July 22, 2005
It's The Class Warfare, Stupid!
I really wanted to blog on China today, but I recently finished Thomas Frank’s book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, and I’m still thinking about it. When I reviewed it on my site, I focused on how “values voters” are mistargeting their outrage against liberal culture (I’m the kind of guy for whom irony holds great appeal), but Frank makes another, more important point: The basis for today’s conservative movement is class warfare.
Frank points out that the Republican Party tapped into working-class dissatisfaction - and made it work for them. The Republican elite are using backlash politics to enlist the morally outraged working class in their war against the working class. Of course, over the last few decades they've stripped out the socialist buzz-words, but if you look behind the labels, "middle America" versus the "liberal elite" is pretty obviously "working class America" versus the "wealthy".
Frank's book focuses on Kansas where everyone's a Republican, so instead of working-class Democrats versus wealthy Republicans, he speaks of working-class conservative Republicans (Cons) trash-talking wealthy moderate Republicans (Mods). As amusing as it is to see Republicans at each other's throats, Frank writes, this is a real problem for the working-class,
...Mods are the primary beneficiaries of the class war that rages against them. Although the Cons vituperate against the high and the mighty, the policies they help to enact - deregulating, privatizing - only serve to make the Mods high and mightier still. And while it may hurt the Mods' feelings to overhear their secretaries referring to them as RINOs, the many rounds of tax cuts the Cons have accomplished surely made the sting subside. The Mods win even when they lose....The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fist at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here," they scream, "to cut your taxes."
President Bush's nomination of John Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court should really bring home the message that "values voters" are screwing themselves. President Bush could have nominated someone who spoke out unabashedly against Roe v. Wade. Instead, he chose a justice who is staunchly pro-business, but who may - or may not - have the conviction to abolish abortion. As Frank puts it in his book, "The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ, but they walk corporate."
Despite the values voters sending their Republican culture warriors off to Washington every two years, abortion is never halted, affirmative action is never abolished, and the "liberal" media is never forced to clean up its act,
The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization; Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.
And just to tie in China, because I really did want to blog about China today, our headlong rush into global free-trade is having the easily foreseen result of lowering our wages to the level of the 800-yuan girls toiling in Chinese factories. The global economy is just that: global. Both business AND workers are competing across borders, and the result is a win-win for business. Corporations get new markets, as well as cheap labor.
We voted for it; we got it. It's like that old joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The Doctor replies, "So, don't do that."
The effectiveness of our merit-based system is the primary cause of current inequality in America. If you want to look at it negatively, the system adroitly coops people who start out poor but are hard working and smart. This is in marked contrast to what happened in most of the past. In 1900, if you went to a top university it was because your father was rich and/or influential. Today (with some exceptions) you have to be smart too.
We also reward experience and education a lot more than we used to. Experienced supervisors earn twice as much as young trainees. Median income for households headed by someone age 45 to 54 was $60,242 in 2003, compared with $27,053 for those younger than 24. Those with four or more years of college earn three times as much as high school dropouts.
Another break from the past is that the richer guys do relatively more of the work. The richest fifth of families supply over 30% of the total weeks worked in the economy, while the poorest fifth supplied only 7.5%.
In some ways, this system is more pernicious than the one it replaced. As we become better at “sorting” by intelligence and ability, those left at the bottom have more trouble. The poor, but smart, honest and hardworking man is disappearing – at least by the time he has reached the age of about forty because an experienced person is very unlikely to have all four of those characteristics at the same time.
There is also a problem of merit in young people. Good parenting makes a bigger difference today. Young people with good parents (not necessarily rich ones, as we see all the time) are learning much more and having much richer experiences. By the time they are eighteen, they are significantly ahead of someone with similar abilities who comes from a less effective home. It is really hard to catch up.
So is this class warfare? No. I am not saying it is not a problem, but it is not a class problem. Class (as we use the work for social groups) implies that people are grouped based on conditions beyond their control and that these groups are relatively persistent over generations. The “elite classes” in the U.S. today contain a large and growing number of Asians, for example, whose ancestors were certainly not part of that “class” a generation ago. Class is too elusive to be a rallying point for any sustained effort.
Finally, Americans are different than most other people. Most Americans (in contrast to most Italians, French, Germans etc) believe that individuals control their own outcomes to a great extent. In other words, even poor Americans think that either they or their children will someday be rich (or at least well off) and if they are smart, honest, and hardworking, they are usually right.
data from this link
Posted by: jack at July 22, 2005 09:26 AMSorry - the link didn’t work. It is at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3773
Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2005 09:29 AMJack,
You raise some interesting points, but I’m not sure it really addresses the issue of how lower SES individuals have been voting against their economic self-interests (the central thesis of the book being described). I also worry that your argument neglects the reality of some real class differences. I think there’s probably something to the idea that a large portion of people voted for Bush because he’s viewed as “a man of the people” rather than some “intellectual elite.” This would suggest that class differences continue to exert a significant influence in American politics — at the very least in the realm of perception (and regardless of the cause).
Posted by: Steve Westby at July 22, 2005 10:54 AMAP -
In a sense Thomas Frank is right: lower-income conservatives are voting against their own self interest by supporting policies that create a more competitive, less socialized economy. However, it’s precisely this class-warfare-based mindset that has been failing for Democrats.
Many people aren’t in favor of their own self-interest, economically. This can occur for a number of reasons. Pride is one: the Middle American ethos is that you can be proud of what you earn, but not what’s given to you. Americans give and receive less than other cultures, because receiving a gift is a sign of weakness and dependence. Another reason people vote against their own economic self-interest is that they care about more than money. Provided their basic needs are met, their attention turns to social, moral, or national defense issues that may ultimately have very little impact on their bank account, but have a great impact on how they view themselves and their world.
