that the "free" labor market was delivering some pretty lousy outcomes and give credit to an actual government policy. 2/5
This is the problem of fundamentalism in whatever form it takes. When strict adherence to some basic set of abstract principles proves incompatible with real world experience, it's the real world that has to be denied. 3/5
The thread you didn't know you needed, on job characteristics... there's an extraordinary level of misunderstanding about what various jobs entail, and what criteria matter. People often seem to think the question can be reduced to "what seems like more fun?" 1/18 [sorry!]
A good example is @betseystevenson's recent tweet, "Children--would you rather teach barre, give therapeutic massage, or assemble screens on a line all day?" accompanied by pictures because she apparently thinks how these jobs _look_ buttresses her case. 2/
My goal is not to pick on Betsey, she was just making a glib point and I know she thinks much more deeply about the topic. But it's illustrative that she thought this was a _good_ glib point and that she (presumably?) expected labor-econ Twitter to approve. 3/
"All economic arrangements, whatever the mixture of free trade and protection and subsidies and entitlements, should be discussed as expedients. They should be evaluated in terms of the contributions they make to the things we value fundamentally." -- George Will
[Those things include: "equitable material allocation" and "social cohesion."]