Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream (Hardcover)

by Ross Douthat (Author), Reihan Salam (Author)
Key Phrases: affi rmative action, benefi ted, mass upper class, The Unfi, New Deal, United States (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Coauthored by Atlantic Monthly writers Douthat and Salam, this book (like David Frum's Comeback) is part of a movement to reconstruct the Republican Party's core principles and reinvigorate the conservative electorate. The authors' strategy is to win back the working class through a combination of prudent government intervention and entrepreneurship. Relying on a bevy of sociological analysis, class scrutiny and historicism—a style resembling New York Times columnist David Brooks's, but stripped of his literary flair—Douthat and Salam take a nuts-and-bolts approach, perhaps because their book is prescriptive rather than observational, policy advocacy not entertainment. Whether or not readers will agree with the tenor of their arguments, rarely have moderate conservative ideas been so intelligently streamlined and so self-consciously pruned of conservatism's hairier iterations. The real holes in the text are the lack of cogent discussions on immigration and the war against radical Islam—the very issues currently shaping working-class politics in America. Nevertheless, this book is stuffed with fresh and brilliant ideas and presents a solid domestic conservative agenda to win over blue-collar workers. (July)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review
“Thoughtful and important—a guidebook for Republicans in distress.”
--David Frum, author of Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again and The Right Man

“If you want to read a serious, sane, secular, constructive argument about where conservatism needs to go, this is a great place to start. Few conservatives are as honest about the practical policy challenges the right faces in an increasingly pluralist and unequal society. And very few actually have something positive to offer in the face of it. I disagreed with much of this book, but I never failed to be enlightened and provoked on almost every page.”
--Andrew Sullivan, author of The Conservative Soul

“We hope no Republicans read Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s new book, because if they do, they might get an idea of how to undermine the emerging Democratic majority.”
--John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira, authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority

“Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are two dazzlingly smart and blazingly original young conservatives. In Grand New Party, they give Republicans—and all Americans interested in mending broken families and giving everyone a fair chance—some excellent advice, not just about political strategy but also on public policy.”
 
--Michael Barone, senior writer, U.S. News & World Report, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics

“Grand New Party fills a cavernous void of new thinking on the center-right, and it does so with intelligence, depth, and even some compassion. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam are brilliant, ceaselessly interesting thinkers. I often disagree with them, but their case is sharp and well-stated, and in its general outlines offers the only path to remake the Republican Party into something decent. They have performed a trul... --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Doubleday; 1 edition (June 24, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0385519435
• ISBN-13: 978-0385519434
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (19 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #311,181 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Lots of ideas, some are excellent, July 2, 2008

By	Michael T Kennedy (Mission Viejo, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This small book does an excellent job of summarizing the political history of the Republican Party the past 60 years or so. It offers a critique of where it went, if not wrong, at least out of focus the past eight years. It is a companion to David Frum's book, "Comeback," and the authors refer to Frum's ideas frequently although he is not credited at the end. Some of their ideas I agree with, some I don't know enough about to criticize and I disagree with their health care chapter although I agree on its importance. The emphasis is on the appeal of the Republican Party to the "Sam's Club voter," a term they claim to have originated and which has been used by Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. It is a very useful concept and the heart of this book. Their argument is that the family is a crucial institution for the lower income and less educated American. They discuss how the family, as an institution, has been badly damaged in the past 40 years and they offer suggestions on how to undo some of the damage.

The first three chapters are probably the best and summarize the history of attempted Republican reforms that would attract the working class voter to form a new coalition after the Roosevelt New Deal coalition broke up in the 1960s. They point out that, after 30 years of steady progress, wages for working class people stagnated beginning about 1973. They say little about the high inflation of the Carter years but I remember it well and think it deserves more emphasis because of its terrible effect on affordability of home ownership.

They point out, as does David Frum, that the high crime, high inflation and stagnant economy of the 70s were all mostly solved during the Reagan era and, following that, the working class had less affinity for the Republican party of George Bush. Their analysis of the attraction of Ross Perot for the working class voter was insightful and explains much. They point out that the Clinton years were actually quite conservative although I would give more credit to the Republican Congress after 1994 than they do. I agree that the impeachment frenzy was a terrible error and forced Clinton to the left as he sought allies.

