Minnesota’s Fraud Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Democrats
The specter of welfare fraud haunts the Democrats once again. Concerns about abuse of generous government programs helped power the rise of Reagan-era conservatism in the 1970s and ’80s. Could the criminal abuse of hundreds of millions of dollars in welfare costs in Minnesota, which has brought down the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz, be leveraged to similar broad political effect today?
Recall that Democrats’ standard approach to warnings about welfare fraud during the rise of Ronald Reagan was to minimize the problem and characterize the issue as exaggerated and racially charged. Democrats had fallen into a trap: They responded to a serious issue by standing by their ideological priors to placate their base.
Until Bill Clinton and his invocation of Americans who “work hard and play by the rules” finally allowed the Democrats to escape from the Republicans’ fraud trap, the Democrats spent years in the political wilderness.
Early signs suggest the Democrats are embarking on a similar trajectory.
Before announcing that he would no longer seek re-election, Mr. Walz admitted that some fraud happened on his watch but deflected, saying that Republicans are appealing to racism and xenophobia.
Mr. Walz’s departure indicates this is no more effective than Democrats’ response to welfare fraud accusations in the Reagan era. Americans detest people getting something for nothing — the very essence of fraud. As the party that typically wants more and more generous social programs, Democrats have a special responsibility to ensure that these programs are clean as a whistle and reward only those who “work hard and play by the rules.”
Democrats are also the party that positions itself as the friend of immigrants and immigration. As such, they have a special responsibility to ensure that those admitted to the country assimilate, follow the rules and contribute — rather than take — from the community. The conservative Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 54 percent of Somali-headed families in Minnesota are on food stamps.
Therefore, the first response of Democrats to instances like the Minnesota fraud findings should not be to criticize the other side for attacking them and wave the bloody shirt of racism against President Trump but rather to stress the seriousness of the problem and how it will not be tolerated. The rules apply to everyone, including Somali immigrants, and will be rigorously enforced. No more will we tolerate lax oversight of a community because of worries about accusations of racism or the withholding of political support. And so on.
Failing that, Democrats are likely to once again find themselves in a Republican fraud trap. As more examples of fraud come to light, both in Minnesota and elsewhere, Democrats will find themselves continually backfooted by Republican accusations of negligence if not outright complicity. Continued invocations of racism and xenophobia by Democrats will serve only to reinforce the impression that Democrats are primarily motivated by identitarian concerns and their ideological commitment to large government programs, rather than effective governance — which, of course, is exactly what Republicans want.
Democrats may be inclined to dismiss the potential political effects of the fraud issue because of their recent success in wielding affordability concerns against Republicans. The theory is that voters are so dissatisfied with their personal financial situations and the failure of the Trump administration to improve them that people won’t really care about a problem like program fraud. But people who are financially pressed are especially likely to be incensed at others gaming the system. This is a longstanding dynamic of American politics, and there is little reason to believe it doesn’t apply today.
Democrats may hope to turn the tables on Republicans by bringing up examples like the Mississippi welfare fraud scandal, in which more Republicans than Democrats were implicated. That won’t change the fact that voters identify Democrats as the party of welfare programs and react negatively to abuse on Democrats’ watch. “What about …?” is unlikely to work in this case.
Democrats may also deflect this concern by pointing to the recent success of unapologetic progressives like Zohran Mamdani, who wants to protect immigrants and expand government programs. But his success, and the political dynamic it is sparking, will make it more difficult to deal with the fraud issue.
Mr. Mamdani in his victory speech when elected mayor of New York City declared that “there is no problem too large for government to solve and no concern too small for it to care about.” While acknowledging in his inauguration speech that mediocrity has become accepted in the public sector and excellence is the exception, he denounced “those who insist that the era of big government is over.” He promised to “govern as a democratic socialist” and to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
One can scarcely imagine an approach less likely to resonate with the average American, particularly the average working-class American, who tends to be suspicious of big government, hostile to collectivism and completely OK with rugged individualism. It’s unlikely to convince such voters that Democrats will eliminate fraud in government programs and ensure that only those who work hard and play by the rules benefit.
Of course, not everyone in the Democratic Party shares Mr. Mamdani’s views or those of other progressives. But the influence of their political strain has only grown during the first year of Mr. Trump’s new term. This will act as a check on any Democrat hoping to escape the fraud trap, because attempting to do so will probably generate the same accusations of racism and xenophobia from progressives that are currently directed toward Republicans.
The fraud scandal in Minnesota should serve as a wake-up call for Democrats that the issue could hurt their prospects for years to come. But the internal dynamics of their party may not allow the Democrats to mount an effective response. There is no Clinton-like figure out there so far to lead the party in the right direction. That could be a problem — a big problem.