Hopeful signs of restoring a political center

Studying the unemployment rate, the Consumer Price Index and growth of the Gross Domestic Product might lead you to conclude — as many do — that American households are prospering.

But, then, how to account for the darker data also emerging from the American story? The opioid epidemic, decreasing life expectancy, falling birth rate and increasing suicides point to mounting despair.

An explanation for that contradiction is offered in a remarkable report published last month by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/reevaluating-prosperity-of-american-family.

“Recent decades of economic growth have eroded, rather than reinforced, the American model of thriving, self-sufficient families,” the study asserts. “The ability of a wage earner to provide for his family has declined dramatically. A typical family can no longer afford what they need.”

Surveys like the Consumer Price Index “do not describe all the forces acting on a household budget,” the study says. “Inflation does not measure affordability.”

As an alternative, the study developed a “Cost-of-Thriving Index” that tracks the price of major items a middle-class family of four would seek to acquire.

The index calculates how many weeks of median-income wages would be required in a year to rent a three-bedroom house, secure health insurance, cover one semester of public college and own an automobile.

“In 1985, the cost totaled $13,227, which, at a weekly wage of $443, would require 30 weeks of work,” the index found. “In 2018, the cost totaled $54,414, which, at a weekly wage of $1,026, would require 53 weeks of work. This is a problem, as there are only 52 weeks in a year.”

For a woman, the problem is worse. In 1985, the median income woman could cover those expenses in 45 weeks. In 2018, she needed 66 to make ends meet.

The median wage for men working full time from 1985-2018 rose from $443 per week to $1,026. For women, median wages rose from $296 to $830. But the costs of housing, health care, college and autos rose much faster.

“A generation ago (the chief wage earner) had the ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education,” the study concludes. “Now he cannot.”

The widening divide between what American life costs and what American jobs pay has raised distress signals from working-class voters. It explains the rise of populism on the right from President Donald Trump and the left from Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The middle class has been losing ground since Reaganomics became Republican religion in the 1980s. Reaganomics preaches that when wealthy individuals and corporations prosper from tax cuts and lax regulations, a “trickle-down effect” benefits middle-class Americans.

The study’s stark findings expose the false narrative of that happy talk. Wealth has accumulated among the extremely rich, not trickled down.

Liberal economists and leftist activists have been warning for years about America’s staggering economic inequality. The Manhattan Institute report now sounds that same alarm as a conservative cause. It challenges four decades of libertarian free-market economics.

The author of the study, Oren Cass, has formed an organization, American Compass, dedicated to reviving a “more historic conservative orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity.”

Cass, who served as an advisor to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid, told the Washington Post his goal is “to think about what the post-Trump right-of-center is going to be.”

Cass is finding a receptive audience among several GOP senators, including Romney (Utah), Marco Rubio (Florida), Mike Lee (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Nebraska).

The Day applauds Cass’s quest to steer the GOP in a more moderate direction. We endorse his effort to reintroduce critical thinking, social science and data-driven policy strategy to conservative economic theory. It is a sorely needed tonic to eradicate the ill effects of Reaganomics and Trump’s subsequent cartoon populism.

Democratic voters may be in the process of conducting their own electoral exorcism of the party’s populist fringe. Last week’s Super Tuesday presidential primary results indicate voters may be rejecting the “eat the rich” and “government provides all” simplistic solutions Sanders espouses.

We hope these developments are planting seeds of change that can allow a measure of balance in American politics to return. For a nation grown weary of warring with itself, frustrated over the unwillingness of the political class to compromise, some equilibrium in our public discourse would be most welcome.