National Review Online
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The Romney campaign criticizes the Obama administration
for gutting welfare reform, and the Democratic chorus sings the familiar
refrain: “Racist!” Leading the choir is tingly countertenor Chris Matthews of
MSNBC: “When you start talking about work requirements,” he thundered at
Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, “you know what game
you’re playing, and everybody knows what game you’re playing: It’s a race
card.” This judgment was immediately confirmed by Thomas Edsall of the New York
Times and Timothy Noah of The New Republic, among others.
There is racial politics at work here, and, as usual, it
is a Democratic initiative.
Before proceeding to the question of Democratic
race-baiting, it is worth paying a moment’s attention to the substantive policy
question here. As Mr. Noah disingenuously puts it, the Obama administration
says it has the authority to give waivers to states “allowing them to
experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement” imposed by the
Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms. One of the ways in which states could be
allowed to “meet the work requirement” is by not meeting the work requirement,
i.e., by sending out welfare checks without requiring that nearly half the
recipients perform 30 hours of work-related activities (which is not a
particularly burdensome standard to begin with). This is important because, as
Jim Manzi and others have shown, work requirements are one of the only policy
innovations that have been shown in real-world trials to be effective in moving
people from welfare to work. Undermine the work requirement and you undermine
welfare reform in toto.
The Left never accepted the legitimacy of welfare reform,
even though it came with Bill Clinton’s signature on it, and always regarded
the initiative as being tainted by racism. Erasing welfare reform now is the
Left’s opportunity to scrub away what it wrongly believes to be a blight on the
record of the Democratic party rather than the key achievement of the Clinton
administration.
Mr. Matthews’s accusations were, as is his style,
presented without evidence or argument, and indeed without anything that might
even charitably be called intellectual content. That he immediately connects
welfare in his mind with race is of course telling: The majority of American
welfare recipients are white. Blacks are disproportionately represented on the
welfare rolls, it is true. That is not the only place in which black Americans
are overrepresented: As conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for
a couple of years now, the black unemployment rate is a national scandal —
reason enough to fire Barack Obama on its own. But the majority of unemployed
people, like the majority of welfare recipients — and the majority of the
country, of course — are white. Reducing the welfare rolls, like reducing the
unemployment rate (and the two are not unrelated), is necessary to rebuilding
the economic and human strength of the country for Americans of all races. Mr.
Matthews here exhibits a crude, zero-sum view of politics and the economy, and
then takes the extra step of attributing that crude, zero-sum view to his
opponents. This is startling in its simplemindedness.
Mr. Noah takes a depressingly similar tack, arguing that
the alleged Republican racism is (inevitably) “subtle” and encompasses attacks
on the health-care law, inasmuch as such attacks consist in accusing “Obama of
taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority
non-white recipients of) Obamacare.” But it’s far from clear that the
beneficiaries of Obamacare will be mostly non-white; the vast majority of those
Americans who do not receive insurance through their employers will be eligible
for either subsidized premiums or Medicaid. This is a childish shell game: If
Romney wants to repeal Obamacare to support Medicare, he’s a racist; if he
wants to reform Medicare, he hates old people.
Democrats’ proprietary attitude toward African-Americans
is a disgrace, one that nine in ten black voters unfortunately reinforce at
every electoral opportunity. Welfare reform is not about limiting the transfer
of money from white taxpayers to non-white welfare recipients, but about ensuring
that programs intended to help the poor and ease their transition into the
productive economy do not in the end damage the poor, corrupt public
institutions, and constrain the economy. The Democrats know that a voter
dependent on the government — whether a welfare recipient or an EPA employee —
is a Democratic voter, and they actively cultivate that dependency. President
Obama’s economy is driving more Americans onto President Obama’s swelling
welfare rolls. Republicans seek to reverse both of those trends, which would be
self-evidently good for all Americans. The best the Democrats can do in such a
situation is to shout “Racist!” and so they will.
No comments:
Post a Comment