For 2012 Republicans: The Economy Trumps the Culture War
Mary Kate Cary

We all know the answer to Reagan's question: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

On the day that President Obama was sworn into office, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. Today it stands at 9.1 percent, an increase of 25 percent. Back on Inauguration Day, a gallon of gas was averaging $1.83, while today it stands at $3.74. In the last few months, we've seen declines in real wages, in manufacturing production and orders, in existing home sales, and in chain-store sales, and a sharp drop in consumer confidence. I think we all know the answer to President Reagan's question during the Carter years: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

The national debt was "only" $10.6 trillion when Obama took office; it's now $14.3 trillion. The national debt may not be a pocketbook worry like gasoline prices or real wages, but economist Martin Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently that the economic bad news will continue until we have a plan to bring the deficit under control without raising taxes. In fact, one of the causes of the weak economy is Obama's repeated calls for higher taxes on wealthier Americans and multinational companies. "With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them," Feldstein wrote, "it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery."

Instead of allaying those fears by negotiating a leaner federal budget and endorsing the findings of the deficit commission -- which would go a long way toward spurring hiring and investment -- the president keeps pleading for patience, saying there are no "quick fixes" to the economy. He doesn't seem to understand that many middle-class families and Main Street businesses can't afford to wait and see what happens with taxes, healthcare costs, energy prices, and interest rates on their mortgages.

By not acting decisively, the administration risks becoming completely irrelevant to voters. In fact, most folks believe that government policies are making the economy worse. Two thirds of Americans now think our nation is on the wrong track.

With the debt growing, the economy stalling, and no plan for fixing either one coming from Obama, the 2012 presidential election provides Republican candidates with a clear opportunity to make the case for limited government and fiscal conservatism. But until recently, there were still many social conservatives who thought Republican victory lay in hot-button "wedge" issues like gay marriage and abortion. Then, as the Obama recession has dragged on, they've seen what has been happening at the ballot box: Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Chris Christie of New Jersey were elected governor, and Scott Brown of Massachusetts won a Senate seat, after keeping fiscal issues, not social concerns, in the forefront of their campaigns.

Social conservatives have realized that just as Obama risks becoming irrelevant for his inaction on the economy, they too risk being sidelined for overaction on cultural issues. These days, both fiscal and social conservatives seem to be moving in the same direction: It's more important to get people back to work and reduce the deficit than it is to debate "don't ask, don't tell" or Proposition 8 in California.

A year ago, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told the Weekly Standard that the next president, whoever he is, "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while." Daniels's comments were controversial at the time, but now not so much. Things seem to be changing within the GOP.

In a recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, GOP primary voters were asked if they'd be more likely to support a primary candidate in 2012 who says the party should focus more on economic issues than social concerns. A whopping two thirds said they'd be more, not less, likely to vote for that candidate. It sounds like voters are where Daniels was a year ago. "In politics, purity is the enemy of victory," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told a recent conference of social conservatives. "We can't expect our [presidential] candidate to be pure. Winning is about unity, not purity," he said.

Winning was certainly on the minds of the seven GOP candidates who met for their first debate in New Hampshire earlier this month. While pretty much every candidate did have something to say about abortion, they spent more time talking about a topic far more relevant to middle-class families: Obama's handling of the economy. Every one of the candidates on stage endorsed, in some way or another, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan 's plan to reform entitlements. They all agreed that job creation and the economy are the top issues of this campaign.

The same conference at which Barbour spoke was organized by former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and attended by such fiscal activists as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. "We really have an economic crisis," Deal Hudson, an influential Catholic conservative, told my U.S. News colleague Alex Parker . "I don't have a problem with an appropriate amount of attention to that." Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, noted that "the divide between the Tea Party and the social conservatives is a false divide." Former Sen. Rick Santorum put it well: "Social conservatives understand that the bigger the government, the smaller the person and the more repressed the family."

It's safe to say that conservatives of all stripes feel that to continue to spend taxpayer money irresponsibly and run up endless deficits is a moral issue. And I'd bet quite a few independent voters would agree.

Bernie Sanders' Shared Sacrifice Petition

Read the latest political news.