Kevin Drum and the White Working Class
Lifted from Robert Waldmann‘s Stochastic Thoughts:
Kevin Drum and the White Working Class
I agree a bit less than usual with Kevin Drum who writes on the problem of Democrats and the White Working Class (which is defined as whites without 4 year college degrees including, as John Quiggin noted, the horny handed sons and daughters of toil, such as Bill Gates and Paris Hilton).
I quote bits here and cut and paste my comment
“white working class, which voted Republican by a 30-point margin last week:”
“As Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin observed this summer, 54 percent of the white working class born after 1980 think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry, according to data assembled from the 2012 election.” — Kevin Drum quoting Noam Scheiber quoting Teixeira and Halpin
“But if that’s the case, why does the WWC continue to loathe Democrats so badly? I think the answer is as old as the discussion itself: They hate welfare. ”
“So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor.”
“That’s because they’re closer to it. For them, the poor aren’t merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They’re the folks next door who don’t do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars.”
“Does it matter that the working class barely pays for most of these programs in the first place, since their federal income taxes tend to be pretty low? Nope.”
“So sure: full-throated economic populism? That might work, though everyone seems to have a different idea of what it means. But here’s one thing it better mean: policies that are aimed at the working and middle classes and that actually appeal to them. That is, policies that are simple, concrete, and offer benefits which are clear and compelling.”
I comment
When Teixeira and John Halpin write “the white working class born after 1980 ” they are basically not at all talking about the same “white working class, which voted Republican by a 30-point margin last week:”
Last week 12% of voters were under 30 and 37% over 60. The election told us what older people (such as myself — age 54). You basically don’t discuss age at all. This really makes no sense when discussing 2014, 2012 and how they are different.
OK what is to be done ? Look it’s simple. There is a difference between not paying much income tax and paying less than zero. the number 47% horrifies Republicans for a reason. They fear that if the fraction whose income tax liabilities are less than 0 gets enough over 50% to make up for lower turnout of the less rich, then the “takers” will take over. I think they have a point, except that I think that would be a good thing (given the large numbers of takers who work full time year round and pay much more in payroll taxes than they receive in EITC).
I think that Democrats can win elections by promising higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes for everyone else. I think that few voters buy the Republican line that Republicans cut taxes for the non rich. I use the word “think” but I think that these claims are about as weak as the claim that the climate is getting warmer.
First try to name a Democrat with the following features
1. He was elected President
2. He was not an incumbant at the time
3. the top marginal income tax rate was under 69%
4. the income tax was constitutional
and 5 he didn’t propose higher taxes on the rich and lower taxes on everyone else.
Hint, this is a trick question — those 5 conditions have never ever been met. In contrast both Clinton and Obama were elected after promising higher taxes on the rich and a middle class tax cut (and Obama actually delivered).
I also recall a TV discussion of a focus group which watched a Bush senior Clinton debate with the dials. The group included declared undecided voters, declared Clinton supporters and declared Bush supporters. Clinton said something like ” only the rich have received tax cuts” and the average declared Bush supporter twisted the dial to agree. Rage at the Republiscam of promising tax cuts for all and giving them only to the rich was strong in 1992 *among rank and file Republicans*.
Since then Gallup has polled again and againa and always gets solid majorities who support higher taxes on the rich (as I very much enjoy reminding you, long ago I pointed out these polls to you and you were very surprised). In 2005 polls showed that the only social security reform with majority support was raising the payroll tax ceiling. In 2009 and 2010 polls showed that the only provision of the ACA which reduced the deficit and had majority support was and is the surtax on high incomes.
People in the USA want to soak the rich and spread it out thin. This is a feasible policy (Obama did it — mild on the soaking — but he did it). I am sure it would be good policy. The popular populist policy and the practical way to address income inequality is to make the income tax more progressive.
