Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Blog Central, Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Importing some o' that Canada-style right-wing politics

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:30am - 50 Comments

A few weeks before our recent election unpleasantness began, I had lunch in Ottawa with Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, two young U.S. Republican blogger/pundit types whose book, Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream competes with my own in the hard-fought category of Political Books With Really Long Subtitles. To caricature their argument, Douthat and Salam believe U.S. Republicans should seek to attract middle-class and working-class voters with families, roughly the kind of people who used to be called “Reagan Democrats,” with narrowly targeted bits of small-scale interventionist government policy, often tax benefits. In other words, they argue for Harper-Muttart micro-policy along the lines of the tool-belt tax credit Patrick Muttart used to get “Dougie’s” attention in the 2006 election. Or the ban on candied tobacco that helped get the party noticed by mothers this time around.

I found Salam and Douthat fearsomely intelligent, humble about what they don’t know (Douthat has shown real class on his blog as he witnesses the flameout of the woman who was his preferred candidate for Vice President, Sarah Palin) (Oh, hush. Nobody’s perfect), and especially in Salam’s case, almost weirdly up on the details of Canadian politics.

Now, in a piece for the website of the Atlantic Monthly, Salam connects the dots and argues explicitly for Harper as a model for the U.S. Republicans. His article will confuse Canadian readers who believe Harper already gets all his ideas from south of the border — why reverse Niagara Falls? Why should Charlie Parker copy Sonny Stitt? — but it will provide a novel perspective for others.

Tags: counterintuitive is the new black, Election Watched, Grand New Party, Reihan Salam, Ross Douthat

More by Paul Wells

Scott B

jwl – the difference between Biden and Palin – and why American’s don’t care – is that when Biden makes little mistakes it’s that they are clearly mistakes – e.g. FDR’s TV broadcast – these are viewed as verbal typos.

When Palin claims Obama is ‘pallin’ around with terrorists’ or that proximity to Russia is tantamount to foreign policy experience or the campaign claims she is a top energy expert or has more experience than Obama because of her “executive experience” voters view this as deliberate spin and BS – which of course, it is.
hosertohoosier

“The “working class” have been engaged in “circular firing squad” mode ever since Nixon and,especially, Reagan appealed to their fears and worst instincts.”

I don’t buy that argument – remember you are rarely talking about the actually poor when discussing the “working class”. Lots of people work in factories or construction and make decent wages, close to the national average (some – plumbers for instance – can make well above the average income). They are working class because of the jobs they do, not because of how much money they make. How many interns or art gallery employees do you know that consider themselves upper middle class on low 5-figure incomes? Plenty, I would imagine.

Upper middle class people are either wealthy enough that tax cuts make little difference in their lives (if you make 90,000/year you can but anything you need), or they are poor but have post-material values (so you can distinguish between say, professors and hipsters that work in bookstores if you want).

Working class people have lower (but often not the absolute lowest) incomes. They are lower down on Maslow’s hierarchy – not so much seeking income security but rather greater income to keep up with the Joneses. Social programs and taxes harm their ability to do so. In some cases working class people are rich, but lack post-material values (Joe the plumber).

So when they vote Republican it isn’t just because the Republicans invoke god, welfare queens and crime, but also because the Republicans speak to the economic aspirations of the working class for higher incomes (for conspicuous consumption). The chattering classes prefer Democrats because Democrats seek to use tax money on quality of life issues, that help them further their own self-actualization and feel smug (isn’t it rich that people make such a big deal about poor people supposedly voting against their economic interests by backing the GOP, when far less ink is spilled about wealthy northeastern Democrats doing the same?).

Anyhow, I propose a four-quadrant model of class, based on the interplay of two variables: income and post-material values…

1. Poor and non-postmaterial: this is the classical working class lunchbucket crowd. Typically this group is competitive between the GOP and Dems.

2. Rich and non-postmaterial: this includes the heartless businessmen, but also the aspirational folks like Joe the Plumber. They are the most reliably Republican one can get.

3. Poor and postmaterial: the guy with a phd in philosophy who works in a bookstore. If he is willing to accept the two-party duopoly you can bet he is a Democrat. I suspect there will be a whole lot more of these folks in my generation – extra bitter that their education has been made worthless by credential inflation.

4. Rich and post-material: the upper middle class professional, which probably tends Democrat nowadays but not long ago could easily have voted for the GOP.