Frank is trying to portray the Republicans as a two-tier party, split between a rich wing and a poor wing. This is a revision of reality. In reality, the GOP does much better than the Democrats among the middle class. The Democrats outpoll the Republicans among those who are lower class and upper class.
Frank’s understanding of the data is fundamentally flawed, and basing an understanding of American polity on his analysis will result in mistaken conclusions and lost elections.
Posted by: Chops at July 22, 2005 11:36 AMWould it be fair of me to say, that people of average intelligence will fair averagely in any situation.
I’m average, I admit that. I was born into the shrinking middle class, yeah for me. I attended good schools, great. I got a middle class job, excellent. My life turned out… average.
Now compare this to the working poor. They are worried. They are faced with unstable housing, transportation, and food! Into this mix there are born children. In a strained life these children are expected not to perform averagely, or well, but rather excel in school. The schools themselves suffer from any number of problems (large class size, and on and on).
I think to myself what if I was born into that working poor situation? I tell you, I’d only fair averagely. That scares me.
You cannot expect people to advance on merit, when they are not given the same opportunity. Any other talk about social or economic Darwinism is just a case of cognitive dissentience, or rather the belief that “I’m a good person because it’s their fault”.
Truth is it’s everybody’s fault. From before birth, the poor are disadvantaged. Less pre-natal care and higher pollution. After birth it’s more of the same, less preventive up-front care and little or no pre-school. When they enter the school system already behind, it’s often into more crowed class rooms. And we expect, nay demand, that they EXCEL.
I too, would like for people to advance on merit, and merit alone. I don’t believe that just because you happen to be the child of a rich person entitles you get all the opportunities handed to you in life, but that’s how it is. People of average intelligence will fair averagely given any situation.
Things we need…
Section 8 housing vouchers - Kids need a stable roof over their head.
Food stamps - No kid should go to sleep hungry (unless they are being punished
Universal healthcare - We are the only industrialized country without it. Kids deserve pre-emptive care.
Universal Education - (Including preschool and tertiary education). No kid should have to worry about getting a good education. Besides any investment into the people of this country is an investment into THIS country (and this country’s future).
That was just my gut reaction toward Jack’s post. I didn’t mean for it to be too off topic.
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 22, 2005 11:59 AMSteven
I guess I went to far around to make the point. Let me sum up. The key is time and aspirations. Experienced supervisors earn twice as much as young trainees. Trainees aspire to be better. Their long term self-interest is the same as the supervisors’.
People who aspire to be more than they are vote Republican; those who will stay where they are vote Democratic. That explains Chop’s point that the middle is more likely to support Republicans, while the very rich and the poor tend to vote Dem.
Patrick
Fair points you make. It still doesn’t solve the inequality problem, however. You just can’t equalize things like parenting, motivation or just culture. Families, individuals and groups emphasize different things. If I tell my kids that the most important thing in life is to be good at sports and you tell yours that the most important thing is academic achievement, we will probably produce different outcomes no matter what our incomes, housing or health care situations.
Merit is undoubtedly more in the U.S. than is used to be. But this is not always going to produce equitable results. As you say, average people will produce average results. Below and above average can be expected to do the same.
Ironically, the more we equalize society’s inputs, the more importance we give to inborn talents and intelligence or individual parenting. If all runner have exactly the same opportunities, training and motivation, the one with the one who inherited the fastest ability wins all the time. The same goes for other things.
Patrick -
I think to myself what if I was born into that working poor situation? I tell you, I’d only fair averagely. That scares me.
This is why you are a Democrat. Republicans believe (and there are convincing statistics that back this up) that an average person will have an average life outcome almost regardless of where they start. Likewise, a loser will end up at the bottom, and a genius will rise to the top.
“Look Ma, no handouts!”
Posted by: Chops at July 22, 2005 12:45 PMUnfortunately, in a global economy, which is inevitable, when you’re on the top (as were many Americans), the only place to go is down, unless we create and learn new technologies, and somehow, stay ahead of the decline. What worries me a bit, is that we may forget how to make a lot of basic things, since they are all made overseas. This could be a problem, if for some reason (e.g. war) we need to ramp up production for things we used to buy from other nations.
Jack,
I agree with the importance of good parenting! Unfortunately some kids don’t get that. I feel an obligation to try to reach those kids, they deserve it. Just Saying :)
And on a more personal note, are you suggesting that I don’t aspire to do and be more. That I don’t have those same aspirations for my soon-to-be born son? That’s just mean. Really, all Dem’s don’t aspire to be more then they are? Did you type that correct?
Also, in my opinion, there are a lot of “corporate-jet conservatives”. Very Rich Reps who never vote for a Democrat. In fact, I’d like to see the statistics on how the “Rich” vote.
Chops,
I seriously hope your “convincing statistics” does not come from The Bell Curve or other deeply flawed and debunked works. Also, I may add, you are trending on a topic of social Darwinism.
All, this sounds harsher then I’m feeling. I hope nobody takes this too personally.
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 22, 2005 01:38 PM“there are a lot of “corporate-jet conservatives”. Very Rich Reps who never vote for a Democrat”
There are also alot of “govt is the solution liberals.” Very rich Dems who never vote for a Republican.
You know, the ones who SAY they believe in a program but won’t use their own money to support it and prove it could work.
Hmmmm? Maybe kerry and likeminded folks could live more modest lives and use their millions and millions of dollars to give millions of children the Universal healthcare they SAY they believe every child should have.
Thats crazy talk isn’t it.
Instead, they would rather give the majority of Americans a pay-cut in order to support what THEY think should be done.
The masters of class-warfare complaining about the Republicans doing the same thing.
