Conservatism (US Politics)

Latest story

125 Shares119 Views

The Surprising Left-Right Alliance That Wants More Apartments in Suburbs

by

The YIMBY movement isn’t just for liberals any more. Legislators from both sides of the political divide are working to add duplexes and apartments to single-family neighborhoods.For years, the Yimbytown conference was an ideologically safe space where liberal young professionals could talk to other liberal young professionals about the particular problems of cities with a lot of liberal young professionals: not enough bike lanes and transit, too many restrictive zoning laws.The event began in 2016 in Boulder, Colo., and has ever since revolved around a coalition of left and center Democrats who want to make America’s neighborhoods less exclusive and its housing more dense. (YIMBY, a pro-housing movement that is increasingly an identity, stands for “Yes in my backyard.”)But the vibes and crowd were surprisingly different at this year’s meeting, which was held at the University of Texas at Austin in February. In addition to vegan lunches and name tags with preferred pronouns, the conference included — even celebrated — a group that had until recently been unwelcome: red-state Republicans.The first day featured a speech on changing zoning laws by Greg Gianforte, the Republican governor of Montana, who last year signed a housing package that YIMBYs now refer to as “the Montana Miracle.” Day 2 kicked off with a panel on solutions to Texas’s rising housing costs. One of the speakers was a Republican legislator in Texas who, in addition to being an advocate for loosening land-use regulations, has pushed for a near-total ban on abortions.Anyone who missed these discussions might have instead gone to the panel on bipartisanship where Republican housing reformers from Arizona and Montana talked with a Democratic state senator from Vermont. Or noticed the list of sponsors that, in addition to foundations like Open Philanthropy and Arnold Ventures, included conservative and libertarian organizations like the Mercatus Center, the American Enterprise Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Wrestling With Inequality, Some Conservatives Redraw Economic Blueprint