In the 1960′s and thereafter, group 1 shifted GOP, while group 4 shifted towards the Dems. Obama looks to create a new working majority, and will probably succeed because 3 and 4 are growing the fastest.
Andrew

Interesting, horse. Has any written on this subject?
Sisyphus

Feel that tremor ? That was Maslow turning over in his grave.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

Paul S

If you think Paul only has three articles up his sleeve, and doesn’t use his talent, what do you think of the rest of Canada’s political reporters/opinion writers?

Wells is one of the few journalists in Canada who doesn’t come across as ‘couldn’t be bothered so I phoned it in’. I don’t always agree with him but he’s one of the few journalists who doesn’t write exactly what everyone else is writing and his weekly column always offers a unique slant on things.
Ian

And god knows nobody wants to read yet more boring crap on University funding.

I couldn’t disagree more (except for the “boring”). If not Paul, who else will write about this? Nobody that I have noticed. How can you consider post-secondary education unimportant?
Paul Wells

That was kind of bracing, actually. Smite me more, sir! Whee.
Pingback: The obligatory “An American mentioned us!” post. at The Public Post
sf

Maclean’s readers might be interested to know that most Americans have no idea that a Canadian election has taken place. I can attest to that, having attended a conference in New York.

So it’s good to see at least one person down there is writing about us.
Paul Secam

jwl — Good question. I think most Canadian political commentors suck. (This is a country where David Warren and Robert Sibley’s screeds are actually published, instead of being handed out on streetcorners! And Marcus Gee is considered a “thinker”!?!)

As for phoning it in — do you remember Wells’ column about “what’s on my Ipod”? You can get paid to write that crap?

But I do think Wells is talented. I used to look for him in the Gazette. I thought his columns were often the best part of the National Post. But since he arrived at Macleans, his themes have become repetitive, and his writing style has gotten too cutesy. I’d like him to make good on his early promise — I thought maybe the France gig would allow for that. But it hasn’t happened yet.

Paul Wells — Hmph. Weak attempt at comment jiujitsu. Go read Yglesias — he’s the master at putting belittling commentors in their place. You just look thin-skinned. Which you are.
http://www.chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

Paul Wells,

Some days, you must struggle to read through a comment thread on your blog, no? I certainly do, except to marvel at how someone can post comments that are both tedious and aggressive at the same time.

So. To restore balance in the universe, allow this Neo-Theo-Geo-Brio Con, a true Quebec Harpermaniac, to say this:

You’re the top. You’re the Tower of Pisa.
You’re the top. You’re the Mona Lisa.
You’re the purple light of a summer night in Spain.
You’re the national gallery, you’re Garbo’s salary, you’re cellophane.

Ach. I never want to be syrupy towards you again. But someone to trivialize your reporting on research and university funding made me steam. If only journalists did MORE of that stuff – you know, bring NEWS to our attention rather than report what already has our attention.
Andrew

Secum, I don’t think that you are impressing anyone.
Clarence Seunarine

comment by jwl on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm:

Eegads, I agree with jwl.

A sign of the Apocolypse!
Clarence Seunarine

I don’t know how intelligent Mr. Reihan Salam is but I’ll accept Paul’s say-so on that.

However, after checking out a few of his videos on YouTube I can certainly say that his ego must be as big as his giant, bald head!
Andrew

Critiques aren’t the problem. Personal attacks are in poor taste.

If you’re talking to Paul, use email. Posting here, you are talking to the rest of us. That can only lead me to believe you are trying to impress us with your disappointment in Wells.
Jack Mitchell

Paul Secam: “next time Paul writes something as good as his old National Post columns, I will write him a sonnet.”

Ahem.

How merciless the right-wing comment creed!
As Stephen’s smile makes Stéphane afraid,
So one Paul goads another to succeed
With poisoned carrots, pledges that dissuade!

A harsh critique I’ll bear, the master’s rod
Upon my tush, the meta-thread, and worse,
But just as Job at last renounced his God,
The staunchest pundit pales at Secam’s verse!

The rhyme is off – I’ll write like at the Post!
The rhythm – no more postgrad funding stuff!
Another misplaced emphasis – the ghost
Of Mencken would himself cry out, “Enough!”

