It’s All About the Narrative

Kansas, once dominated by poor populist farmers with nationwide influence (the Occupy Wall Street of the 1890s), is now a red stronghold and a beacon of Conservative values. Frank argues that Kansans, blinded by fear and contempt for “liberal elitists,” vote against their own interests and thereby weaken their economic and political standing election after election.

Kansas, of course, is a microcosm for a considerable portion of Conservative America. Democrats, searching for the votes to put them over the top, often make the argument that less wealthy Conservative voters should look past their opinions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, and choose the party that taxes them less. Liberals contend that those in lower income brackets are more likely to benefit from tax-dollar programs ($250,000+ taxpayers don’t tend to need food stamps) and, therefore, should vote for the left.

Conservatives find this line of reasoning offensive, and they put forth an interesting counterpoint. Why does no one raise an eyebrow when $10 million a movie actors, Warren Buffett or Barack Obama – who has averaged well over $1 million in income per year during his presidency – advocate for a tax hike on the highest earners to promote their vision for the country’s future? Would that not qualify as Democrats voting against their own interests?

This argument fails to recognize that voters have other important considerations beyond the size of their wallets. Who’s to say that tax rates and government programs are more important to many religious Conservatives than overturning Roe v. Wade or reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act? Might these issues outweigh all others for a large constituent of voters?

Yes and no. While the concept of one’s moral outlook trumping his fiscal predisposition may carry some validity, it does not come close to explaining Obama’s feeble backing from white voters without a college degree (less than 30% when pitted against Romney), a logical indicator of income level.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in May, only 5% of likely voters registered “morals/family values” as “the single most important issue in [their] choice for president.” Moreover, two of the final four Republican candidates for president in this year’s primaries have serious difficulties with traditional family values. Newt Gingrich notoriously cheated on his first wife with his soon-to-be second wife and cheated on his second wife with his soon-to-be third wife. Hermain Cain “suspended” his campaign after accusations of an ongoing 13-year affair, not to mention no fewer than two complaints of sexual assault. Yet, neither candidate’s moral indiscretions kept them from garnering a substantial portion of the Conservative vote during primary season.

So, what is the source of this disparity? How do Republicans hold 242 of 435 Congressional seats? – their most since 1949.

It’s all about the narrative.

In order to mobilize “non-elite” America, the Republican Party has fashioned a dangerous and frightening common enemy —the culprit behind all that is wrong in our society. The persistent depiction of President Obama as a “foreign, freedom-hating, job-killing, elitist celebrity Socialist” rallies the masses but muddles and obscures the Republican platform, delegitimizing more good policy than liberals give them credit for.

Obama may be out to outsource your jobs, raise your taxes, and force you to perform abortions, but the depiction of him as such is not effective enough (Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight prediction model gives Obama a 69% chance of a second term, as of August 16) to justify the damage it is doing to the Republican Party. However weak Mitt Romney is as a candidate, Americans have grown in the two years since they elected a swath of militant Tea-Partiers and will no longer accept rationales like “job-killer” and “freedom-hater” in large enough numbers to elect a Republican president. As colossal as the upheaval will be, Republicans need to rebrand themselves as the party of reasoned out economics. Americans are unlikely to borrow the works of Hayek or Menger from their local libraries, but, lay it out in a simple and well-reasoned manner, and people will listen.