Republican rhetoric is more about hostility toward the poor than fiscal responsibility


John Kasich, the Republican governor of Ohio, strayed from his party’s orthodoxy the other day when he said that “there seems to be a war on the poor” and that “if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”

Paul Krugman expands on the governor’s complaint HERE:

Obviously Mr. Kasich isn’t the first to make this observation. But the fact that it’s coming from a Republican in good standing (although maybe not anymore), indeed someone who used to be known as a conservative firebrand, is telling. Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate has now reached such a fever pitch that the party doesn’t really stand for anything else — and only willfully blind observers can fail to see that reality…

[A]s Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put it — the safety bet is becoming “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” And Mr. Ryan’s budget proposals involve savage cuts in safety-net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

All of this hostility to the poor has culminated in the truly astonishing refusal of many states to participate in the Medicaid expansion. Bear in mind that the federal government would pay for this expansion, and that the money thus spent would benefit hospitals and the local economy as well as the direct recipients. But a majority of Republican-controlled state governments are, it turns out, willing to pay a large economic and fiscal price in order to ensure that aid doesn’t reach the poor.

The thing is, it wasn’t always this way. Go back for a moment to 1936, when Alf Landon received the Republican nomination for president. In many ways, Landon’s acceptance speech previewed themes taken up by modern conservatives. He lamented the incompleteness of economic recovery and the persistence of high unemployment, and he attributed the economy’s lingering weakness to excessive government intervention and the uncertainty he claimed it created.

But he also said this: “Out of this Depression has come, not only the problem of recovery but also the equally grave problem of caring for the unemployed until recovery is attained. Their relief at all times is a matter of plain duty. We of our Party pledge that this obligation will never be neglected.”

Can you imagine a modern Republican nominee saying such a thing? Not in a party committed to the view that unemployed workers have it too easy, that they’re so coddled by unemployment insurance and food stamps that they have no incentive to go out there and get a job.


1 Comment

  1. Why do all these trust fund babies assume that anyone who needs a helping hand is either a mooch or a malingerer? These people are so out of touch. I think they should have to answer a few simple questions before running for public office, such as “What is the cost of a gallon of milk?” With so many people displaced and suffering economically at a level they have never before experienced, to not understand certain basic realities of SURVIVAL is akin to not being able to lead, let alone represent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *