Luntz Gets the Problem; Flubs the Solution
Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote an interesting article in yesterday’s Post wherein he sharply criticizes his colleagues for hyper-partisanship, urging the R’s to “focus on results,” and seek “solutions to the real problems of real people.” (Given Luntz’s record, one could be forgiven for thinking that he’s criticizing his constituents for listening to him, but that’s another matter).
He also unwittingly reveals why they won’t be able to come close to doing so, and in doing so, unknowingly points the way forward.
As Luntz recognizes, and you have to be pretty checked out not to, there are lots of real problems out there. I know, the Third-Way folks, for their own cryptic reasons, are trying to spin away from this reality, but that facts speak for themselves, as do the midterm-election outcomes, which Luntz compellingly cites.
Of course, the war is a major motivator behind the anxiety he describes (only 34 percent of the electorate believe that “the America of tomorrow will be better than the America of today”), but talk to any politician who’s been out on the stump—hell, talk to your neighbors—and you hear the personal versions of the statistical portraits we try to paint here at the Economic Policy Institute.
These include deep concerns about access to and ability to afford health care, stagnant incomes for many working families while growth skews increasingly to the top, government fecklessness ranging from incompetent agencies to continued gridlock (e.g., a minimum wage bill that’s hung-up on a tax cut argument), job loss and globalization.
Pols to whom I’ve spoken stress this last one, talking about people who have pressed them on what they plan to do to address the loss of upper middle-class jobs in manufacturing along with downward pressure on white collar wages.
If you’re running for national office, you need an answer for the autoworker who lost his union job along with his foothold in the middle class. You need an answer for college-educated workers whose real wages are up less than two percent since 2000, and another one for the working poor person who has struggled through the first recovery on record where poverty went up for the first three years.
And you can’t get away with, “get more education.” That won’t cut it with either aging, blue-collar boomers or folks who already have lots of formal schooling. Sure, most Americans recognize how important skills are today, but thankfully, they’re not nearly so quick to blame themselves for trends beyond their control.
Luntz gets that these are great national concerns, requiring a response. What he doesn’t get is that you can’t solve these problems without spending some money. To the contrary, he thinks you can “solve real problems” while supporting a balanced-budget amendment and pledging to a “clause making it difficult to raise taxes.”
It’s a problem that will bedevil all the Republican ’08 candidates, and anyone else for that matter, who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, attack the deficit, and balance the budget, all while pledging never to raise taxes. Do they really believe they can address health care, globalization, unprecedented inequalities by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, promoting marriage, telling people to get smarter, and whatever other costless ideas they can dream up?
This doesn’t mean candidates need to go to the Mondale place and pledge to raise taxes. But it does mean they, and we, have to start building support for the idea that it will take some resources to meet challenges of the magnitude we face, much in the spirit that Mark Schmitt wisely argues here.
It’s ironic that Luntz should point the way forward—less so that he doesn’t know how to get there. Let us be sure that the same is not said of those of us who recognize the need to get the government out of the business of creating problems, and back in the business of solving them.
The problem is that the problem's ours, not the Repugs. Why?
Because we're the party who is compelled to offer solutions to these very broad and difficult (insoluble) economic issues and the voters have a pretty good idea that we don't have solutions.
And that means that the voters will make their decision on other than wonky promises. The culture war is still raging!
February 26, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read Luntz's article yesterday and came away with the thinking that he was outlining Newt Gingrich's 2008 platform. Notice the terminology he used here and remember what Luntz is famous for:
February 26, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you're calling our problem, I view as our opportunity, both to articulate the way forward and to show the emptiness of the other side.
We've been hard at work on this at EPI. See what you think: http://www.sharedprosperity.org/
February 26, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is boilerplate Luntz stuff as far as I can tell. If this is the best they got, it means the "party of ideas" is pushing the exact same "ideas," using the exact same language, now, as it was in 1994 when it effectively took power. It underscores something that was obvious several years ago: the Republican movement, as a vehicle for ideas that can actually solve problems, is dead. What's left is a group of slogans removed from any enactable set of policies. There ain't a ghost in that machine, although the machine itself remains formidable.