Priceless!
The single greatest problem is our educational system. Schools receive the bulk of their funding from local property taxes, the result is inequality. In Greenwich, CT (one of the wealthiest towns in America) the public high school has a robotics lab. The education the students there receive is better than the education an inner city student receives. This is not to say that an inner city student can’t achieve, just that there are more obstacles for them. What obstacles will Kansas children taught creationism face in higher educational settings? What kind of critical thinking skills will they possess?
I grew up in Massachusetts and I never pronounced the Rs at the end of words. Someone once asked why my teachers never corrected my speech, why because that’s how they spoke. I now pronounce my Rs the point is people only know what they see, and if they lack the requisite knowledge to draw connections they might never see that the connections exist.
Chops,
I can think of a person who has been arrested for DUI, was an alcoholic, was a c student, was AWOL from the National Guard had a reported coke habit, and who was investigated for insider trading. Can you guess who I’m talking about?
kctim,
Let me catch you up to speed. Jack said “…while the very rich and the poor tend to vote Dem”. I thought it sounded quite off. I responded that I bet many rich people did not vote for Dems. And then you chimed in with “Very rich Dems who never vote for a Republican.” True enough, but that did not address what I was intending. In other words, Jack made the assumption that the rich generally votes Democratic.
I did a little digging… And it seems that the rich really voted for the Reps. See here. I’d like to point out, those whose income is over $200,000.00 Voted for Bush by a LARGE percentage.
Also, it was Kerry who said that he should be taxed more (along with the rest of the top percent).
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 22, 2005 03:14 PMJack,
You’re being utterly naive at best, disingenuous at worst.
For nearly thirty years the GOP has practiced tax-cut and deficit-spend politics; tax cuts for the wealthiest coupled with massive infusions of corporate welfare into defense contractors have combined into the perfect weapon for a class war waged by the GOP.
The deficits created by tax cuts and corporate welfare have been used to justify cuts in social spending for the poor and middles classes. The deficits have also inflated interest rates on credit cards, home loans, student loans, car loans… debt primarily held by the middle class.
Meanwhile, eduction spending has been gutted. Worker safetey regulations gutted. Employees have gone from being valued assets to disposable ones. Two-parent families have to have both parents working just to make ends meet.
There is a pattern of behavior here that shows one of two things: A) A deliberate asault on the non-wealthy, or B) A monstrously negligent routine on the part of the GOP.
I find it hard to believe that hundreds of Republican politicians in Congress and three Republican presidents have been, and continue to be, so blind that they can’t see the effects their policies have had. It is no accident that the middle class has been shrinking, it is the result of a long-term, calculated war.
Posted by: S.M. Dixon at July 22, 2005 03:25 PMI am not sure what grades mean, but George Bush’s grades were just a little higher than John Kerry’s. At Yale, Bush had a cumulative average of 77; Kerry got 76.
Speaking of Kerry (and Kennedy for that matter) they are two of the richest guys in the Senate and they earned it the old fashioned way. Kerry married it and Kennedy got it from his father. In the last presidential race, Bush was the poorest one of the presidential or VP candidates.
Patrick
I almost never take personal offense and nothing you have written is even remotely offensive. This is supposed to be a debate.
I hope you also don’t take offense. I enjoy writing sweeping statements. If possible I like them to be symmetrical and have some rhythm. I know there are always exceptions. But I do believe there is a correlation between aspiration and conservatism (not necessarily the Republican party). You can be born poor and live (in dollar terms) in extreme poverty, but I see yourself as poor, or identify with any poverty programs, because you aspired to do better in the future and that is where you lived.
I believe in helping the poor, but the goal is to make them self sufficient, not to merely maintain them in poverty. Many government programs fail to pull people out. The recent welfare reform was very good because it gave incentives to become not poor. Welfare programs from 1960 until then did the opposite.
Vague
There are good and poor school districts, but funding doesn’t make them so. The DC School district spends a fortune per student. So does NYC. Their record is not good. In fact I have never seen a correlation between spending and success. Suburban schools do better because of the local communities and the parents.
“it seems that the rich really voted for the Reps. See here. I’d like to point out, those whose income is over $200,000.00 Voted for Bush by a LARGE percentage.”
No kidding. Why would they vote for people who wish to punish them for earning money?
“Also, it was Kerry who said that he should be taxed more (along with the rest of the top percent).”
Thats what he “said,” not what he does. He could always give extra couldn’t he?
There is also a difference between “very rich” and earning over $200,000.
You gave your opinion on very rich Reps and I gave mine on very rich Dems.
Please forgive me for “chiming in” with tough questions.
kctim,
Your still are not addressing the issue!
Jack says - RICH VOTE DEMS
I say - NO, RICH VOTE REPS.
Do you follow the debate? It is not a tough question. I gave supporting evidence that the rich vote Rep.
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 22, 2005 04:44 PMJack,
Yes, I am aware that some urban school districts such as NYC do spend a significant number of dollars per student. NYC also has some really good public schools to show for it; the top few of which are incredibly difficult to get into. The problem is the number of poor schools. Regarding funding, how many of those dollars go to security, ESL programs, and school lunch programs? Those are three areas I’m sure draw off funding from “education” and disproportionately effect urban schools. I’ve never seen a well broken out number so any comparison is apples to oranges. This is partially my fault as I did mentioned inner city schools. That said how many high schools have robotics labs?
As for grades, yes you are correct, and would either of them, Bush or Kerry, done as “well” as they have done if they were poor? If Bush was not born into his family he could well be in jail for insider trading, except he never would have been in such a position to engage in insider trading if he wasn’t a Bush. He might have also been shot and killed in Viet Nam if he hadn’t landed such a desirable National Guard posting. He certainly didn’t get into Yale on his own credentials.