    by

    A growing number of Republican politicians and theorists are challenging party orthodoxy on pocketbook issues, corporate power and government’s role.More Republicans are coming to the view that economic inequality, or a lack of social mobility, is a problem in the United States — and that more can be done to enable families to attain or regain a middle-class life.Though discussions about inequality tend to be most visible among liberals, about four in 10 Republican or Republican-leaning adults think there is too much economic inequality in the country, according to a Pew Research survey. And among Republicans making less than about $40,000 a year who see too much economic inequality, 63 percent agree that the economic system “requires major changes” to address it.But a growing debate among conservative thinkers, politicians and the party base — online, in books and in public forums — reveals a group divided about how, in practice, to address pocketbook issues and the extent to which the government should be involved.“I don’t think just having a bigger government is a solution to a lot of these problems,” said Inez Stepman, a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum and a fellow with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank widely credited with giving Trumpism an intellectual framework. “But I do think that we could stand to think a little bit more on the right about how to make that 1950s middle-class life possible for people.”These yearnings and ideological stirrings have picked up as both whites without college degrees and the broader working class have grown as a share of Republican voters. (Hillary Clinton won college-educated white voters by 17 percentage points in her 2016 race against Donald J. Trump; four years earlier, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, carried that group.)A notable swipe against longtime Republican economic thinking has come from Sohrab Ahmari, a conservative who served as an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal and the opinion editor of The New York Post. The metamorphosis of his worldview is laid out in a recently published book, “Tyranny, Inc.: How Private Power Crushed American Liberty — and What to Do About It.”“I was writing editorials preaching the gospel of low taxes, free trade, et cetera,” Mr. Ahmari said in an interview. But Mr. Trump’s election inspired him to research how “American life in general for the lower rungs of the labor market is unbelievably precarious,” he said, and his politics changed.Mr. Ahmari recently endorsed a second term for Mr. Trump, but he has written that “while ferociously conservative on cultural issues,” he is also “increasingly drawn to the economic policies of the left — figures like Senators Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.”In their own ways, Republican presidential primary candidates are jostling for ways to validate the populist energy and financial unease that Mr. Trump tapped into with a mix of pronouncements and policy promises. Some have set out economic goals that, according to many experts, are hard to square with their promises to reduce public debt and taxes and make deep cuts to government programs — especially now that many Republicans have backed away from calls to cut entitlement benefits.In a campaign speech in New Hampshire this summer called “A Declaration of Economic Independence,” Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican presidential contender, sharply critiqued China, diversity programming, “excessive regulation and excessive taxes” — a familiar set of modern conservative concerns. Yet he also echoed complaints and economic goals often heard from the left.“We want to be a country where you can raise a family on one sole income,” he told the crowd.“We cannot have policy that kowtows to the largest corporations and Wall Street at the expense of small businesses and average Americans,” he added. “There’s a difference between a free-market economy, which we want, and corporatism.”Critics on the left and the right argue that Mr. DeSantis has failed to clearly define how he would achieve those goals. The DeSantis campaign declined to comment for this article, but he has cited pathways to broader prosperity that include bringing industrial jobs back from abroad, increasing work force education and technical training, removing “red tape” faced by small businesses and aiming for annual U.S. economic growth of at least 3 percent.Though the fissures on the right over economic issues were evident when Mr. Trump upended the political scene eight years ago, the realignments are maturing and deepening, causing fresh tensions as factions disagree on the extent to which inequality, globalization and growing corporate power should be seen as problems.Some conservatives remain more concerned with the trajectory of federal spending and unlocking greater overall prosperity, rather than its distribution.Last year, Phil Gramm, a Republican who steered the passage of major tax cuts and deregulation during his time representing Texas in Congress from the 1970s to the early 2000s, published a book with his fellow economists Robert Ekelund and John Early called “The Myth of American Inequality.” The book — filled with alternative tabulations of impoverishment and living standards — argues that inequality is not high and rising as “the mainstream” suggests.It argues that when including welfare transfers, income inequality has been more stable than government figures suggest, and that the share of Americans living in poverty fell from 15 percent in 1967 to only 1.1 percent in 2017.“The point of the book is to get the facts straight,” Mr. Gramm said in an interview, adding that “we’re having these debates” with numbers that are “verifiably false.” (Some scholars have vehemently disagreed with the authors’ analysis.)Scott Lincicome, a vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that he largely agreed with Mr. Gramm’s thesis and that Americans were mostly wrestling with “keeping up with the Joneses,” not a loss of economic traction.“In general, folks at the bottom, up to the median, are doing better,” Mr. Lincicome concluded. “They’re not winning the game, but they’re doing better than the same group was 30-plus years ago.”He added: “You know, economists can debate all day long whether we’re better off, worse off overall or whatever. But when you factor in all the factors, I personally think things are fine.”To the extent that these debates have popular reach, the most public face of the revisionist camp may be Oren Cass, an adviser to Mr. Romney’s 2012 campaign, who has become immersed in a collective project among some right-leaning thinkers to “rebuild capitalism.”Mr. Cass and his allies want to use government spending and power to promote economic mobility with traditionalist goals in mind — like reducing the cost of living for the heads of married, two-parent households.Mr. Cass praised Mr. Ahmari’s book as one that “bravely goes where few conservatives dare tread, to the ideologically fraught realm in which the market appears inherently coercive and capitalism appears in tension with economic freedom.” (Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, is talking at a book event with Mr. Ahmari this month at the National Press Club in Washington.)Many economists and political scientists contend that the ideological realignment on the right is overblown, confused with a broader, hard-to-quantify loyalty to Mr. Trump rather than an explicit ideology giving life to Trumpism.“In a way,” Mr. Ahmari said, his critics — “the people who say, ‘Yeah, sure, you’re just a couple of guys: you, Oren, and a few others at magazines and think tanks’” — are “not wrong institutionally,” as there is little donor support for their efforts.“But they are wrong in terms of voters,” he added.Ms. Stepman of the Claremont Institute says she is personally “more traditional right” than thinkers like Mr. Ahmari but agrees they are tapping into something real. “There is a very underserved part of the political spectrum that is genuinely left of center on economic issues, right of center on cultural issues,” she said, pointing to issues including immigration, gun laws, education, gender norms and more.Gabe Guidarini is one of them.Growing up in Lake Bluff, Ill., in a working-class household where MSNBC often played in the background at night, Mr. Guidarini felt his view that “the status quo in this country is corrupt” was validated by the “anti-establishment” voices of both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump. But he came to the view that “you can’t get away with” social views that stray from progressive orthodoxy and still be accepted by Democrats. Now, at 19, he is the president of the University of Dayton College Republicans.In 2022, he worked as a campaign intern for J.D. Vance — the author of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis,” who aligned himself with Trumpism after his 2016 book was credited for providing a “reference guide” for Mr. Trump’s electoral success. Mr. Vance, an Ohio Republican, was elected to the U.S. Senate.In line with Tucker Carlson and some other conservatives, Mr. Guidarini thinks the party “should be taking policy samples from Viktor Orban in Hungary, and what he’s doing with family policies that aim to increase family creation, increase childbirth and make it easier to live a decent life as a working or middle-class taxpayer,” he said. “That’s what’s going to return the American dream for so many people, because to young people — and I feel like a lot of other people in America today — the American dream feels dead.”Mr. Guidarini, like many on the right, is wary of achieving those goals by increasing taxes on the wealthy. But according to Pew Research, more Republican or Republican-leaning adults support raising tax rates for those with incomes over $400,000 (46 percent) than say those rates should go unchanged (29 percent) or be lowered (24 percent). And more than half of low-income Republicans support higher taxes on the highest earners.For now, though, all economic debates are “tangential,” said Saagar Enjeti, a conservative millennial who is a co-host of two podcasts that often feature competing voices across the right.“‘What are we going to do when the Trump tax cuts expire?’ These are not the fights that are happening,” Mr. Enjeti said. “I wish they were, but they’re not. They’re just not.”With consensus on policy solutions elusive and “the culture wars” in the campaign forefront, Mr. Enjeti said, Republicans will mostly rally around what he believes will be Mr. Trump’s simple economic message: “Make America 2019 Again” — a time when unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates were low and, for all of life’s challenges, at least cultural conservatives were in the White House. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Robert E. Lucas Jr., Nobel-Winning Conservative Economist, Dies at 85