This would, of course, creaate problems such as …. I mean we might return to the dread economic growth rates of the 50s when the top rate was 91% and the 60s when the top rate was 70%. I absolutely promise you that there is less than no evidence that a higher top marginal income tax rate would be bad for growth
see https://ideas.repec.org/p/rtv/ceisrp/281.html
. OK enough policy proposals, I want to whine about how unfair it is,
I note that the WWC includes a lot of people on food stamps and/or receiving EITC. I also note that the ACA has done a lot for a lot of white working class people including those under 4/3 the poverty line (who may be poor not working class by the original definition of the phrase but the few who vote are included in the numbers you quote), those who don’t get insurance from their employers and those who might lose their job with benefits. That is almost all of them.
You note but do not focus on the deep deep irrationality of welfare hatred. The only huge means tested program is Medicaid which is almost as popular as Medicare. Many hard working people benefit from food stamps and the EITC. The people getting checks without working are over 65 (and that program is super popular) disabled (and that program is not hated) or very few and getting tiny checks. I am sure that welfare hatred is not based on knowing people who are actually living on welfare.
Also you don’t note foreign aid hatred. On this issue, the delusions of the overwhelming majority of US citizens are so extreme that they are not discussed in polite debate. In polls The median US respondent guesses foreign aid is 10% to 28% of the Federal budget (I have a total of 2 polls in mind but the numbers are all in that range). This is absolutely not based on living next door to a foreigner who receives aid. This is pure fantasy (foreign aid is less than 0.7% of the US Federal budget). Foreign aid is a tiny program. But the vast majority of US voters think it is a huge program. That means that hatred of foreign aid is a big issue.
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2014/11/kevin-drum-and-white-working-class.html
Too much emphasis on Presidential elections.
The impact of the WWC is mainly felt in the state and Congressional elections.
Our 18th century, non democratic government is catching up to us.
I’ll echo EM here with respect to too much focus on presidential elections and not nearly enough focus on building a solid movement.
Way back in 1955 Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, and others were writing about this phenomenon. Their take was that in relatively prosperous times groups that had been attracted to the reform politics of the New Deal became more interested holding on to their gains and acquired status than in reforms that seemed targeted to outside groups they felt in competition with.
The Democratic focus on poverty rather than on broadly shared prosperity plays right into Republican myths and attacks on redistribution. The Right has always had an element that operated through installing fear, fear of losing status, fear of being taken over by “other”.
Sorry, but it’s time for a little class warfare. FDR’s campaigns against the malefactors of wealth, TR’s arguments against the trusts, JFK’s rising tide should lift all boats.
The Democrats have played footsie with Wall Street for a generation. That results in both a lack of credibility and a very diluted message on inequality and our failure to distribute productivity gains across the economy. The end result is a frightened and disheartened middle class that seems more willing to grab onto Republican myths and fear mongering that pits them against lower classes than Democratic messages that often come across as weak pleas for something more like mediocrity than equality.
Instead of accepting the premises of Republican bullshit the Democrats need to frame a positive message that embraces something along the lines of FDR’s Four Freedoms. If that means attacking Wall Street, particularly finance, and big corporations then so be it.
We agree, Mark. But with one caution.
SInce TV came into common use, elections have been decided to a large extent by cash.
From 68 until 92, Dems won no Presidential elections save for Carter, who beat the man who pardoned the man who made him President. Attacking the money is not a real good idea, particularly in state and congressional areas.
We already have enough problems with our outdated pseudo democracy wherein 8 southern states with a total population less than California have 8 times as many Senators. Even the House is decided in many cases on the locations of the voters rather than the number of voters.
Combine that with Citizens cash flowing into state and local races and we find the Wisconsins and, even worse, the North Carolinas being swamped and moving back to the future.
Hard choice. To deal with the rubinites and somehow get a piece of progressive action once in a while, or stick to our principles and watch us move back to 1900.
Personally, the lesser evil is really good compared to the total evil of the Kochs, Petersons and Popes of the world.
You can “attack Wall Street” without really attacking it by concentrating on eliminating the dishonesty that drags down every player into the gutter. You can frame it as insuring confidence in our necessary financial markets. Of course, part of that should be prosecuting the wrongdoers and clawing back their ill-gotten gains (even if they were innocent beneficiaries of a windfall), but that’s another story.