You may disagree on some points, but can you honestly say a) George Bush would be president if he wasn’t a Bush. And b) If you had a child you would feel that any inner-city or impoverished school district would give him or her the same opportunities as Greenwich High School?
Patrick-
Check this article out and then follow the link to “awfully weak.” Both give good insight into why economic models don’t work well in answering your question.
The correlation between income and party is very close to zero. I’ve run lots of regressions myself on two unrelated data sets. It checks out.
I addressed it, you just chose not to see it.
—-No kidding. Why would they vote for people who wish to punish them for earning money?—-
There, I agreed with you. I believe more people who work and become rich do vote for Reps.
The rest was concerning your “gut reaction” to Jacks post.
Now, to get you up to speed, you said people are not responsible enough to succeed on merit.
Just like kerry and his minions, you promote social giveaways which end up being pay-cuts to the majority.
If these are such great ideas and liberals REALLY do believe in them, then why don’t they lead by example?
If these are such great ideas and liberals REALLY do believe in them, then why don’t they lead by example?
What do you mean?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 22, 2005 06:50 PMVague
Obviously family wealth and influence helps those that have it, especially if you have a great deal of both. I doubt that GW Bush would be president if not for his family background and I doubt Kerry or Gore would have been in the race. But this is not the end of the story.
The sainted Bill Clinton managed to become president with a dysfunctional family background. Ronald Reagan’s father was an itinerant shoe salesman. Ford and Nixon were middle class merchant types and Johnson was a schoolteacher. Bush I is a good example of someone who came from a privileged background, but also made it himself.
It would be great if we could all live up to our potential and various government programs do equalize opportunities to some extent. But the government is just unable by the nature of being government to create the kinds of opportunities that would be needed to really level the playing field. Good parents are more important than wealth, but in our merit-based society good parents are less likely to be poor.
By coincidence, I picked up a copy of the Economist that is running an article on this very subject. When I read the article about opportunity it covered a lot of the same things we are. I suggest you read it. Parts of the survey support all our positions. A part that I like talks about where the rich get their money. Back in 1929 the rich got 70% of their income from dividends, rent and interest (translation: usually daddy’s money – George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore) Today 80% comes from wages and stock options (translation: earned by the individual – Clinton, Reagan, Nixon). This doesn’t make our problem any more acute, but it does dictate some of the boundary conditions.
After reading through all the posts, and pondering the comparisons and corollaries, I was wondering if there was a Republican or a Democratic relationship between an optimist and a pessimist.
I have friends and families on both sides of the political aisle and there are definite trends. It doesn’t seem to make a difference as to who is in power either.
I’d rather not speak to my observations…
Thoughts?
George,
I hope you’re right… and for the sake of this argument I will concede that it looks like it’s next to impossible to infer income verse party voting. (thanks for the link).
And if you are right, that would make Jacks statement also false.
People who aspire to be more than they are vote Republican; those who will stay where they are vote Democratic. That explains Chop’s point that the middle is more likely to support Republicans, while the very rich and the poor tend to vote Dem.
Which sounded off to me, and thus my reaction. All I can infer from that CNN exit poll, is the wealthy voted for Bush this last time around.
I leave it up to Jack to support his argument.
kctim,
Please do not put words in my mouth. I in no way said “…people are not responsible enough to succeed on merit”. NO, what I said is…
You cannot expect people to advance on merit, when they are not given the same opportunity.
I guess I should say thanks for bringing me back towards this article’s topic. You implicate that I “promote social giveaways which end up being pay-cuts to the majority.”
Not I, I don’t believe that ANY government program should EVER be taking advantage of.
Now I do see a BIG “pay-cut” to the majority… Someone you support wrote a HUGE check… It’s in the form of a GALACTIC deficient. Who do you think is going to pay for that? With the way the tax structure is now, it won’t be the top 13,400 richest households. It’s you and I that will have to pay for it. AND YOU VOTED FOR THIS GUY!!!
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 23, 2005 12:05 AMI think this
This is in marked contrast to what happened in most of the past. In 1900, if you went to a top university it was because your father was rich and/or influential. Today (with some exceptions) you have to be smart too.
and this
By coincidence, I picked up a copy of the Economist that is running an article on this very subject. When I read the article about opportunity it covered a lot of the same things we are. I suggest you read it. Parts of the survey support all our positions. A part that I like talks about where the rich get their money. Back in 1929 the rich got 70% of their income from dividends, rent and interest (translation: usually daddy?s money ? George Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore) Today 80% comes from wages and stock options (translation: earned by the individual ? Clinton, Reagan, Nixon). This doesn?t make our problem any more acute, but it does dictate some of the boundary conditions.
are interesting. I think everyone would agree that things are better today. The question I have is: what caused this shift?
It seems to me that the systems of wealth re-distribution (the inheritance tax for one) have a lot to do with this change. They keep the rich hungry for more and keep them working hard. Unfortunately, these are precisely the same systems that the GOP is carefully dismantling piece by piece. I’d hate to think that we might return us to the times of hereditary aristocracy, but, considering the majority of the wealth in this country is already possessed by a relative few, it seems like that may be the direction we’re going.
Posted by: DRA at July 23, 2005 12:55 AMPeople who aspire to be more than they are vote Republican; those who will stay where they are vote Democratic. That explains Chop’s point that the middle is more likely to support Republicans, while the very rich and the poor tend to vote Dem.