They are quite complimentary to George W Bush's domestic agenda and the 9/11 attacks probably harmed the Republican Party by bringing a preoccupation with the war on radical Islam that diverted it from a realignment on domestic issues. They quote Bush as saying essentially that the war trumped all the domestic issues. That worked until the war began to go sour in 2005. From Chapter six on, the book is about suggested solutions, many of which are innovative and worth consideration.

I was disappointed with their chapter on health care because they use the French system as an example of how not to reform it. They misstate the principle of the French system which is that the patient pays the doctor in a fee-for-service transaction, then is reimbursed by the health plan, a non-profit corporation regulated by the government, at a 75% rate. For some service, the reimbursement is less and the patient has the option of purchasing coinsurance, like our "MediGap" policies, to cover the remaining 25%. There are a number of technological efficiencies that American doctors would love to see. The fee schedule is low for French doctors but medical education is free and doctors have the option to bill more than the government fee schedule. It is an interesting program to study and a possible alternative to the Canadian-style single payer system favored by the American left. They complain about the drain of the French health system on the economy but it uses about 10% of the GDP, whereas our own health care consumes over 16%. The French economy is harmed by the cost of the welfare state and the regulation of employment. If we could get to 10% of our economy for health care, it would save many billions. Health care is the single biggest issue for "Sam's Club voters" and should be a major focus for the Republican Party. I was disappointed to see this error. The French system is pluralistic, like ours, and a useful model to study. It is also the best health care system in Europe and probably the world. I should add that I am a physician with 40 years of private practice and a graduate degree in health care policy.

This book is a valuable addition to the debate on where the Republican Party goes over the next few years whether John McCain is elected or not. The best parts are its analysis of where we have been and how some opportunities were missed. I agree with the basic premise that the high income investor classes and education elites are no longer the base of the Republican Party. They are more concerned with life-style and cultural issues and are confident they can evade the additional taxes that President Obama has in mind. The natural base for the Republicans is now made up of traditional families, the people described in "The Millionaire Next Door," and potential middle class voters who need a fairer system to climb the ladder of success. These authors have many ideas on how to accomplish this that are worth the price of the book.

15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Great book for thoughful members of any political persuasion, full of surprising insights, July 14, 2008

By	S. Ross (Denver, CO USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I'm center-left politically, reasonably well informed but not involved in politics. The bulk of this book is a concise but incredibly insightful political history from the New Deal forward that I couldn't put down. I read plenty of political magazines and blogs, yet on every page I would think, Yes-that makes sense! Why hadn't I thought of it that way before? I loved it so much that I bought copies of the book for four members of my family (who are mostly center-right to Rush Limbaugh right).

The authors do a great job of describing the enduring appeal of the New Deal in the mid 20th century, emphasizing that it was not only egalitarian but moralistic, then describing the trends that fractured the coalition in the the mid 60s and early 70s. I found their political history to be rich, sharp, subtle, and without precedent. I'm amazed that they could be so sensitive to the motivations and excesses of both the left and the right, yet write with such verve. It's critical but evenhanded, intellectual in the best sense, never dry or academic.

In a world that seems to be a left-right Punch and Judy, an echo chamber of ideologues and bashers, this book provides a space for real dialogue. I'm no fan of GWB, but this book helped me better appreciate his intial intentions (if not his god-awful execution). It also paints a much more convincing picture of the roots of social conservatism in the working class than Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with Kansas," which makes them look like rubes. Conversely, I'm hoping it will explain to my more right-wing family members why an "ownership society" that promises more economic growth by cutting taxes and entitlements won't play well with a working class that may have more material weath, but also stagnant paychecks, more inequailty, and eroding stability and social solidarity.

The latter, shorter part of the book, their prescriptions for transforming the GOP agenda, is provocative, but inherently messier and to some extent less satisfying (politics being the art of the possible, not a temple of ideological purity). My reactions changed from "Yes, of course!" to "Maybe, but..." and "Hmm...I just can't see it." Nonetheless, I think it's admirable for the book to say, in essence, Now that we understand each other, how do we ensure a 21st century America that supports liberty, prosperity, and safe communities for every working American? Exactly the conversation we need to have as we face the 2008 election.