The way to counterbalance the big donors is through lots of small donors. That strategy also has the advantage of getting people to invest in the process. Highlight the issue of transparency and beat it into the ground. Democratic and Progressive PACS should make a fetish of disclosing all donors of over some modest amount like $1000. The message will eventually sink in.
Look, it may be that Progressives have to spend some time in the electoral wilderness while they build a movement. The preface in Rick Pearlstein’s “Before the Storm” has a nice bit comparing how the conservative movement responded to 1964 and how Democrats developed a message in 2000.
Movement building takes time and effort but it is absolutely necessary if you want to shape the American political landscape in a positive egalitarian direction. Myth or not Americans believe in the value of local government. The fact is that in today’s environment some things are best coordinated at the Federal level but it’s also a fact that those things would work better and be more effective if they had the support of state and local governments.
Moreover in our system you simply cannot govern effectively without strong support in Congress. A Democratic caucus that must continually make trade offs to attract so called moderates becomes vulnerable to a largely unified opposition. The way to build solid congressional majorities is to build a solid bench in state legislatures and that regresses further to local elections.
Howard Dean’s fifty state strategy was hard and would take time to be truly effective but you simply can’t and more importantly shouldn’t cede large swaths of the electorate to the Republicans. There has always been a slice of America that is recalcitrant and paranoid (Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style) but beyond that Democrats should find a way to talk to virtually every American in the 99%.
Since the Johnson administration Democrats have essentially been counterpunching. That has allowed the conversation to keep slipping rightward – I don’t believe the electorate has moved that direction as much as I think Democrats have ceded the terms of the discussion, effectively allowing the Right to define and choose the battleground.
Democrats may win presidential elections in the foreseeable future, they may occasionally win Congressional majorities in response to Republican overreach but if they really want to move this country in a positive direction that finishes the promise of the New Deal then they must understand that it will take nothing less than a movement that is capable of positively responding to virtually every American. Such a movement must be based on people grasping the responsibilities of citizenship, of understanding that words like freedom and liberty mean more than simply license to do what you want irrespective of the consequences to your neighbor.
Yes, the Plutocrats have the money and quite frankly they have the media, what they do not have is a message that succeeds without sewing fear, discontent, and social disintegration. The great promise in the founding of this country was the idea of individualism combined with a commitment and responsibility to community. I will concede that in many ways the Founders were quite cynical, using promise to mask some rather elitist behavior. Jefferson may not have lived up to his language, that doesn’t mean we can’t.
Urban,
Absolutely.
Yet what happens if the entire Street is full of evildoers?
By the time you started cleaning up the financial Markets, your job would be sweeping trash on Wall Street.
Mark,
I agree with every single thing you say, with the exception that the WWC is willing to join ” a movement that is capable of positively responding to virtually every American.”
They are convinced that they are the “Real Americans”, and that the progressive movement is ruining their country because they “respond” to people who are not “Real Americans”.
Hopefully the power of demographics coupled with interaction will lead to your thoughts becoming true. But not in my lifetime. And probably not in my children’s lifetime.
The demographics have gotten a bit more complicated in this crappy economy. “The Poor” is more likely to include people who are understood to be hampered by lousy job opportunities, plant/store closings etc. Including people within one’s own family.
I noticed a couple years ago that food items are more likely to be marked as “Food stamp eligible” in many stores which I interpreted to mean there are people using them who aren’t as familiar with the (sometimes arcane) rules regarding prepared foods etc.
So the “welfare haters” of yore may be moderated by their own awareness of folks who are going through hard times despite “following the rules” etc.
I would note this is probably also a factor in the rapidly evolving public view of gay marriage. Many more families now include somebody who is gay so it’s more widely understood how much prohibition = rank prejudice. Not to mention a dawning awareness of how little impact gay marriage has had where it is now established law. A nothing burger in the early adopter states.
I would suggest that this is an important corollary to Dan’s view “…that welfare hatred is not based on knowing people who are actually living on welfare.” With record numbers of people dependent on food and other support the number of people who don’t know anybody is a lot smaller.
That has been my experience with people as they experience these ‘issues’.