Now that’s just silly.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 02:33 AM“People who aspire to be more than they are vote Republican; those who will stay where they are vote Democratic.”
that’s pretty much the republican philosophy in a nutshell. it can be simplified even further: selfishness. now, a degree of selfishness is necessary and healthy, but when folks like tim eyman here in washington state make it a crusade to cut tax revenues based on a principle such as “keep my own money for myself, to hell with the rest of you”, i sometimes just want to say, “fine. do it. take it all away. hide in your walled enclaves and let the whole place wither.” because, before too long, the negative effects of starving the government will find their way back into those enclaves.
i have never, in my 20 years of adult life, taken anything from the gov’t, except for one year, i got a pell grant, maybe $2000, to go to community college. i am not some loafer down at the welfare office waiting for a government gravy train with biscuit wheels. but i believe the overall health of the society is improved when the government uses its resources to maintain infrastructure, leverage health and insurance industries to ensure that everyone has access to their services when they need them, and provide a buffer between the economic ups and downs of free market capitalism and the individual. it does this with taxes and regulations.
it makes more sense to me to float an initiative to limit a spending bill to one issue rather than an omnibus. this would be much more effective at addressing government waste than simply starving the government by reducing revenues. and, our lawmakers and representatives would have to actually work for us, like it was intended. why don’t they like the single issue initiative? because so many industries are as fond of their corporate welfare as any welfare mooch.
that’s the current republican model — bleed the working class, fund industries (military-industrial, yes — halliburton and its buddies), and then complain that their wages, which came straight from the gov’t, i.e. you and me, are being taxed too much.
what republicans don’t seem to understand or care about when they utter their brutish slogans is that we were well on our way to their vision of utopia around the turn of the last century. republicans loved them some mussolini! now, it’s true, some people were doing mighty well for themselves back then. but a far greater number of people were being chewed up and spit out by their employers, fodder for their successes. the flipside of the republican keep-my-money-for-myself coin is misery for the working classes. just because everyone has the chance to succeed, not everyone will or even can. you can’t have a society where everyone is a ceo, so what happens to those who have to get their hands dirty? well, the republican would say “if they’re not “aspiring” to greater stations in life, piss on ‘em. i got mine. what, you want me to pick up some of the tab for your health care? forget about it. how about, i’ll keep my money and you keep your tuberculosis? now get back to work.”
selfishness above all and any means to that end. that’s what the values voters get when they’re being serenaded by promises of making abortion illegal and keeping the fags from getting married. it’s what the frightened voters get with big talk about fighting terror — al qaeda couldn’t give a tiny turd about kansas. notice that new york and wash. d.c. voted overwhelmingly for kerry, in spite of 9/11. and since when did kansas really care about new york, anyway? good grief.
Posted by: dave. at July 23, 2005 02:28 PMDave
I frankly don’t mind paying taxes if they work to help my country. The problem is that government is a particular tool. It is required for overarching services like national defense. It is almost indispensable for big infrastructure projects. It is good at setting general policies that help the society prosper.
But the government is the consumer, not the creator of wealth. As it moves down the chain of management to micro management, things start to go wrong. And when it gets into the job of managing societal relationships is really screws up. In the 1960s, we declared war on poverty. Poverty won and demanded reparations. There is no doubt that government programs exacerbated the problems of the inner cities. The intention was good. The big public housing complexes and dehumanizing welfare agencies were the result.
As a conservative I know that there are some things I might want from government that government is not able (organizationally) to give me. As a business oriented guy, I want my society to be as rich as possible. Poor people make bad customers. Uneducated people make bad workers. Government can and does do a lot to ameliorate these bad conditions, but it can’t, no matter how much money and how much it tries make everyone healthy, wealthy and wise.
I want to stop government from overreaching and causing damage. It has to be relatively small to do that and that is a constant fight. It is very tempting to extend government power in order to solve today’s problem, but once you extend government, it is hard to bring it back.
You reference Mussolini. This is a constant misinterpretation. Nazis, fascists and communist shared many traits. Among them was a dislike for free enterprise. These were planned economies where the government played the decisive role in determining what should be produced, who should work where and under what conditons. They resemble American free enterprise not at all. Nobody wants to “go back to this” because we never had it.
Re Kansas v New York etc.
It doesn’t matter where the wealth is manifest. Washington is a beautiful city, but many of the people living there don’t produce any wealth at all. They just consume it. It matters where wealth is made and who makes it and – yes – places don’t have wealth; only people have wealth. I am sure that people who voted Republican in the last election pay at least as much in taxes as those who voted Democratic. This blue-red thing gets really old. The only place it really matters is in the Senate and in the Electoral College. For everything else it is like arguing that the moon is made of green cheese.
Posted by: jack at July 23, 2005 03:23 PMI want to stop government from overreaching and causing damage. It has to be relatively small to do that and that is a constant fight. It is very tempting to extend government power in order to solve today�s problem, but once you extend government, it is hard to bring it back.
So do you support the current administration? This neocon version of ‘conservatism’ is NOT one of “small government.”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 23, 2005 03:40 PM“You reference Mussolini. This is a constant misinterpretation.”
jack, it was mussolini’s success with regard to undoing organized labor that was the envy of the corporatists. the unions here in america were never welcomed by the industries. in fact, corporate lobbyists were very busy trying to develop legislation to stop them. you’re making the common mistake of equating totalitarianism with fascism. we were never in any real danger of totalitarianism. but we were then, and are becoming now, in danger of giving up individual liberties while “spreading freedom” on wall street. so, in the sense that fascism is the melding of the corporate with the state, when you look at how much influence corporate lobbyists have gained in the past 5 years and what they’re getting out of their investment — bankruptcy bill, energy bill, tort reform, etc… — we are indeed approaching fascism. not the mussolini style and certainly not the hitler style, but the american style. not the state taking over the corporation, but the other way around. either way, the effect will be negative on labor. i predict we’re going to see the unions become vilified again now that we are approaching an era where we have to be competitive with the asian labor force. thank you, bill clinton. best republican president ever.
dude, it boils down to this: i don’t want my 11 year old daughter to live in an economy that is competitive with asian economies. and i don’t see the american corporations and the politicians they purchase doing a damn thing to stop it. in fact, it seems as if they’re merely setting us up for the transition, which tells me it’s inevitable. either we become like them or we make them become more like us. and i can tell you, if anyone tries to organize labor in china, they will be executed and the corporations will approve because if they were really interested in the working class quality of life, china would already be more like us. check out saipan as another example. that’s how corporations behave when government gets out of their way.
but keep believing there’ll be some reward for your support for all those catchy slogans.