    by

    Challenging the theories of John Maynard Keynes, he questioned the idea that government intervention could help steer the economy.Robert E. Lucas Jr., a contrarian Nobel laureate in economics who undergirded conservative arguments that government intervention in fiscal policy is often self-defeating, died on Monday in Chicago. He was 85.His death was announced by the University of Chicago, where he began teaching as a professor in 1975 and remained a professor emeritus until his death. The announcement did not cite a cause.In awarding the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1995 to Professor Lucas, the fifth winner in economics from the University of Chicago in six years, the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences described him as “the economist who has had the greatest influence on macroeconomic research since 1970.”While he propounded a number of groundbreaking if sometimes controversial theories, Professor Lucas was best known for his hypothesis of “rational expectations,” advanced in the early 1970s in a critique of macroeconomics.In that critique, he challenged John Maynard Keynes’s long-established doctrine that government could manipulate the economy to achieve certain outcomes through reflexive interventionist policies, such as changing interest rates or taking other steps to increase or curb inflation or reduce unemployment.In the real world, Professor Lucas maintained, consumers and businesses make their decisions on the basis of rational expectations drawn from their own past experiences.“His idea was that macroeconomic models grounded in lots of equations are based primarily on past behavior,” said David R. Henderson, a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in California and an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. “But if people learn from what government does” and respond accordingly in their own self-interest, “those models will poorly predict future behavior.”As a result, Professor Lucas said, government economic policies can be self-defeating by failing to achieve their intended outcomes.As the economics columnist Leonard Silk wrote in The New York Times in 1983, “If people understand and anticipate what government is doing — for instance, in trying to accelerate economic growth by speeding up the increase in the money supply — workers will increase their wage demands and businesses will raise prices, to protect themselves against future inflation, thus negating the government’s intention of increasing real growth.”In an agenda with conservative implications for economic policy, Professor Lucas maintained that government spending that supplants private investment is counterproductive; that the money supply is what matters most; and that policies to reduce inequality by redistributing income, though “seductive,” are “in my opinion the most poisonous” to sound economics.He also favored eliminating taxes on capital gains, or on any income derived from capital. And he embraced supply-side economics, which calls for increasing the supply of goods and services while cutting taxes to promote job creation, business expansion and entrepreneurial activity.“The supply-side economists,” he said in a 1993 interview, “have delivered the largest genuinely free lunch that I have seen in 25 years of this business, and I believe we would be a better society if we followed their advice.”In 1995, not long after eight years under President Ronald Reagan, a champion of supply-side, and four under another Republican, George H.W. Bush, Professor Lucas concluded that “the U.S. economy is in excellent shape,” in part because “the government is not trying to do things with economic policy that it isn’t capable of doing.”And, he said, the same principles that encouraged economic growth in rich countries could be applied to economic development in poorer ones.In a 1988 lecture titled “What Economists Do,” Professor Lucas explained: “We economists have to be storytellers. We do not find that the realm of imagination and ideas is an alternative to, or a retreat from, practical reality. On the contrary, it is the only way we have found to think seriously about reality.”Professor Lucas, right, with three other Nobel laureates in economics from the University of Chicago, from left: James Heckman, Roger Myerson and Gary Becker. Kamil Krzaczynski/European Pressphoto AgencyRobert Emerson Lucas Jr. was born in Yakima, Wash., on Sept. 15, 1937. His mother, Jane (Templeton) Lucas, was a fashion artist. His father ran an ice-cream parlor that went broke during the Depression, after which the family moved to Seattle, where Robert Sr. became a steamfitter in the shipyards and then, after World War II, a welder in a commercial refrigerator company. Years later, though lacking a college degree or any training in engineering, he rose to become the company’s president.Before his father’s fortunes changed, however, Robert Jr., hoping to become an engineer, needed a scholarship to attend college and was offered one by the University of Chicago, though it didn’t have an engineering school. Lacking the nerve to study physics, he said, he became a history major. He graduated in 1959.He then enrolled in a graduate program in economics at the University of California, Berkeley. But, again needing financial support, he returned to the University of Chicago, where he studied under the conservative economist Milton Friedman, who would receive the Nobel in economics in 1976. Professor Lucas earned his doctorate in economics in 1964.He taught at what is now Carnegie Mellon University from 1963 to 1974, then returned to the University of Chicago as a professor in 1975.In 1959 he married Rita Cohen, a fellow student at Chicago. They separated in 1982 and divorced several years later. Among his survivors are their sons, Stephen and Joseph; his partner, Prof. Nancy L. Stokey, with whom he collaborated on some of his research at the University of Chicago; a sister, Jenepher Spurr; a brother, Peter; and five grandchildren.Six years before Professor Lucas won his Nobel, his estranged wife expressed great faith in his future. Her lawyer inserted a clause in their divorce agreement stipulating that she would receive half of any Nobel money he might receive if the honor was awarded before Oct. 31, 1995. He received the prize barely three weeks before that deadline.Professor Lucas was philosophical about collecting $300,000 instead of the full $600,000. He might have balked during the divorce negotiations, he said, if he had had a greater rational expectation that he would become a Nobel laureate.“A deal is a deal,” he said at the time. “She got the whole house. Getting half of the prize was better than nothing.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    No, Diversity Did Not Cause Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse

