AMERICAN.COM

Jack Kemp believed in the wonder-working power of entrepreneurial capitalism to make all Americans more prosperous and more capable of achieving their dreams. I cannot imagine Kemp talking about “the poor” the way Mitt Romney did the other day. Recall what Romney said:

I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them … The – the challenge right now – we will hear from the Democrat Party, the plight of the poor, and – and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That – these are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years.

The late congressman, GOP vice presidential nominee, and supply-side revolutionary wasn’t about repairing safety nets. Instead, Kemp believed he was leading a rescue mission to free lower-income Americans from a system that was trapping them in poverty. Here he is in 1990:

America is not divided immutably into two static classes. But it is separated or divided into two economies. One economy — our mainstream economy — is democratic and capitalist, market-oriented and entrepreneurial. It offers incentives for working families in labor and management. This mainstream economy rewards work, investment, saving and productivity. Incentives abound for productive economic and social behavior.

There is another economy — a second economy that is similar in respects to the East European or Third World socialist economies. It functions in a fashion opposite to the mainstream capitalist economy. It predominates in the pockets of poverty throughout urban and rural America. This economy has barriers to productive human and social activity and a virtual absence of economic incentives and rewards. It denies black, Hispanic and other minority men and women entry into the mainstream. This economy works almost as effectively as did hiring notices 50 years ago that read “No Blacks — or Hispanics or Irish or whatever — Need Apply.”

The irony is that the second economy was born of desire to help the poor, alleviate suffering, and provide a basic social safety net. The results were a counterproductive economy. Instead of independence, the second economy led to dependence. In an effort to minimize economic pain, it maximized welfare bureaucracy and social costs.

And this is how Kemp would have replied to the Occupy movement:

In my opinion, people of all colors and income levels don’t hate the rich. They want to get rich. They’re more interested in generating wealth than they are in redistributing wealth. They want to own property, educate their children and build a nest egg that can be passed on to their heirs. Unfortunately, some aren’t able to access the same ladder of opportunity that is so readily available to the majority. . . .

By giving people access to capital and allowing them to take ownership of assets, entrepreneurship will be encouraged and the cycle of poverty can begin to be broken. All persons should have the opportunity to go as high as their merit and determination can carry them. My favorite quote is from Abraham Lincoln, who said, “I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.” Lincoln’s definition of entrepreneurial capitalism is the best I have ever heard.

Free-market, entrepreneurial capitalism—as opposed to state capitalism or crony capitalism—is under assault in 2012 America. And whether Romney likes it or not, that will be part of the subtext of the general election. In Osawatomie, Kansas, President Obama clearly stated that the past 30 years of U.S. economic policy—lower taxes, lighter regulation, more economic freedom—had been a failure. “It doesn’t work,” Obama said, “It’s never worked.”

The president wants to fix the holes in the safety net and then expand it. What we need is a longer ladder of opportunity. Now, Romney talks about supporting an “Opportunity Society” vs. Obama’s “Entitlement Society.” But why? To address the economic anxiety of “the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling,” as he puts it. No, Romney’s vision needs to be broader than that because America’s problems are bigger than that. For instance, why isn’t Romney talking every day about a failed U.S. education system, particularly for the urban poor, and the role of teachers unions in perpetuating it? It’s a civil rights as much as an economic issue—and someone who wants to be the next American president needs to be all over it. Jack Kemp would have been.