ShareThis Page

Denigrating Trump's budget & voters

| Tuesday, April 11, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
REUTERS
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

News and opinion sites lately overflow with reports of how President Trump's proposed budget cuts allegedly will hurt his core supporters. For example, in U.S. News & World Report, Chad Stone calls Trump's proposed budget an exercise in “backstabbing.” Why? Because many cuts are aimed at programs said to help blue-collar and rural Americans — who voted disproportionately for Trump.

As they tut-tut the administration for betraying its supporters, some of these reporters and editorialists clearly relish the supposed comeuppance these cuts will visit on the unwashed who put Trump in the Oval Office. Others among these reporters and editorialists are genuinely baffled that many continue to support Trump despite proposed cuts to programs aimed at helping them.

Regardless of a pundit's particular “take,” agreement seems widespread that voters are irrational if they knowingly support candidates who threaten to reduce their government handouts. Any preferences or values that might run counter to receiving government goodies are treated as evidence that such voters really don't know what's in their best interest.

This attitude denigrates voters. It treats them as if they should care only about narrow material concerns. Yet many who think voters are stupid for not being upset at the prospect of losing some government funding are surely among the first to condemn the free market for its supposed crass materialism.

Progressives like to remind us there's more to life than dollars and cents — that people do not simply crave ever more consumption but instead want lives filled with meaning, dignity, beauty and love. In this matter, progressives are right (though wrong to presume free-market advocates do not also understand this). But progressives' tune changes when government doles out the dollars and cents. They seem genuinely unable to grasp why many poor and working-class people do not value government handouts above all else.

Coming from a working-class family that was never fond of big government, perhaps I can help my progressive friends to better understand such voters.

First, many understand that accepting government handouts conflicts with the pursuit of dignity in making one's own way in life — in overcoming hardship, not being an object of charity. I proudly recall my parents refusing to apply for food stamps when my pipefitter father was laid off. Being on the dole would have drained them of their dignity. They overcame hardship without handouts.

Self-reliance was more important to them than profiting materially from government.

Second, many ideologically oppose certain government programs. You might disagree with some voters' opposition to, say, programs to reduce domestic violence or retrain workers. But surely voters who stick to their principles are admirable even when — indeed, especially when — doing so runs counter to their narrow material interests.

There are plenty of good reasons to object to Trump's policies, but the fact that some reduce government funding to Trump supporters is not among them.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.