Noah writes:
Another headache-inducing finding in this poll – at least, at first glance – is the Journal’s test of Republican voters’ priorities when they are asked to choose between social and economic issues. Describing it as “a potential sign of the power” of DeSantis’s campaign against institutions that have committed themselves to divisive campaigns of redistributive social justice, the Journal’s survey found that “55% of Republicans say that fighting ‘woke ideology in our schools and businesses’ is more important than protecting entitlements from cuts.” By contrast, just over one-fifth of the GOP primary electorate ranks preserving the nation’s social safety net over putting “wokeness” in its place.
I’m confused as to why Noah thinks that this is bad from a conservative perspective. He has read the poll backwards, perhaps? The Journal records that:
In a potential sign of the power of those efforts, 55% of Republicans say that fighting “woke ideology in our schools and businesses” is more important than protecting entitlements from cuts. Some 22% say protecting entitlements is more important.
Which . . . is pretty normal for conservatives, no? If more Republicans believed that it was more important to fight “woke ideology” than to cut entitlements, I’d understand the critique. But the Journal‘s poll shows the opposite. It shows that more Republicans believe that it is important to fight “woke ideology” than to protect entitlements. How, exactly, is that a repudiation of conservatism?
It’s not. Indeed, it’s pretty normal. As has been the case for a long time now, Republicans remain fairly protective of entitlements, but they temper this protective instinct with a greater interest in other things. As a matter of fact, a willingness to prioritize other issues over protecting entitlements is pretty much what makes someone a conservative or a Republican in the first place. For decades, people who have voted Republican have said, “sure, I like Social Security and Medicare, and sure, I’m being told that the Republican party will cut them, but what’s more important to me this year is [winning the Cold War/fighting inflation/abortion/guns/tax cuts/the Supreme Court/the War on Terror/repealing Obamacare].”
The Journal‘s poll reflects this neatly. When asked, “Which of the following candidates would you be MOST likely to vote for in the 2024 Presidential election?” 49 percent of Republican primary voters said “a candidate who would preserve Social Security and Medicare in their current form,” while 31 percent said “a candidate who would push for changes to Social Security and Medicare intended to keep the programs running into the future even if it resulted in cutting benefits and / or raising the retirement age.” When asked how important the issue is relative to others, however, the same respondents revealed that they don’t care about entitlements as much as they care about other things. Asked, “Which of the following is most important to you personally?” 27 percent of Republican primary voters said “protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits from cuts” and 55 percent said “fighting woke ideology in our schools and businesses.”
This dynamic is reflected elsewhere in the poll. Only one percent of the Republican primary voters whom the Journal polled said that “Social Security (Protect Social Security)” is the “most important to you when thinking about who you will vote for in the 2024 Presidential election?” This compares to 35 percent who chose “Economy,” fourteen percent who chose “Immigration,” seven percent who chose “Inflation,” and six percent who chose “Foreign policy.” That, when asked to express their priorities, Republican primary voters were more interested in opposing “woke ideology” than in preserving Social Security from cuts should not be at all surprising, and it certainly should not be seen as a sign that economic conservatism is dead. The exact details of the dyads might have changed, but, in outline, one would have seen the same results in 2010, in 2000, in 1990, and in 1980, too.