An Interesting Take on the Future of Free Enterprise as a Political Attraction

This week, David Brooks posted a thought-provoking article on the history and future of the view that government is an obstacle to the enterprising spirit. The history that Brooks provides is limited, only briefly gliding over frontier culture and laissez-faire economics. He certainly ignores movements at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries to involve government more directly in the economic affairs of the country. But he succeeds in defining what is at least a prominent notion in contemporary politics. It is that “ordinary people are capable of greatness; individuals have the power to shape their destinies; they should be given maximum freedom to do so.”

The political ideas associated with this viewpoint, as Brooks concedes, are changing along with American demographics. He ties antipathy to government intervention to the first settlers of what would become the United States and their Protestant religions (furthering the notion of the Protestant Work Ethic). Brooks highlights these early Americans’ faith in liberty to deliver material prosperity. But then he shows that the idea that government is an obstacle to this pursuit is weakening.

Many of the most talked about statistics from this year’s election relate to the political persuasions of various races. A clear majority of white Americans voted Republican, but an overwhelming majority of black, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters sided with Democrats. And to these groups, Brooks argues, several concerns are more pressing than the potential of government involvement. These concerns include the ability of individuals to earn a living wage, the cost of education, and the need to regulate Wall Street. To many of these groups, each of these concerns is more vital to individual success and the promise of economic advancement than the overall role of government. For these Americans, government is not inherently a problem, but a potential solution to their fears about the negative consequences of a market economy.

Brooks is attempting to aid the Republican Party in recovering from its recent loss. This purpose legitimizes his article’s warning about a Republican platform that will only continue to lose touch with the typical voter in future years. In order to win an election, Republicans will need to appeal to demographic groups beyond whites. And as Brooks argues here, pursuing those groups may mean adopting an economic message that promises to use government incentives to reward hard work rather than a blanket proposal to reduce the size of government. It's my opinion that the Republican Party will begrudgingly accept this change, but as a liberal, I might be exaggerating the political and cultural consequences of what was, in reality, a very close election.

For article, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/brooks-the-party-of-work.html?src=me&ref=general