    by

    Blaming workplace diversity or environmentally and socially conscious investments for the firm’s downfall signals a “complete lack of understanding of how banks work,” one expert said.WASHINGTON — A growing chorus of conservative pundits and politicians have said the failure of Silicon Valley Bank was the result of the bank’s “woke” policies, blaming the California lender’s commitments to workplace diversity and environmentally and socially conscious investments.These claims are without merit. The bank’s collapse was due to financial missteps and a bank run.Moreover, the firm’s policy on diversity, equity and inclusion — also known as D.E.I. — is similar to ones that have been broadly adopted in the banking sector. So is its approach to taking environmental and social considerations into account when investing — referred to as E.S.G. — although that has become a target of conservatives.In fact, Silicon Valley Bank is considered about average in the industry when it comes to these issues.Here’s a fact check.What Was Said“They were one of the most woke banks in their quest for the E.S.G.-type policy in investing.”— Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, in an appearance on Fox News on Sunday“This bank, they’re so concerned with D.E.I. and politics and all kinds of stuff. I think that really diverted from them focusing on their core mission.” — Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Fox News on SundayThis lacks evidence. First, experts have broadly agreed that the bank’s demise had little to do with “wokeness.” As The New York Times and others have explained, the collapse was due to a bank run precipitated by a decline in start-up funding, rising interest rates and the firm’s sale of government bonds at a huge loss to raise capital.The bank’s loans to environmental and community projects “were not an important factor behind the collapse of SVB,” said Itay Goldstein, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “There is no immediate indication that these loans precipitated the run by investors.”Silicon Valley Bank also was not an outlier in its diversity goals or its E.S.G. investments. U.S. investments in those assets are expected to rise to $33.9 trillion by 2026. A 2022 report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that 59 percent of banks had lending programs specifically for women- and minority-owned businesses, financing that would fit under the “social” umbrella of E.S.G.George Serafeim, a professor at Harvard Business School, said that blaming the collapse on such initiatives reflected either “a complete lack of understanding of how banks work or the intentional misattribution of causality for the bank’s failure.”Maretno Harjoto, a professor of finance at Pepperdine University and expert in E.S.G. investing, agreed that “there is no truth” to the claims. He added that banks will often set E.S.G. and diversity goals due to pressure from investors and stakeholders.Silicon Valley Bank said in a recent report that it would invest about $16.2 billion over the next few years to finance small businesses and community development projects, affordable housing and renewable energy. That level of investment was equivalent to about 8 percent of its $209 billion in assets.But Silicon Valley Bank was hardly alone in pursuing these types of investments. Of the 30 largest banks in the United States — Silicon Valley Bank ranked No. 16 — all but one (First Citizens Bank) have made E.S.G. investments and released reports on them. And the three largest U.S. banks — JPMorgan Chase & Company, Bank of America and Citigroup — all dedicated 8 percent to 14 percent of their overall assets toward social and environmental investments in 2021. All three have committed to at least $1 trillion in sustainable investments by 2030.Among all banking institutions, Silicon Valley Bank actually ranked about average on E.S.G. issues, according to three metrics developed separately by the financial research firms MSCI, Morningstar and Refinitiv. Among the 30 top banks, its middling A rating from MSCI put it on par with 11 banks, while 11 others received the higher AA rating, characterizing them as leaders. The California lender’s score from Morningstar was among the worst of all 30 banks. And its Refinitiv score was worse than all but one financial institution and on par with Signature Bank, which failed this week.Silicon Valley Bank’s commitment to improving diversity among its leadership was fairly typical as well. The largest 30 banks in the United States all have a stated commitment to more inclusive career advancement.The bank’s latest inclusion report noted that 38 percent of senior leadership and 42 percent of its board members were women, and that 30 percent of leadership and 8 percent of its board were nonwhite.By these demographics, Silicon Valley Bank was one of the more racially diverse financial institutions, but not extraordinarily so. Analyses have found that about 19 percent of senior leadership in financial services were nonwhite and 30 percent were women.While The Times was unable to find data on the demographics of boards of directors in the finance sector overall, the boards of the eight banks in the United States considered systemically important were more racially diverse on average than Silicon Valley Bank. Of the 104 board members who govern these banks, 23 percent were members of a racial or ethnic minority and 39 percent were women. More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Speaker Drama Raises New Fears on Debt Limit

