Top Conservative: ‘We Have To Declare Peace On The Safety Net’

[alp227]

Speaking at the Right To Rise: Education as America’s 21st Century Ticket to Social Mobility event on October 18, Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, told the audience that conservatives need to stop their attacks on government programs that help the very poorest survive.

He told moderator Jeb Bush:

One of the things, in my view, that we get wrong in the free enterprise movement is this war against the social safety net, which is just insane. The government social safety net for the truly indigent is one of the greatest achievements of our society. And we somehow want to zero out food stamps or something, it’s nuts to want to be doing something like that. We have to declare peace on the safety net.

full: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/30/2860571/aei-safety-net/

WOW.

I wonder if most right wingers even care about AEI anymore. It seems to me like AEI is a Chamber of Commerce type group not totally committed to everything about conservatism (such as religion and culture).

[Katashi_itto]

1. Only after we get the majority of Cons out of office.

[cynatnite]

2. The other day I wondered if the repubs would win more elections if...

They became more socially moderate in their views about food stamps, gay marriage and so on or just became more libertarian about those things.

[pangaia]

3. They need votes.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

4. They do this for a reason ...

If everyone is in poverty, then they suffer. They want an inadequate system in place so at least some people will have enough to buy their products. This is nothing short of staving off revolutionary fervor.

Throw some crumbs, and all is well.

[BillyRibs]

28. Don't forget,

Bread And Circuses keep an Empire from being crushed.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. After destroying everyone's peace of mind for more than two generations,

they finally come to terms with the fact that they can't shackle the will of 300 million people, especially when the demographics aren't going their way.

Instead of using this narrow window of time they have in power to set a good example for the next crop of leaders, they are just playing the usual, I got mine, you get yours. Keep it up. Paybacks are hell.

[Scuba]

6. If they stop feeding red meat to their base, they'll lose a lot of votes.

[IronLionZion]

7. One can be pro-business without being anti-people

This is a common misconception around here. Despite high correlation on the right, it is actually not a requirement to destroy someone else's life to make profit. See Costco and many dem-owned small businesses and union shops and many internet companies and open source software firms and so on.

[justice1]

11. It's why I think Independents should be allowed to vote in primaries in all 50 states.

A person that leans slightly right, ends up having to vote for a tea bagger in elections.

[sabrina 1]

8. Wow, he sounds more progressive than many supposed progressives.

In RL of course he represents a vast majority of the population, including Republicans, who support the Social Safety Net.

But it's good to see prominent Conservatives actually speak for the majority instead of the lunatic fringe for a change. Maybe others will find the courage to follow his example.

Dems better get out in front of this, if Republicans suddenly look like it is they who are unwilling to compromise on the Social Safety Net, they will take from Dems one of the main reasons why people belong to the Dem Party.

[Volaris]

9. Yep. I said that to myself the FIRST time the grand bargin was being discussed.

But I wouldn't worry, "the Base" over there will have NONE of it. By the time the next elected President is termed-out, this guy will be over here with us, because no one over there will want him. You watch.

[woo me with science]

12. Excellent post.

As usual, you nailed it.

[ProSense]

16. Then there

"Dems better get out in front of this, if Republicans suddenly look like it is they who are unwilling to compromise on the Social Safety Net, they will take from Dems one of the main reasons why people belong to the Dem Party."

...will be no grand bargain and everyone will be happy.

You think Republicans will fool enough people to vote for them?

[AlinPA]

19. "..vast majority of the population, including republicans, who support the Social Safety

Net.." Sorry, most republicans don't. Look at the votes in the House to cut food stamps, and every thing that helps the poor and needy.

[sabrina 1]

24. See the polls on SS. I'm not talking about the wealthy, bought

Republicans in Congress. They don't represent ordinary people, the polls show that also. They represent Corporations.

[daybranch]

25. only more progressive than neoliberals

True progressives want to expand the social safety net not just maintain it and we also want economic justice forall so the safety net will be less necessary.
Progressives understand that without economic justice and security for the health , safety, financial or otherwise, there is no real freedom and this freedom is necessary to move us towards the true benefits of democracy. As we say it is all connected.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. there is no way in hell the conservatives ever out support the social safety net

compared with their Democratic colleagues.

[sabrina 1]

31. Don't be so sure. Dems who support the Chained CPI are betraying

the people. Republicans, like this one, can do what they did with the HC Mandate, which was always what they wanted until they got it, then they attack Dems for doing what THEY wanted after all.

As so many are saying now, if Dems support the Chained CPI, cuts to SS, Republicans, like this one, can steal this issue from them. They will push for it and more, and as soon Dems cave, as they did on the Mandate, Republicans will attack them for it and act like the protectors of the poor and the elderly in the next election.

It is getting old watching this pattern. Either Dems stand firm and slap down any attempt to touch the social safety nets, which few of them are doing right now, or expect to see more Republicans attacking them for not caring about the poor.

[Othervoice]

10. Mainstream versus Reactionaries

It comes down to conservatives versus reactionaries. Mainstream Republicans are mainly conservatives. There may be a few moderates. The Tea Party crowd are reactionaries. They are extremist. Conservatives want fewer people to get government help and they would prefer to spin social programs off to the states. They except the idea of a safety net. This is especially true of Social Security and Medicare. The Tea Party crowd want to abolish the safety net. To the extent this has not happened through the mainstream they are riled up.

[NewJeffCT]

13. Most (not all) of these Right Wing groups

have at least 1 or 2 moderate positions. That way, they can sell themselves as a moderate organization, or at least a moderate Republican organization, and the media can report on them as a moderate or moderate Republican group, as opposed to be a crazy radical group.

Examples: The Chamber of Commerce is for infrastructure investment, or I remember several years back on a business trip and I flipped through the radio dial and heard a guy giving a passionate plea for raising the minimum wage... turns out it was Michael Savage.

[daybranch]

26. Yes

an important insightful post.

[Zambero]

14. Food stamps help the economy, big time

With more customers for their products farmers benefit, truckers benefit, retailers benefit, more retail customers means more jobs, and disposable income for low wage earners increases, also boosting the economy. Tax revenues also increase. The anti-safety net crusade is solely for the purpose of stirring up dissension and resentment toward the poor, persuading "mad as hell" citizens to take the bait and vote against their best interests. Gutter politics, if you will.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

[AlinPA]

17. And this guy belongs to the republican party? He's history. In the GOP he is like a whisper

at a football game crowd.

[Codeine]

18. I honestly read that as: Top Conservative: ‘We Have To Declare War On The Safety Net’

because my mind simply could not process the actual statement.

[B Calm]

29. Spot on! That's the same thing I was thinking. Cons talk

out of both sides of their mouth. Never trust a con!

[ProSense]

20. I bet no one actually listened to the clip.

Brooks is pushing the same crap he has always pushed: If you care about the poor, you must support entitlement reform.

Go to 0:39:40 of the clip at the link in the OP:

Here's another clip of Brooks making the same argument:

[CTyankee]

22. sounds to me like "we have to destroy the village to save the village."

why not just save the village, period?

[surrealAmerican]

21. Either the audience was asleep ...

... or they didn't understand him. If they had understood, they would have been throwing things at him. Then again, the conference title claims to be in favor of social mobility, so that in itself is contrary to what republicans have stood for in recent years.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this - republicans caring about the poor or wanting social mobility - but I'll believe it when I see it. I can only assume they are either lying or people the party won't listen to.

[octoberlib]

23. Milton Friedman is probably turning over in his grave. nt

[liberal N proud]

27. Since the right only speaks in double positives, this means war.

You can always be sure, they will say exactly opposite what they intend on doing when it comes to social programs.