Posted by: dave. at July 23, 2005 05:20 PMYour daughter has to live in a country that is competitive with Asia. If she does not, she will live in a poor and backward one. Asian economies compete with us, whether we want to or not.
Your definition of fascism is very fluid. Mussolini didn’t believe in free trade. He would have been in the front of the line to impose trade restrictions. He defended industries against foreign competitors. We could as easily call protectionist policies fascist. Mussolini didn’t believe in the free market. He regulated industries and his government determined fair prices. What does that sound like?
Labor unions were essential in the past in the U.S. They have been declining since about 1970. The authorities are not beating them down; they are not illegal; they are atrophying for reasons related to the free market. If conditions warrant, they will probably return.
One more observation, unions have been declining for more than thirty years. The underlying feeling from your post is that things have been getting worse in the U.S. This view is not supported by the facts. Neither of us can be certain about the future, but I would bet that your daughter will be much better off in an open, innovative economy that competes with the words, than one that tries to close itself off and let the government determine what the market should do. At the risk of another catchy slogan, I prefer the free market to fascism.
“Your definition of fascism is very fluid.”
that’s a valid point. but it isn’t really what i was getting at. it doesn’t really matter what you call it. this corporate-owned republican government we have right now is in majority because they were able to latch onto some social hot buttons and use them to draw in votes that they would never received had they stated their true intentions once in power. they’ll play the fag-hating card if it brings tort reform with it. they’ll play the anti-abortion card if it brings turning a banking industry wish list into policy. all the tired themes like hollywood and latte drinking and limousine liberals. hey, psst: republicans ride in limousines, most studio and media execs in hollywood are republican, and they all like lattes. but it don’t matter. as long as the lobbyists and donors get their rewards, they’ll say whatever it takes, and apparently it takes right wing bloviators rallying support by making it feel good to sneer at the liberals, queers, ted kennedy, etc.
“The underlying feeling from your post is that things have been getting worse in the U.S.”
ummm… have you noticed how expensive everything is? and how cheaply made everything is? and how so many people find themselves slipping further and further into debt so that now mom and dad both have to work to make ends meet? and don’t try to say they make poor choices and so they deserve their lot. the fact is, if we all wised up today and started truly living within our means, the economy would go into a tailspin. this is not better. it’s reckless and it will end in disaster unless the gov’t steps in somehow. but they didn’t do that, did they? they stepped back and turned away.
“Your daughter has to live in a country that is competitive with Asia.”
again, you’re missing the point. our own companies that used to employ americans are now employing asians and south and central americans. they won’t come back unless americans are reduced to working for comparable wages. as ross perot said, that sucking sound is jobs leaving the u.s. never to return. and it’s taking the middle class with it. my daughter may be successful on her own merits but the society she lives in, i’m afraid, will be a pale shadow of what it once was and what it could have and should have been.
Posted by: dave. at July 23, 2005 10:41 PMDave
We just disagree. Statistics show that Americans are richer than ever. More people own their homes (about 70%) and they have more equity in those homes than ever before. Unemployment is low by historical standards. Average wages are higher. Almost half of all Americans own stock. Our problems are those of affluence. There are too many cars on our highways. Obesity is a problem especially for the poor. It is hard to get into the best universities because so many people are trying to get in and they are so good.
I started working full time in 1973. I remember those times. They were not as good as people are making out. I have noticed how inexpensive everthing is now and how well it is made. Product quality has increased for almost everything. Those people who haven’t let themselves get fat are healthier than ever. I know that the demand for change requires that you convince people that things are going to hell, but they are not.
There is a whole industry of pessimism. When I was in HS I used to believe them, but as I saw the predictions not coming true for more than thirty years, I am not less fearful about the end of civilization or at least of the U.S.
yeah, it’s a values thing. and right now you guys are running the show. don’t screw it up, ok? promise?
Posted by: dave. at July 24, 2005 04:09 AMJack,
Some tidbits about the 70’s verse today…
Poorly educated men who dropped out of high school, their wages fell more than $2 and hour from 1973 to 2000 (adjusted for inflation). Seems pay grew more slowly than inflation.
Also hit by that $2 dollar loss are young people under the age of 25. Also, there are indicators that when these 20 year olds make it into their fifty’s, they will make less then today’s 50 year olds.
In fact, just to keep up with inflation, for every dollar one had in 1973, you’d need $4.04 dollars today.
The heyday seems to be from 1970 to 1972, when pay for both wage and salaries, rose more than 5%.
From 1973 to 1997, average incomes for the bottom 99% either declined or were flat (in today’s dollars). In 1998 to 2000 there was a small spike.
A way to look at this “rise” in incomes for the “educated” is before taxes, less then a nickel a year. So, in a sense, I guess there was an increase for the middle. Of course a lot more wealth was generated than that. The only problem is all the extra wealth flowed up into the hands of the few. The rest of us got screwed. Well, maybe I’m forgetting about that nickel :-)
I’m pulling this stuff out of a great book called Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign To Rig Our Tax System To Benefit The Super Rich—And Cheat Everybody Else. Here is a link.">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591840198/qid=1122258247/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9216528-8238452?v=glance&s=books&n=507846”>link.