In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace
The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer
February 26, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luigi,
That 'new ideas' thing was itself just a talking point. They were against Social Security when it started, they didn't like it the '50s and they don't like it now. Social Security is so reviled not because it's 'inefficient' but because it's prove positive that the government is fully capable of running an 'insurance' program that is orders of magnitude more efficient than private insurance.
Contests over bellicosity and pointing the finger of treason? McCarthy and company did that 60 years ago.
Reading Luntz's program the 'ideas' are laughable. They're literally about turning back the clock to the 1920's - complete with a Teapot Dome scanal to "pledge the investment necessary to develop alternative fuels." The more you read about the snake oil that is ethanol, the more your blood will boil.
Luntz: Hand out tax money to Agribusiness while eliminating Head Start for poor kids. Check.
February 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason, this post reminded me of the scene in Forest Gump where Gump sees Lt. Dan on the dock from his shrimp boat. He jumps into the water to swim to his friend, leaving the boat to chug right into a neighboring dock, smashing it to smithereens.
Bush == Gump. The Republican Machine == shrimp boat. Us==the dock.
Ok. Maybe not a great analogy, but....
February 26, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of the long hatred of SS.... Aren't the neocons and the ideologues of the Right just the intellectual grand-children and great-grandchildren of the robber barons of the late 19th, early 20th century that brought us the Great Depression?
We sure have short memories in this country.
February 26, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A background note on Luntz's technique. He states that he finds accurate terms to use as slogans. He never points out that he uses emotionally charged terms, when he wants public action (replacing "inheritance tax" with "death tax"), and emotionally bland terms when he wants public inaction (replacing "global warming" with "climate change"). If someone tries to ask him about this, such as a caller to a radio talk show, he will shift the subject with a counter question.
February 26, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need a presidential candidate willing to run on that platform if it's going to become part of the national discourse. Is Webb ready? Can it be sold to someone like Richardson?
February 26, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's an idea. Let's apply that to Congressional AUFs. But since war is hell, let's limit an AUF to just 2 years. Sure you can go make war, but only for two years max. In two years you have to sell us on it again or automatically the funding stops. Gee, wish we'd have thought of that going into Iraq.
February 26, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Webb, my senator, gets this stuff big time, I think. He's one of the pols I met who spoke with deep conviction. I think he's going to make a great contribution in the Senate.
February 26, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Pols to whom I’ve spoken stress this last one, talking about people who have pressed them on what they plan to do to address the loss of upper middle-class jobs in manufacturing
Upper middle class jobs? In manufacturing? Unless you are talking about senior management, not shop floor jobs, I very much doubt those ever existed.
February 26, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's my senator too, and I agree with you completely. He'll be a great senator, and Virginia needs some good Democrats representing it in the senate.
I agree with your unspoken point that just because someone is obviously intelligent and a leader, he/she is Presidential material. That way of thinking is symptomatic of the fact that real Presidential material has not been out there for too long. Webb needs to do his work in the Senate and hopefully affect change.
The idea that we have a guy (Webb) who can actually make sense when interviewed means he should run for President is just an example of the problem of such a low bar for expectations. An eggplant could do a better job than Dubya but it doesn't mean we should get behind an eggplant for the next president. Webb may eventually be a worthy candidate, but it is way too soon for that!
We have some hard work ahead of us; deciding who has the best judgment, the best life experience, the best leadership qualities, and the best chance at putting it all together to clean up the mess of the Bush regime.
This work should be taken very seriously and should not depend on who has the most money or who makes the powers-that-be the happiest. The next President (hopefully) will be elected honestly, and so has to actually win with the people.
What a concept!
Jan Knaus
February 26, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember looking into this years ago and finding the union households in durable manufacturing--production workers, not managers--had family income in the 50-70K range.
February 26, 2007 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a fundamental shift happening.