39 of 53 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Sam's Club Socialism, July 12, 2008

By	Richard B. Spencer "Richard Bertrand Spencer" (Washington, DC USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

If most of the Beltway Right has given up on drowning government in a bathtub, few have been as bold as Douthat and Salam in arguing that the GOP should try to win elections by promising to give the masses tons and tons of federal stuff. It wouldn't be outright socialism, of course, though a large bureaucratic apparatus would be necessary. The GOP would instead make its backers feel like the welfare state is working for them--that it will help them get their kid into college, increase their hourly wage, get their brother a job on the force, or perhaps give them some tax breaks that make those big city liberal snobs envious. Accompanying it all is a full-throated egalitarian rhetoric. Among talk of the "common man," the reader encounters sentiments like, "The ultimate goal should be a politics of solidarity, a constellation of policies that make all Americans ... believe that we're all in this thing together."

Read full review at http://www.takimag.com/site/article/sams_club_socialism/

This last line comes at the head of five-chapter section on the history of American democracy. It includes some interesting observations, but then it often times reads like a script for a PBS Special: "From Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Reagan, our most successful leaders have sought the democraticization of wealth, competence, and social standing." The hero of the tale is FDR, and Douthat and Salam even argue that his New Deal was "conservative," and a useful model for the GOP's Grand New Platform. The villain is a composite of Barry Goldwater, the Old Right, and the acolytes of the "old-time Goldwater anti-government religion."

It is worth asking--before even considering whether Douthat and Salam's plan for winning elections might actually work--what kind of conservatism emerges from a "politics of solidarity"? Or rather, for the Right, what is egalitarianism good for? Judging from Grand New Party, absolutely nothing.

What might be called the post-industrial working class is to be the heart and soul of the new Republican coalition Douthat and Salam envision. These are Americans who live in the Heartland and 'burbs, who are employed in the office parks and hospitals. Some are just getting by; others are quite wealthy. They usually lack a BA, but each has a Sam's Club Membership Card.

Whereas the dirt poor vote Democrat down the line, the "Sam's Club" voters are up for grabs--they pushed Bush over the top in '04, then largely defecting to the Democrats in '06. More recently, they came out for Hillary in Pennsylvania and Indiana. "Hard working, white Americans." Douthat and Salam think they know how to win them over for the long haul. All it takes is the right platform.

"Some of our idea ... will strike you as outlandish," Douthat and Salam inform the reader. "Don't say we didn't warn you." Their proposals are certainly well intentioned, and without question, Douthat and Salam aren't just trying to buy votes, but genuinely care about their new constituency.

Still, the Grand New Platform includes many proposals that might at first glance seem benign, by then start to appear increasingly disastrous the more you look into them. To fight crime, for instance, Douthat and Salam want to hire thousands of "young men from the inner cities" as police officers. Those who work by the hour should receive "wage subsidies," a policy based on the notion that if the government just gives people enough money, they'll all be rich. To bridge the cultural divide between the college grads and those who just got through high school, Douthat and Salam offer a simple solution--more college degrees.

When Douthat and Salam see anything that's authentically conservative and flourishing independently--most notably, homeschooling--their first instinct is to socialize it, so as to better link it to the GOP. Thus homeschooling should be reorganized by "state and local regulators," who would assign parents to teach other people's children.

In other moments, Douthat and Salalm seem to be either extremely vague about what they're actually proposing, or else they're just plain bluffing. To "create jobs," for instance, the government should "embrace large investments in alternate technologies." What might these be exactly? We never learn, only, "The key is to spread the money around."

If there's a kind of "theme" running throughout Grand New Party, it's the authors' total obliviousness to the concept of inflation--that dolling our more of something almost always decreases its value.

This is most obvious with their plan for "wage subsidies." I think most high schoolers who passed the AP Econ exam could explain to Douthat and Salam that simply giving workers more money inflates prices of everyday items (a classic case of too many dollars chasing too few goods). In this way, there's no real distinction between, say, giving everyone $10,000 and one million--in both cases prices would jump at a clip reflecting the size of the handout. (Perhaps "Every American a Millionaire!" is a fitting slogan for the hallow populism of the Grand New Party.)

Moreover, wage subsidies are hardly a new idea. As Charles Murray lays out in Losing Ground, "Negative Income Tax" measures, when tried in the 70s, became strong disincentives for work and career advancement. Furthermore, there were actually higher levels of marital breakdown among participants in the programs--certainly not good news to Douthat and Salam who justify the plan with the sentiment, "Given the right boost, poor young men could be working-class fathers."

