Income Inequality And The Radicalization Of The GOP

Slate has serialized the Krugman/Wells article in the Occupy Handbook. This is the first part of the series. The basic theme is that income inequality and political inequality are causally related. As the super rich became even richer, their political influence grew and it became centered in the GOP. Therefore, the war against the use of Keynesian fiscal policy by the GOP, is the result of growing income inequality and the increased political influence of the super rich.

One of the problems with this analysis is that there is a long history of conservative opposition to Keynes. Krugman and Wells report some of that history. They remind us that William F. Buckley demanded that Yale should not teach Keynesian economics in the 1950's. They also describe one of the reasons why capitalists oppose state intervention in the economy. The ability of the state to increase purchases during a recession takes control of the economy away from capitalists. Without state intervention, they could control the economy, and employment, by altering their investment decisions. Since there is a long history of opposition to Keynesian theory by conservative economists and politicians, Krugman and Wells explain the strong opposition to Keynesian stimulus during the Great Recession by the ability of the super rich to use their increased wealth to purchase support from the GOP.

In support of that argument, Krugman and Wells provide some evidence from political science which shows that the GOP has become much more conservative in recent years. The party once contained leaders who would be considered liberal today, and they could have discussions with more conservative democrats to broker compromises on legislation. That is no longer possible. Mitt Romney is a good example. He is no longer a moderate republican. The radicalization of the GOP is explained by growing income and political inequality.

I have no doubt that growing income inequality is associated with growing political influence. The question is whether that is the primary reason for the radicalization the GOP. My own view is that the conservative movement, which started in the 1950's with William F. Buckley, and accelerated in response to the anti-war protests in the 1960's, was well funded prior to the recent growth in income inequality. In fact, the policies that led to the growth in income inequality were put in place during the 1980's and 1990's. In other words, movement conservatives have been putting the infrastructure in place to support the radicalization of the GOP, and the American culture, for decades. The takeover of the US House by right wing republicans was made possible by the development of the Tea Party. That was the missing ingredient in the conservative play book. Their investments in conservative think tanks paid off in the world of ideas, but they needed popular support to win elections. The Tea Party was no accident. The organization of the Tea Party was funded by right wing conservatives who understood how to capitalize on populist themes that have had a long tradition in the US. The Koch brothers, and other billionaires who funded the Tea Party, were never short of cash.