Advertisement

Column: Do political labels inform or mislead?

 
Published Nov. 27, 2015

Republicans seeking their party's nomination like to claim that they are the "most conservative" candidate who can win the White House. Similarly, their Democratic counterparts make claims of being the "most progressive" candidate capable of attracting "independent" voters and winning the election.

Do these political labels add to understanding, or do they simply mislead by carrying no substantive information about what a candidate will actually do once in office? For instance, in 2012 candidate Mitt Romney referred to himself as a "severe conservative," without attaching any policy significance to this self-description, hoping that the adjective alone would imply the desired degree of seriousness without conveying specific policy positions.

What does it mean to be "more or less" conservative? Is it really "conservative" to claim that the recipients of food stamps are merely "takers" from the "makers" of society, or does that statement simply serve to hide the candidate's inability to offer a substantive economic plan that addresses current economic conditions?

Does the maker/taker rhyme apply as well to billionaire sports team owners who enjoy tax-financed stadiums or to banking moguls who enjoy taxpayer bailouts? Is it "more conservative" to oppose investment spending on assets like our transportation infrastructure but to favor consumption spending on weapon systems that the Pentagon says it does not want?

A popular conservative agenda is the pursuit of economic growth. So, is a candidate who asserts that her plan can grow the economy at 4 percent for "as far as the eye can see" more conservative than a candidate who would settle for 3 percent? Conservatives routinely harken back to the Reagan Revolution, which is credited with high growth rates, but even in those halcyon days the 4 percent growth rate could not be sustained.

Recall that during the first two years of Reagan's presidency, the Fed was imposing restrictive monetary policy to wring double-digit inflation out of the economy. Consequently, the economy was in recession, and unemployment rose for a time to over 10 percent. As the inflation rate was brought down, monetary policy eased and government spending and deficits massively increased.

The result of these twin stimuli was temporary growth rates well above 4 percent as the economy increased the employment of its people and equipment. However, once full employment was reached, growth slowed to more normal rates. So with this experience as our guide, is it "more conservative" to claim that the country can grow at some unsustainable rate or is it simple pandering?

To break through sloganeering, an investigative reporter might ask, "What economic model or data set or experience led you to conclude that such rapid growth could be sustained over a long period of time without the usual concern of inflation?"

What does it mean to be "more or less progressive?" Democrats try to be more "progressive," with their primary metric being their concern about income inequality. Their most frequently proposed policy tool is to raise the minimum wage above its current level of $7.25 per hour. If one candidate espouses increasing the minimum wage to $10.10, is another "more progressive" to advocate for $15?

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

Once again, the label distracts from the substance. The great concern with raising such wage floors is that, by making labor more expensive, the policy will reduce employment. To assess this concern, economists use the data from the many times that the federal minimum wage has been raised since 1938.

Adjusted for inflation, $10.10 per hour is the high end of that statistical database. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, based on that data, raising the minimum wage results in a 30-to-1 ratio: a small sacrifice of employment in exchange for 30 times that number of people enjoying the higher wages.

However, we have no experience with minimum wage increases anywhere near the proposed minimum wage of $15 per hour; that level is 50 percent above any previous minimum wage level. So, the intrepid reporter might ask the advocate of $15 per hour minimum wage the following question, "What economic model or data set or experience leads you to claim no serious unemployment problem will result from raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour?"

The antidote to labeling as a substitute for substance is to challenge office-seekers on their actual understanding of what they are saying. If that understanding is shallow, expose it. If their claims are mere pandering with no basis in fact or principle, demonstrate it.

Only rigorous challenge will disincentivize the use of labels that are empty rhetorical devices that attract votes from hard-working Americans too busy to doublecheck for themselves.

William L. Holahan, far left, is emeritus professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. Charles O. Kroncke, retired dean of the College of Business at UW-M, is also retired from USF. They are co-authors of "Economics for Voters." They wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.