COVID-19 Relief Debates Illustrate Trifurcated Conservatism

When Donald Trump won the 2016 Republican Primary, he did so by running against many policies that were considered party orthodoxy. His brand of populism has been intellectualized by some to define working class conservatism where conservatism is concerned with “the people” and not the needs of “the elites” or overly obsessed with “market fundamentalism.”

The deviation from Republican orthodoxy on trade, his willingness to suggest support for massive government programs, and unwillingness to touch entitlement programs or do anything about the debt and deficit prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, led those opposed to this new working class conservatism to declare that the party has turned it’s back on fiscal conservatism.

However, things are rarely that simple as the Republican-led Senate proved when it put together the latest phase of its COVID-19 relief effort.

The plan called for $1,200 per person ($2,400 for joint filers) plus $500 per child. The payments would begin to phase out for those making above $75,000 ($150,000 joint) and would be completely phased out above $99,000 ($198,000 joint). Those without liability would only receive $600 ($1,200 joint) and all of this would be based on one’s 2018 tax returns.

The problem is obvious. One’s income in 2018 has no bearing on their current situation. Two years ago they could have had solid jobs or been running a successful business, but today they could be on the ropes. Furthermore, the lower payments to those on the lower end of the scale makes no sense, for it is they who would be the hardest hit.

The simple answer would be to just give every American a payment of $2,500 every month for the next three months. If we are still in this mess three months from now, then Congress can re-authorize it, if we are out of the woods and the health experts say it is safe to restart civilization, then great! All of us who do not work in the restaurant business should go out for dinner and leave our waiter or waitress a nice tip.

The Senate GOP plan, however did not receive unanimous acclaim from the caucus. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who is often viewed as working class conservatism’s intellectual voice in Congress tweeted the following:

He would later add the Senate GOP proposal “needs to be fixed.”

Joining Hawley in condemning the Republicans’ proposal was just about every conservative commentator, including many people usually regarded as free marketeers.

French’s comments are not proof that “there’s no libertarians in a pandemic,” to the contrary, the federal government as well as many state governments are having to consider whether all the regulations they have put in place over the years are hampering the ability to fight the virus and the economic well being of their citizens.

What they are proof is that this is a shock to system and unlike in 2008 it was external shock. Also politically, if we learned anything, the bailouts were terrible optics. If you give the cruise line and casino industries a bailout but tell John and Jane Doe on Main Street “tough luck” then you deserve to lose in November and the populist backlash that ensues.

French and Hawley are often at opposing ends of the questions that conservatives are facing internally. French is more of the classical liberal who believes in libertarian ideas of individual liberty while Hawley is more of the type of who focuses on family and societal cohesion and believes that government can and should be used to promote virtue.

But while French and Hawley may agree on this current controversy, but not on others, the third are the old school Country Club Republicans who either support the above plan or oppose direct payments all together. Instead they may seek payroll tax cuts or more loans to small business in addition to bailouts.

In normal times, these would be the old George W. Bush types who support tax cuts and free trade, which free marketeers would support, but deviate in their lack of fiscal discipline and support subsidies for things such as ethanol. Instead of a bigger government conservatism to helper the working class, they favored a bigger government to help businesses, particularly corporations.

These are the people who say no to direct payments, but yes to casino bailouts.

This was the debate many thought the Republican Party was having before Trump, but his raise has replaced the tradition Venn Diagram with the three-way version. It may be unseemly to talk politics in the middle of a pandemic, but how Republicans view the Senate’s plan will be a dividing line for 2024.