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 24, 2005 10:37 PMI ment to say, an extra nickel an hour per year!
Posted by: Patrick Howse at July 24, 2005 11:54 PMPatrick
The recent SS debate flushed the truth out about wages. You probably know that SS increases are tied not to the rate of inflation, but to the rate of wage growth. This means that SS payment have risen since the 1970s about 1% above inflation each year. This doesn’t sound like much, but compounded, it adds up. When some conservatives recommended that SS payment increase at the rate of inflation the liberals went crazy. Now if it is true that after inflation wages have been steady or actually falling, why do liberals object to using inflation as the adjuster for SS?
We also have to account for the base years. Why do people choose 1972? The reason is polemical, not pragmatic. Because that is the year just before the oil embargoes and the energy crisis. It is the last year of a boom within a boom. A time when inflation and war time spending was stimulating the economy, but had not yet begun to drag it down. 1972 was a great year economically. That is why Nixon won with such a landslide after only squeaking by in 1968. But it was deceptive. Sort of like the good feelings while you are drinking the beer before the hang over comes. It was followed by a decade of hard times and stagflation that was not cured until 1982 with President Reagan.
In other words, it is not a representative starting point. But even from that base, most people are much better off today. The exception is the uneducated, but this is not an economic so much as a social problem. I saw this happen. I worked on loading docks in 1973. We had a lot of unskilled guys, many were drunks. They worked hard, but sporadically and stole a lot of what they loaded. About this time containerized cargoes started to come in. These require no unskilled labor and the labor they require must be reliable, something most of these guys were not. This kind of thing happened all over the economy. You could see it in construction, road building, materials handling – all the unskilled work. The workforce is a lot better trained than it was in 1973, and there is less opportunity for the untrained.
Provided their basic needs are met, their attention turns to social, moral, or national defense issues that may ultimately have very little impact on their bank account, but have a great impact on how they view themselves and their world.
Thanks, Chops. That’s actually one of the more interesting observations Frank makes in his book. A lot of you values voters are willing to martyr your bank accounts in order to fight for a better culture. While that may be noble, it hasn’t resulted in any significant change to the “culture industry”,
abortion is never halted, affirmative action is never abolished, and the “liberal” media is never forced to clean up its act
And here’s why: American pop-culture is the result of unrestrained capitolism,
The Supreme Court doesn’t make American culture; neither does Planned Parenthood nor the ACLU. It is business that speaks to us over the TV set, always in the throbbing tones of cultural insurgency, forever shocking the squares, humiliating the pious, queering tradition, and crushing patriarchy. It is because of the market that our TV is such a sharp-tongued insulter of “family values” and such a zealous promoter of every species of social deviance.
By voting for Republicans who speak Christ, but walk corporate, you guys voting against you bank accounts, as well as bolstering the very cause of the “liberal” culture you hate.
As an example, the R-Rated movie “The Wedding Crasher” was funded and released by an industry that is looking for more profits - even if it destroys wholesome American values.
Another example is President Bush’s choice of John Roberts, Jr. President Bush could have picked a guy who would resolutely fight for values, but he didn’t. Bush picked a guy who is unabashedly anti-labor, but who has argued both sides of the abortion issue.
The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meatpacking.Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization; Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 25, 2005 04:46 AM
Jack, unsurprisingly, you’re arguing the side of the “corporate-jet conservatives”. Even if you guys feel a little embarrassed to be in the party that’s trying to ban science, you’re not too worried because the GOP “culture warriors” who get sent to Washington may speak Christ, but they pass laws that weaken labor, dismantle anti-trust mechanisms, and roll back the New Deal.
All the God talk just serves to keep the rubes voting the anti-labor Republican ticket, and that’s just fine with you traditional Republicans.
Patrick
I DO think people can succeed on merit, IF they are responsible enough to use it.
It is of no concern to me if they choose not to be responsible.
Most social programs are “giveaways” which degrade a persons desire to succeed and once they become dependent on those programs, they see no reason to try harder.
BTW, I am VERY thankful that kerry did not win the election but I cannot say that I supported Bush with my vote.
AP
Strong labor unions and the programs of the New Deal were great and necessary back when they were the NEW deal. I would expect a system created seventy years ago for a very different society would need some updating by now.
BTW - I no longer like to fly at all and don’t care for high living corporate executive lifestyles some practice. But I do recognize that the free market is a wonderful creator of wealth. Unions tend to get in the way. I am not talking about wages. I believe people should be paid well when they do good work. But unions like to meddle in management and it creates a bureaucratization and a defensive posture. Management is not a science and good managers will often make decisions that can’t be defended if second-guessed.
jack,
Unions only slightly get in the way of making great wealth for the owners of the corporations. If that ownership was more universal, I might agree with you a bit more though. Even if the percentage of people who own stocks is way up over historic norms (thanks to mutual funds, etc…) the percentage of available stock is still concentrated in very few hands.
Also, remember all those rights workers had before there were unions? Without unions are you comfortable that the gov’t would continue the newer protections? Look at what’s happening now with big business being big gov’t and tell me that the vast majority of people would be better off if the rights assigned to workers were approved only by the corporations.
Dave
We probably have to wander off this thread in a little while, but one last thing.
I said that I thought unions were good and useful in the past and in some situation today. But the era of the mass worker in the U.S. is closing.
MBAs run many of the big firms today. What they teach you in MBA School is to empower and trust your workforce. My observation of the best companies is that they do that. But management will never be popular with everyone. Some hard decisions have to be made. Sometimes plants have to close; people have to be fired.