Regarding higher education, and the cultural divide between grads and dropouts, Douthat and Salam's propose a plan that would essential inflate the Bachelors Degree into oblivion. So that more Sam's Club voters "get in," the authors throw out the idea of "class-based affirmative action." At the very least, they want to give need-based vouchers to voters and dictate that pubic universities receive federal aid based on the number of low-income students they graduate.

Such a plan isn't exactly conducive to academic integrity. I'm reminded of a friend of mine who taught writing at a small college in Chicago's South Loop. Saddled with students who were mostly functionally illiterate, he approached his dean with the unfortunate news that he'd have to flunk most of the class. "You need to change you criteria," was the response, and my friend was essentially ordered to prolong the charade, at least until the end of the semester, so as to keep the federal Stafford loans flowing. I doubt that any graduate of this institution was able to bridge the cultural divide, nor that they gained much of anything from higher education other than personal debt.

Whatever else one might say about Allan Bloom, he at least had the guts to assert openly that fewer people should be attending college and that the rewards of academic study are not for the general. Douthat and Salam, on the other hand, treat the BA as a commodity the government can distribute to ensure a more just society. Their plan for higher-ed vouchers is a bit more "free-market" oriented than, say, the "everyone gets to go for free" approach of Denis Kucinich. But then both essentially adhere to the same egalitarian logic.

Even Douthat and Salam's more sensible proposals can't evade the law of unintended consequences. Take, for instance, their plan (borrowed from Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert Stein) to expand the tax credit for each child from $1000 to $5000, a policy they justify not on economic grounds but as a way to "stigmatize illegitimacy indirectly by tying tax relief to responsible parenting."

Lower taxes are great, and more child credits would surely please both social conservatives and budget hawks. But then despite their motives, Douthat and Salam are essentially addressing an effect and not a cause. When a responsible couple decides to get married in order to start a family--as opposed to getting hitched after one got knocked up--they do so only after they've accumulated substantial savings, or else can expect a steady income flow in the foreseeable future. Thus if Douthat and Salam really want the state to manage marriage and families--giving tax credits to this, "stigmatizing" that--it might actually be a better idea to focus on increasing the savings rate of young singles, helping them to generate capital before they take the plunge. Or how about simply taxing everyone less?

What's at issue here is not simply tax policy, but, as one sympathetic critic put it, Douthat and Salam's "willingness to use government as the means to achieve generally conservative ends." Retread liberal policies are presented as "outlandish" new rightwing ideas, which Douthat and Salam are positive will work just fine this time because they'll be implemented by Republicans and have conservative-sounding objectives.

And finally there's the question of whether the Grand New Plan, properly implemented, would actually do much to improve the prospect of the poor of old Republican Party.

Put simply, the GOP lost in '06 because of the Iraq war, stupid. And McCain will probably go down in '08 for the same reason. There are certainly some other factors involved, but these do not include a perceived lack of governmental activism on the part of the Republicans. Indeed, it's quite remarkable just how little the GOP has profited from its "compassionate conservative" agenda of No Child Left Behind, Medicare expansion, and the rest of it. Whether Republicans have ever reaped any benefits from their socialist programs over the years is highly questionable. To adopt Sam's Club socialism, the GOP would essentially be selling its limited-government birthright for a mess of electoral pottage--and then not even get the pottage.

If Douthat and Salam were interested strictly in winning elections, they could spare us the wage subsidies, write a shorter book, and offer the GOP this simple plan:

* Keep the "limited government" rhetoric, it still works with some.
* Actually attempt to limit government.
* Promise to get out of Iraq.

Immigration restriction and ending affirmative action are two others policies with broad popular appeal that seem to be begging to be exploited. But Douthat and Salam either equivocate on these issues or else avoid them entirely.

Ever since '06, the Beltway Right has been busy trying to think up a "conservatism that can win again," that is, a reinvention of the domestic agenda that doesn't tread on the non-negotiable foreign-policy commitments like the war on terror and major trade agreements. For this, Grand New Party fills a gap, and its warm reception inside the Beltway is not surprising--plenty of social programs to please liberals, social cons are thrown a bone or two, and the war is never questioned, barely even mentioned, which satisfies the neocons. On the level of rhetoric, as Bushian evangelical freedom spreading has become embarrassing, and has thankfully been mostly abandoned, a little dumbed-down Sam's Club-solidarity talk might work as a substitute.

What's needed from the real Right is a revival of the critique of egalitarianism.