Cruel conbot, show some mercy to your foes
And kindly stick to flogging English prose.
hosertohoosier

Andrew,

To my knowledge no (that framework was made up by me to summarize my own subjective experiences). If you are interested in post-material values, Bob Inglehart is the main guy to read. His book Modernization and Postermodernization makes the case that post-material values are emerging in advanced industrial democracies, and looks at what is driving them. Certainly you do see value changes if you look at, for instance, the world value survey.

What do I mean by postmaterial?
Well these are folks that value/state
-a less impersonal society
-ideas counting more than money
-more say in government
-freedom of speech
-more say on the job
-more beautiful cities

Over (or ranked much more highly) than
-maintaining a stable economy
-fighting rising prices
-strong defense forces
-fighting crime
-economic growth
-the maintenance of order

(he does some factor analysis that suggests people tend to cluster towards one or the other, not that some people aren’t in-between)

Here is the google books link to the book (you can read a good proportion of most books through google books).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uERHzCu6l9EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=inglehart&ots=NAJVL2Hjzv&sig=–GSGKYSxI2YlRUoGjzDkDpOzzI#PPA108,M1
Paul Wells

Thanks to all, without exception, for their comments and their careful reading. I’m grateful for compliments and criticism: they both make me want to do good work. Chuck, are those the real lyrics to You’re The Top? “You’re cellophane” is so goofy it could, a half-century ago, have been hip.
Rick

In terms of emailing Maclean’s writers, is the email address a [first name].[last name]@macleans.rogers.com?
Paul Wells

yup.
Paul Wells

Just deleted a comment by somebody named bud. Hey folks: If you’re going to be insanely off topic, go somewhere else, okay?
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

Er, yeah, I actually somewhat hope that Republicans believe this, so it blows up in their faces.

Harper is successful principally because he has deployed Republican strategies and tactics against opponents (and a general public) that is unfamiliar with them. The Dems have already confronted and defeated those strategies and tactics—-witness Obama’s superb anti-smear efforts–and without those, I’ve never seen what Harper really has to offer.

I mean, let’s be honest here: Obama and the modern Dems would absolutely crush Harper. Annihilate him. There’s absolutely no comparison. Never mind the fundraising differences or charisma differences, can you imagine Harper on the business end of ten thousand screaming Kossacks, repeating every idiotic “socialist” line he ever uttered ad nauseum while the progressive commentariat egged them on and repeated the best ones from their various alternate media sinecures?

(Yes, I know this may seem weird, but America has something called progressive opinion journalism. It comes from having more than one newsmagazine, and opinion mags that aren’t hard-right outlets. It even has progressive think-tanks!)

(No, really.)

Oh, and Harper also benefits from the kind of split on the left that exceeds the wildest Naderite dreams. That’s kind of necessary too.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com Demosthenes

Oh, and anybody who writes this:

“not least because the 7 percent won by the flavor-of-the-month Green Party will dwindle to zero.”

Doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
hosertohoosier

“Harper is successful principally because he has deployed Republican strategies and tactics against opponents (and a general public) that is unfamiliar with them. The Dems have already confronted and defeated those strategies and tactics—-witness Obama’s superb anti-smear efforts–and without those, I’ve never seen what Harper really has to offer.”

Elaborate. What tactics has Harper used that are “Republican”, and not used by almost every political party?

Is it because they run negative ads?

Is it because they imply their opponents are unpatriotic third columnists for another country?

Is it because they suggest that their opponents have religious beliefs that are un-Canadian and make them unfit to lead?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j7nAU9sOTnM/RfQCyhu_lGI/AAAAAAAAAKk/VvdLVbEaO6U/s1600/wk_barney.gif

Or maybe it is because they are in the pockets of big business – the primary source of Liberal fundraising all through the 90′s and early 00′s (as opposed to Conservative/Reform/Alliance funding which has come from the grassroots).

So yes, the Liberals have relied on negative ads in the past four elections, castigated their opponents as un-Canadian, mocking their religious beliefs among other things, and have traditionally relied on big business for fundraising. Clearly the Conservatives are the Bush wannabes.
http://www.invisiblehand.ca/ The Invisible Hand

can you imagine Harper on the business end of ten thousand screaming Kossacks, repeating every idiotic “socialist” line he ever uttered ad nauseum while the progressive commentariat egged them on and repeated the best ones from their various alternate media sinecures?

Yes, I’m sure he’d be just terrified of a bunch of crazy nutroots types who are best known to the general public for crazy stunts and theories that damage their own side (eg. the Trig Truthers).

(Re-posted without the link, in case that was the problem.)