All that said, we really seem to live in different countries. I just don’t see this oppression and impoverishment everywhere as you do. I was born blue collar. I admit that I am no longer in that group, but most of my family still is. When I go home to visit, I am surprised and pleased how well they are all doing. They suffered through the hard times of the late 1970s and early 1980s (as I did) and now they are okay. A couple own their own businesses now and after four generations of city living, one has become an organic farmer. Back in the golden age of the 1960s, nobody I knew had traveled very far except as a uniformed employee of Uncle Sam’s. Now they have all been to Hawaii or Las Vegas. Going to Europe used to be impossible. Now they can afford it, although they prefer the cultural treats of Vegas. My unskilled teenage kids go looking for jobs. They find them within days – and nobody makes only minimum wage. Even my shiftless nephews can travel freely and don’t feel any compunction about quitting a job before they have another. And my lazy brother in law, who never held a stead job more than a couple of months, is making money “flipping” property. I really can’t figure that one out. Sometimes I wonder why I come in to work every day.
Of course, everyone complains all the time about how hard they have it. Some people have too much money, but nobody has enough.
George in SC
Did you even read the paper you linked to? It shows that wealth has little correlation with voting after controlling for all the variables that predict wealth or voting patterns. That’s like a recipe for making an association go away. And the highest category it uses is >$100,000/year household income, so it doesn’t even separate the truly wealthy from the middle class. It really doesn’t address the issue Patrick was addressing.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 25, 2005 05:42 PMjack,
I am management, and you are quite right, most managers empower their staff as much as possible. But management is not whom I was talking about. I was talking about the owners. The shadowy majority share holders who incestuously pollinate across boards of directors. These are the people who influence our gov’t policy and rape companies to their individual benefit. These are the Bush supporters who bailed him out failure after failure for the day when he would reach his oligarchal acme. These are the people who hate unions because they reduce their take of the loot. These are the people who are the enemy of our democracy because they can now take us back in time to when in society the elite were isolated from the masses and the masses knew their place. It sounds paranoid but I grew up with these people, I just chose not to be one.
We as a nation are at a crossroads. We are the wealthiest we have ever been but more and more that wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer. It is the direction of change that is of concern. Not where we are now, but where we are going that worries me. I am not confident that my kids will be beter off than I am. That hope is what my parents had for me. It is what brought them to this country and what made this country what it is today. This administration, what they have done to the American psyche to become elected and what their policies have been, is disgraceful and has been extremely damaging. I only hope we can recover, I wish I was as optimistic as you.
Posted by: Dave at July 25, 2005 10:06 PMJack,
You are right, there is more wealth today then in 70’s…
It’s just in the hands of the few.
An example, in 1977 the wealthiest 1% had as much as the bottom 49 million Americans (after taxes). By 1999, that 1% had as much as the bottom 100 million. Sounds like an impending Gilded Age to me.
For 80 percent of Americans, wages and salaries at best stagnated or worse declined from the years 1973 to 1997. Overall (including collage educated) the average wages went (in 2003 dollars) from $36,573 in 1970 to 40,330 in 1999. This sort of goes back to that nickel analogy. However the nickel raise only happened in two spurts: 1970 to 1972, and then 1998 to 2000. The time in between was filled with either flat or falling income. So much for Reagan.
But, like you say, people have more. How is this possible? Wages just kept above Inflation. Sounds weird, until you realize… We work more. Four out of five only have more because they work more. Family’s now spend an average of 20 more weeks of paid labor then in 1975 (think duel income family’s, worker concisions, etc).
Also helpful, we have a tax structure that rewards you better the better you’re off. Tax breaks on mortgage interest allows people to buy bigger homes. Tax breaks for private jets. Tax breaks for tax breaks (ok, that last one was just for fun :-)
To recap, poor are worse off, middle class squeezed, and the wealthy are making out like bandits.
And about those “untrained” workers. We want them to be self-sufficient, we want America to be able to compete… That’s why Universal Education would be good.
kctim
In my opinion, intelligence is 50% innate (capacity), and 50% learned (knowledge). I feel the ratio matters.
Innately smart disadvantage kids have a chance, I feel they’re the exception. It’s the disadvantage kids of average intelligence that I worry about. You cannot seriously suggest that the tools at these kids disposal are the same as their wealthier-suburbanite peers. If you can see a difference, there is a difference.
-
I’m curious what we as American’s spend on your so called “giveaways”. I wonder why you don’t seem to concerned about all the “giveaways” we throw at the wealthy and corporate interest’s in tax cuts. Or care about the tax burden that’s placed on you to benefit the political donor class. I guess we see life a little differently, when I’m in a sinking boat, i will patch the biggest holes first.
-
Also, don’t kid yourself, you voted for Bush, you get what you voted for.
Jack, you guys aren’t off topic at all, though I’m kinda disappointed that nobody wants to comment on how “corporate-jet” Republicans are taking advantage of their “values voter” constituency to enact laws that decimate the power of the workforce.
Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization; Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining.
Did you see how Republicans in the House were going to pass a bill that would sanction any European company that sold arms to China?
After some last minute lobbying by the defense industry and Boeing, 100 Republican lawmakers changed their vote. *Crack!* goes the corporate whip. The pro-business lobby wants to sell arms to China.
Is that what you values voters wanted when you elected Michael Burgess or John Coble or Geoff Davis or Todd Tiahrt or Jim Ryun?
By contrast, Democrats are trying to push through a “fair trade” bill (H.R. 3306) that would allow US workers and businesses to challenge Chinese subsidies to manufactured and agricultural exports.
Values voters elect Republicans and get anti-labor, corporate stooges. Democrats represent the working class, like they always have.
Posted by: American Pundit at July 26, 2005 04:27 AM
