You’re sick of identity politics, and then you suggest a policy measure designed to cater to one particular racial group? I don’t get it.
Farmers/ranchers are business owners. If the GOP loses the business community, especially small business, the GOP can pretty much look forward to the same political future as the Whig Party.
The problem for the GOP on ag policies is that they still don’t understand how ag works in this country and they refuse to do what is necessary to transition the country away from ag subsidies. The DNC looks utterly competent on ag subsidies by comparison - much like the growth of government in every other way, the GOP has increased government spending faster on ag subsidies faster than the DNC - because the GOP doesn’t take the time to understand the first friggin’ thing about the policies they propose.
Well, here’s the truth, hard and fast: if the GOP wants to cut government spending, and they want to eliminate ag subsidies (both good goals that are consistent with supposed GOP philosophies), then the US consumer had better get ready to pay more for their food. It is the Earl Butz subsidies that have corn running at less than $4/bu right now, when if the price were held just constant for inflation since 1973, corn would be over $14/bu. It is the vast ag subsidies that continue over-production and keep ag commodity prices artificially low.
So, what does this author want? The GOP that claims lower taxes and lower government spending, or the GOP that micro-manages the economy by interfering in basic business decisions, like who will plant how much of what crop as they’re chasing the latest ag program?
BTW — there is no, zero, zippo, nada chance of winning over blacks with GOP policies in one generation or 100 generations. None. The GOP was responsible for the career of Colin Powell, and who did he vote for, when push came to shove?
Right. So when you can show me a black voting demographic who isn’t making their vote on racist criteria, I’ll believe that any GOP policy might win their votes.
“So, what does this author want? The GOP that claims lower taxes and lower government spending, or the GOP that micro-manages the economy by interfering in basic business decisions, like who will plant how much of what crop as they’re chasing the latest ag program?”
read again
“Apart from the subsidies, there is much to admire in his approach: His package of reforms delivered a better quality of life to millions of Americans.”
Uh, agricultural subsidies don’t keep prices low, they keep them *high*.
If you removed all import and farming restrictions, stopped the subsidies, and let the price find its equilibrium point, it would on average be lower than what we’re paying now. That goes for sugar, orange juice, etc.
It’s a myth that keeping prices artificially high stimulates production and then brings prices back down—as long as the price supports are in place, the price *can’t* come down, and more to the point if the government supported price floor is *too* high (and there is no possible way a central planner can set a good price) then people just stop buying whatever the good is, which *lowers* production. If you happen to have the Baumol and Blinder book handy, then you should find this in there. :-)
Also, why on Earth isn’t it possible for blacks to turn Republican? It’s not an identity politics thing, it’s a policy thing that would appeal most strongly to lower income people, a disproportionate number of whom are black.
You first have to ask why black people are predominantly Democrat, and that goes back to three presidents: LBJ, JFK, and FDR. Rightly or wrongly, these three presidents were perceived as helping the poor and/or black, while the Republicans were seen as not caring about the poor/black.
Of course, *everybody* benefits from economic growth, but that’s a decentralized benefit. A benefit earmarked for a particular demographic is much more visible, and the resulting impediments on economic growth that much harder to see.
There is nothing policy-wise to explain why black people aren’t more Republican/libertarian. We don’t have “anti-black” policies, we don’t advocate discrimination or lynching or whatever. It’s identity politics, it’s misconceptions about the difference between policies that benefit all versus policies that benefit a few.
It’s not so much *beliefs* that we have to overcome, as it is misconceptions. That’s totally doable. It just takes people willing to go out there and make the case.