One of the reasons why America is more conservative than other industrialized nations because our US Businesses were doing what governments were doing, job for life, decent wages, decent vacation time, health care, pensions, etc... The concept of "Small Government" and "lazy poor" made sense when all you needed to do was finish high school and wake up on time every morning and get your ass to the job.
Those days are long gone. You now have people who did everything "they" said to do, go to college, get professional training and barely treading water.
In order to remain competitive in the new Global economy, government will need to pick up many of the services which businesses used to do. Everybody is going to realize this eventually. The question is can the GOP change?
February 27, 2007 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but it seems to me that before you can expect the climate to change on this, you need to engage people in a discussion about problems (we’ve done that) and solutions (we’re working on it) in a way that convinces enough of them that you’ve got something truly helpful to offer. And you’ve got to do this with the forces of darkness shouting “wasteful" “tax and spend” “five-year planners” “bring the economy to its knees” in your ears.
February 27, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US is living beyond its means. Not only because of the borrowed money which shows up in the trade deficit, but because we need to sustain our economy by consuming raw materials from elsewhere at an unsustainable rate. We have 4% of the world's population but consume 40% of the resources. This is unsustainable.
No politician is willing to discuss this. Both parties make promises of future growth to solve current social problems. The conservatives use the "rising boats" analogy or "trickle down" themes, but don't specify when those at the bottom will start to see their portion increase.
The liberals promise a better safety net now (which is at least a bit more humane), but don't explain how we are going to continue our consumption patterns in a world of overpopulation and looming resource shortages.
What would anyone propose if I said that you have to redesign society within the next several decades so that it runs at a sustainable level? Is anyone discussing what such a nation would look like? No. Pie in the sky promises may get some people elected, but the problems won't go away. We don't just need improved "efficiency" and cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, we need to scale back our consumerist model. Either we plan for a transition or it will happen anyway. The issues with New Orleans were known before Katrina, but lack of planning caused a disaster. Do we want to repeat this on a national level?
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
February 27, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just particulary vexing when a snake gets all indignant about a lizard being cold blooded.
Luntz: Start with the man in the mirror you insufferable bufoon.
February 27, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The one "Real Problem" that Repubs have strived to solve over the years is giving back more of their hard-earned money to the wealthy. They have been very successful at this. Tax cuts, big borrowing, and big spending should continue to be an economic winner, and will continue to be unless something happens like a big burp over in Asian markets. (heh)
February 28, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
i read your article, and unless there's an amazingly subtle use of irony at work here, i must protest the reference to frank luntz as a solution seeker, when it is well known that he himself was part of the original problem of partisanship.
you toss off a throwaway in the first paragraph about "luntz's record," and then go on as if the man has any authority whatsoever to talk about finding solutions instead of spewing rhetoric.
until luntz and the other hardly-ever-right wing zealots are held accountable for the mess they've manipulated this country into, there will be no finding our way out. unless we as a nation can see the false comfort that the right's semantic-laden twisted school yard logic has foisted upon us, we can't expect to grab ahold of the real solutions, let alone see the real problems.
listening to frank luntz lecture us about partisanship is like listening to limbaugh rant about drug use.
pollster, heal thyself!
skippy
February 28, 2007 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could be more intrigued by this article, but Luntz has pretty much outlined this stuff before in his post-election analysis. His recommendation then was basically to go nicer, softer, dumber, whiter, and older, but a bit less 'Christian'.
This "plan" is essentially the Reagan "plan"- elect a do-nothing Republican President on the basis of white/'Christian' identity politics. Let a Democratic Congress try to do the unpopular stuff but create a climate of crisis abroad, futility and feel-goodery domestically to stifle it.
I like to think that the 2004 election was the last time there will be a majority for the grotesque provincialism the GOP represents.
March 1, 2007 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Perhaps I distracted from the point by riffing off of this particular nutcase Luntz, but the point remains germane.
We do need real solutions to the problems I cite, and gov't has to play a role. Luntz and the R's (and a few D's too) are stuck in box they can't get out of: they now recognize some of the problems but their solutions simply put another lock on their ideological prison cells.
March 1, 2007 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink