Clueless, Heartless, and Gutless: Today’s GOP

Republican brand at risk over food stamps, unemployment benefits, economic inequality, and trust.

Key player:  Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Dec. 9, 2013, 4 a.m.

The most char­it­able thing you can say about the Re­pub­lic­an Party is that it has an im­age prob­lem. Even if you sup­port its policies, no clear-eyed ob­serv­er can deny that on any giv­en day the GOP looks clue­less, heart­less, and gut­less.

Just take today. For all of Pres­id­ent Obama’s prob­lems and their cor­rel­a­tion to the fu­ture of the Demo­crat­ic Party (see: lack of cred­ib­il­ity and com­pet­ence), it takes just four stor­ies to see how much worse things are for the GOP.

“In­vis­ible Child: Dasani’s Home­less Life is a wrench­ing New York Times por­trait of girl stuck in poverty in the shad­ow of Man­hat­tan’s op­u­lence. More than that, it’s the story of our times.

In the short span of Dasani’s life, her city has been re­born. The sky­line soars with lux­ury towers, beacons of a new gil­ded age. More than 200 miles of fresh bike lanes con­nect com­muters to high-tech jobs, passing through up­graded parks and av­ant-garde pro­jects like the High Line and Jane’s Ca­rou­sel. Posh re­tail has spread from its Man­hat­tan roots to the city’s oth­er bor­oughs. These are the crown jew­els of May­or Mi­chael R. Bloomberg’s long reign, which began just sev­en months after Dasani was born.

In the shad­ows of this re­new­al, it is Dasani’s pop­u­la­tion who have been left be­hind. The ranks of the poor have ris­en, with al­most half of New York­ers liv­ing near or be­low the poverty line. Their tra­di­tion­al an­chors — af­ford­able hous­ing and jobs that pay a liv­ing wage — have weakened as the city re­orders it­self around the whims of the wealthy.

Long be­fore May­or-elect Bill de Bla­sio rose to power by de­noun­cing the city’s in­equal­ity, chil­dren like Dasani were be­ing pushed fur­ther in­to the mar­gins, and not just in New York. Cit­ies across the na­tion have be­come flash points of po­lar­iz­a­tion, as one pop­u­la­tion has bounced back from the re­ces­sion while an­oth­er con­tin­ues to struggle. One in five Amer­ic­an chil­dren is now liv­ing in poverty, giv­ing the United States the highest child poverty rate of any de­veloped na­tion ex­cept for Ro­mania.

Writ­ten by An­drea El­li­ott and il­lus­trated by pho­to­graph­er Ruth Frem­son, Dasani’s story is an in­dict­ment of a polit­ic­al sys­tem that is aid­ing and abet­ting Amer­ica’s di­vi­sion by class, where the rich get rich­er, the poor get poorer, and the middle class gets squeezed in­to ob­li­vi­on. Both ma­jor parties are com­pli­cit, but Re­pub­lic­ans, more than Demo­crats, seem es­pe­cially eager to widen and ex­ploit Amer­ic­an in­equal­ity. Take the next story, for ex­ample.

“Rand Paul: Un­em­ploy­ment Be­ne­fits Ex­ten­sion Would Be a ‘Dis­ser­vice’ to Work­ers.” Un­less Con­gress ex­tends the Emer­gency Un­em­ploy­ment Com­pens­a­tion pro­gram, 1.3 mil­lion long-term job­less Amer­ic­ans will lose their be­ne­fits dur­ing the hol­i­days. That’s good news, says the sen­at­or from Ken­tucky who hopes to be the 2016 GOP pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee.

“When you al­low people to be on un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance for 99 weeks, you’re caus­ing them to be­come part of this per­petu­al un­em­ployed group in our eco­nomy,” Paul ar­gued on Fox News Sunday, cit­ing an un­named study. “I do sup­port un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for. If you ex­tend it bey­ond that, you do a dis­ser­vice to these work­ers,”

He’s wrong, and he’s mak­ing the GOP look clue­less. Stud­ies typ­ic­ally cited by the GOP are old and ir­rel­ev­ant to the cur­rent eco­nomy, which is in the midst of a once-a-cen­tury eco­nom­ic shift that makes it ex­traordin­ar­ily dif­fi­cult for some work­ers to ad­just.

Obama and fel­low Demo­crats sup­port the ex­ten­sion but seem un­will­ing to make it a pre­con­di­tion for a short-term budget deal. That means Re­pub­lic­ans will prob­ably get their way, and the have-nots will have less. Mak­ing mat­ters worse “¦

“Mak­ing the Poor Poorer” is an op-ed in The Wash­ing­ton Post by Clin­ton-era Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Robert Ru­bin, Deputy Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Ro­ger Alt­man, and eco­nom­ist Melissa Kear­ney. They ar­gue that GOP-led plans to re­duce food stamps would be “eco­nom­ic­ally and mor­ally un­sound.” Des­pite shrink­ing so­cial mo­bil­ity and dur­able un­em­ploy­ment, Con­gress is poised to re­duce a be­ne­fit that cur­rently amounts to just $1.40 per per­son per meal. It looks heart­less.

“It is hard to re­con­cile tra­di­tion­al Amer­ic­an val­ues of hard work and gen­er­os­ity with the levels of poverty and fear of hun­ger in our coun­try, es­pe­cially be­cause large shares of those suf­fer­ing this plight work,” they wrote. “Nearly 11 mil­lion work­ing Amer­ic­ans had an­nu­al in­come be­low the poverty line last year.”

Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue that the food-stamp pro­gram is grow­ing, which they blame on Demo­crats rather than a glob­al eco­nom­ic re­volu­tion and the linger­ing ef­fects of a re­ces­sion rooted in Clin­ton- and Bush-era policies. It most cases, poverty isn’t the fault of the poor. Trust us, the GOP says. And yet …

“The Bogus Claim That Obama Is ‘Clos­ing’ the Vat­ic­an Em­bassy” is a Wash­ing­ton Post story that has noth­ing to do with the eco­nomy but everything to do with trust. Former Flor­ida Gov. Jeb Bush and the Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ori­al cam­paign com­mit­tee falsely ac­cused the White House of clos­ing the em­bassy. The com­mit­tee went so far as to call the White House anti-re­li­gion, a hate­ful slur. This is what polit­ic­al parties do: Find and cre­ate is­sues that di­vide Amer­ic­ans, ex­ploit our ig­nor­ance and fear, and re­peat.  

The Re­pub­lic­an Party, in par­tic­u­lar, doesn’t have the cour­age to defy ex­treme ele­ments of its co­ali­tion, such as those who pushed the Vat­ic­an-clos­ing story. Bush knew or should have known that the story was wrong. The same goes for the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee. In­deed, sources tell me that there was some in­tern­al de­bate about wheth­er to launch the at­tack. Level heads didn’t pre­vail. Gut­less won.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.