Since the 1980s, Americans on the political right have consistently voted in favor of supply-side economics, a discredited theory suggesting that lower taxes for the wealthy will benefit everyone. This voting pattern is remarkable because most voters are not wealthy, so they will be unlikely to realize any gains from supply-side policies; if anything, they are liable to be harmed. In short, Republicans can’t get enough of supply-side economics, even though it’s bad for their wallets. Why?
This is the central question that occupies Christopher M. Duerringer’s essay, “The Rhetoric of Supply-Side Economics,” which argues that common economic tropes naturalize the supply-side model and make it feel right for many voters—even when it clearly isn’t.
In this response, I respond to Duerringer’s argument; specifically, I contend that while he offers a useful picture of the extent to which metaphors can shape our thinking, he does not fully account for the reasons that Republicans in particular are receptive to certain tropes. Additionally, Duerringer’s argument would likely be stronger if he attempted to place the influence of tropes into a larger cultural context, which would help prevent readers from overestimating their effects.
Duerringer’s essay is strongest when it maps out the likely effects of metaphors on attitudes toward supply-side economics. It seems to me that his research question—why do some Americans consistently vote against self-interest?—touches a relevant point of contact between theory and real-world behavior. Often, theories are most powerful when they can resolve a paradox or explain an apparently irrational practice. In other words, as the reason for something becomes less apparent, the need for a theory to explain it increases. And here, Duerringer clearly contributes to the field of communications by working to map the underappreciated effects of metaphors on voter attitudes and behaviors. In particular, his combination of the tropes of “money as liquid” and economic classes “as vertically distributed strata” is especially compelling (Duerringer 13). On their own, each of these tropes has a certain amount of persuasive appeal; but as a pair, they attain additional signifying power. Future researchers might explore the synergistic effects of networks of interrelated tropes.
Despite offering a genuine contribution to theory, Duerringer’s argument might be improved in two ways. First, he might offer a clearer accounting of the uneven power of certain metaphors across the political spectrum. If the irrational support for supply-side economics is a uniquely Republican phenomenon driven by powerful conceptual metaphors, then what is it that inoculates those on the political left? Unfortunately, Duerringer does not explain why Republicans seem more receptive to certain tropes—if anything, he argues for their universal appeal (11–13).
Second, the essay would likely be stronger if it placed tropes into a larger cultural context. It is certain that, while metaphors are powerful, they are not the only drivers of voting behavior. While I understand that Duerringer is not obliged to offer a complete picture of the various social, religious, and philosophical factors at issue, his argument would still benefit from at least acknowledging that tropes are not solely responsible for the success of supply-side economics. For instance, if Republicans are more likely to be evangelical Christians, then perhaps they vote for candidates who seem to share their religious values (and if supply-side economics comes packaged with those candidates, then so be it).
Despite these limitations, Duerringer’s work helps to explain the strange, enduring popularity of supply-side economics. Although most would agree that tropes are rhetorical tools created by people, Duerringer reminds us that the influence flows both ways—and people are also created by tropes. By being attentive to the words we use, we can notice and interrogate our own beliefs, and perhaps prevent words from using us in ways that harm our interests.
Joe Harris RWS Journal 