Here come the 'Reformacons'
Scott Winship is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and one of the architects of the “reform conservative” movement. He spoke to the Trib regarding the philosophical tenets behind it.
Q: For the uninitiated, what's the reform conservative movement all about?
A: Like any movement, it's actually more diverse than it probably looks from the outside. But I think what holds it together is a view that the Republican Party and conservatism in general has not faced up to the modern challenges facing the middle class and offers a positive agenda that remains consistent with the conservative principles of federalism and small government, but which really does speak to the anxieties of the middle class.
I think the other value that is pretty unanimously shared in the group is the importance of markets and of local knowledge when it comes to addressing problems. And so a lot of the proposals that we've put out try to address trends that I think the Left is seen as being more concerned about — but addressing them using means that are conservative.
Q: What trends are you referring to specifically?
A: My own chapter (in the Manhattan Institute's conservative agenda) is on anti-poverty policy. The thrust of it is that we ought to be concerned about the perverse incentives that are embedded in government subsidies.
We ought to rely on local providers of child investment services rather than have a top-down approach that sort of says that Head Start is going to be the thing that every kid needs and we are going to run it from Washington.
I think the chapters on education differ from liberal approaches in that they don't start with just throwing more money at problems, but instead they try to arm parents and kids with more information about how successful colleges are, for example, in graduating students, information on the sorts of returns to different types of academic programs.
Q: How do you get the middle class to pay attention to these ideas?
A: I think the middle class today is beset by anxieties on the one hand but on the other hand (it is) very much concerned about the size of government, long-term deficits, things like that.
So I think the key is to prioritize the issues of the middle class, to talk more about middle class families than about entrepreneurs and job creators. They certainly are important, but I think most of the “Reformacons” would agree that in (the) 2012 (presidential campaign), the message ended up being all about job creators and innovators, and that just doesn't speak to the lives of the typical middle-class families.
I think partly that it's just a shift in emphasis on who you are concerned about and partly it's proposing new solutions.
Q: How large a role do you see reform conservatives playing in moving the Republican agenda forward during the next presidential campaign?
A: I think (reform conservatism) will be a strong influence in 2016. I think a number of the folks whose names are tossed around as being potential (presidential) candidates certainly are listening to our idea.
I think the likely Democrat nominee, (Hillary) Clinton, will offer a pretty strong middle-class agenda from a liberal perspective, and I think Republicans will not want to be in the position of repeating 2012.
Eric Heyl is a Trib Total Media staff writer (412-320-7857 or email@example.com).
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.