    by

    An emboldened conservative flank and concessions made to win votes could lead to a protracted standoff on critical fiscal issues, risking economic pain.WASHINGTON — Representative Kevin McCarthy of California finally secured the House speakership in a dramatic middle-of-the-night vote early Saturday, but the deal he struck to win over holdout Republicans also raised the risks of persistent political gridlock that could destabilize the American financial system.Economists, Wall Street analysts and political observers are warning that the concessions he made to fiscal conservatives could make it very difficult for Mr. McCarthy to muster the votes to raise the debt limit. That could prevent Congress from doing the basic tasks of keeping the government open, paying the country’s bills and avoiding default on America’s trillions of dollars in debt.The speakership battle suggests President Biden and Congress could be on track later this year for the most perilous debt-limit debate since 2011, when former President Barack Obama and a new Republican majority in the House nearly defaulted on the nation’s debt before cutting an 11th-hour deal.“If everything we’re seeing is a symptom of a totally splintered House Republican conference that is going to be unable to come together with 218 votes on virtually any issue, it tells you that the odds of getting to the 11th hour or the last minute or whatever are very high,” Alec Phillips, the chief political economist for Goldman Sachs Research, said in an interview Friday.Representative Kevin McCarthy won the speakership early Saturday only after making a deal with hard-right lawmakers.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe federal government spends far more money each year than it receives in revenues, producing a budget deficit that is projected to average in excess of $1 trillion a year for the next decade. Those deficits will add to a national debt that topped $31 trillion last year.Federal law puts a limit on how much the government can borrow. But it does not require the government to balance its budget. That means lawmakers must periodically pass laws to raise the borrowing limit to avoid a situation in which the government is unable to pay all of its bills, jeopardizing payments including military salaries, Social Security benefits and debts to holders of government bonds. Goldman Sachs researchers estimate Congress will likely need to raise the debt limit sometime around August to stave off such a scenario.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 4What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Two Decades After the ‘End of Welfare,’ Democrats Are Changing Direction

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesRisk Near YouVaccine RolloutGuidelines After VaccinationAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTwo Decades After the ‘End of Welfare,’ Democrats Are Changing DirectionThe pandemic and a set of other economic and social forces changed the calculation for Democrats when it comes to government aid. The question now is how long the moment will last.A tent encampment in Phoenix last week. Rising inequality and stagnant incomes over much of the past two decades left a growing share of working Americans concerned about making ends meet.Credit…Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesJim Tankersley and March 13, 2021Updated 6:07 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — A quarter-century ago, a Democratic president celebrated “the end of welfare as we know it,” challenging the poor to exercise “independence” and espousing balanced budgets and smaller government.The Democratic Party capped a march in the opposite direction this week.Its first major legislative act under President Biden was a deficit-financed, $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” filled with programs as broad as expanded aid to nearly every family with children and as targeted as payments to Black farmers. While providing an array of benefits to the middle class, it is also a poverty-fighting initiative of potentially historic proportions, delivering more immediate cash assistance to families at the bottom of the income scale than any federal legislation since at least the New Deal.Behind that shift is a realignment of economic, political and social forces, some decades in the making and others accelerated by the pandemic, that enabled a rapid advance in progressive priorities.Rising inequality and stagnant incomes over much of the past two decades left a growing share of Americans — of all races, in conservative states and liberal ones, in inner cities and small towns — concerned about making ends meet. New research documented the long-term damage from child poverty.An energized progressive vanguard pulled the Democrats leftward, not least Mr. Biden, who had campaigned as a moderating force.Concerns about deficit spending receded under Mr. Biden’s Republican predecessor, President Donald J. Trump, while populist strains in both parties led lawmakers to pay more attention to the frustrations of people struggling to get by — a development intensified by a pandemic recession that overwhelmingly hurt low-income workers and spared higher earners.A summer of protests against racial injustice, and a coalition led by Black voters that lifted Mr. Biden to the White House and helped give Democrats control of the Senate, put economic equity at the forefront of the new administration’s agenda.Whether the new law is a one-off culmination of those forces, or a down payment on even more ambitious efforts to address the nation’s challenges of poverty and opportunity, will be a defining battle for Democrats in the Biden era.A banner protesting the eviction of renters in Washington, D.C., in August. Emboldened by the crisis, many Democrats see a new opportunity to use government to address big problems.Credit…Eric Baradat/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn addition to trying to make permanent some of the temporary provisions in the package, Democrats hope to spend trillions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure, reduce the emissions that drive climate change, reduce the cost of college and child care, expand health coverage and guarantee paid leave and higher wages for workers.The new Democratic stance is “a long cry from the days of ‘big government is over,’” said Margaret Weir, a political scientist at Brown University.In the eyes of its backers, the law is not just one of the most far-reaching packages of economic and social policy in a generation. It is also, they say, the beginning of an opportunity for Democrats to unite a new majority in a deeply polarized country, built around a renewed belief in government.“Next to civil rights, voting rights and open housing in the ’60s, and maybe next to the Affordable Care Act — maybe — this is the biggest thing Congress has done since the New Deal,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and a longtime champion of the antipoverty efforts included in Mr. Biden’s plan.“People more and more realize that government can be on their side,” he said, “and now it is.”Conservatives are hardly giving up the battle over what some call a giant welfare expansion. Democrats face high hurdles to any further ambitious legislation, starting with the Senate filibuster, which requires most legislation to get 60 votes, and the precarious nature of the party’s Senate majority. Moderate Democrats are already resisting further growth of the budget deficit.But emboldened by the crisis, many Democrats see a new opportunity to use government to address big problems.In addition to the new legislation being broadly popular with voters, an intensified focus on worker struggles on both the left and the right, including Republicans’ increasing efforts to define themselves as a party of the working class, has scrambled the politics of economic policy across the ideological spectrum.Mr. Biden ran as a centrist in a Democratic Party where many activists had embraced progressive candidates like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But he will spend the coming weeks traveling the country to promote policies like his expansion of the child tax credit, a one-year, $100-billion benefit that most Democrats hope to turn into what was once a distant progressive dream: guaranteed income for families with children.The $1.9 trillion aid package signed by President Biden is broadly popular with voters, and Republicans are divided over how — and whether — to attack its main provisions.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesRepublicans have struggled to attack the full range of policies contained in Mr. Biden’s rescue plan, especially those like direct payments of up to $1,400 per person and expanded health care subsidies that benefit many of their constituents. Party leaders are trying to change the subject to issues like immigration.A Republican National Committee news release this week denounced the rescue plan’s expansion of the national debt, its funding for liberal states and cities like San Francisco and $1.7 billion in aid to Amtrak, but made no mention of the expanded child tax credit that will provide most families with monthly payments of up to $300 per child.Some prominent conservatives have welcomed the antipoverty provisions, applauding them as pro-family even though they violate core tenets of the Republican Party’s decades-long position that government aid is a disincentive to work.The Coronavirus Outbreak More