POPULISM WITH CLASS
My friend Steve Rose has a reprise of his thesis on "The Trouble with Class Interest Populism" on the website of the Progressive Policy Institute. I commend it to all, along with his legendary "Social Stratification in the United States" poster, a copy of which hangs on my office wall. (Wait until the updated version is out.)
To stir the pot, I'll summarize the argument narrowly as a call to discount the importance of economic class interest in progressive, majoritarian politics.
Rose's field is the empirical analysis of labor market data. He brings his considerable skills to bear on a demonstration of two main points. The first is that means-tested "safety net" programs with which "economic populist" is identified benefit less than thirty percent of the population. The second is that labor market regulation is not relevant to the expanding sector of the workforce -- those whose jobs do not entail heavy, low-paid manual labor, or jobs that require relatively less in the way of skill (in terms of educational credentials).
The upshot is that people are not voting against their economic interests. Nothing is the matter with Kansas. Politicians are not betraying their constituents for the sake of donations or because they are befuddled by elitist consultants.
Rose's classification explicitly excludes from consideration social insurance. He implies that there is a political consensus on these programs, hence they are not a source of competition between the parties.
It's true that social insurance -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, Workman's Comp -- are broadly popular. It's also true that thus far Republicans have not been serious about gutting them. By not serious, I do not mean they would sincerely love to chop them up. I mean they have not been willing to risk anything politically.
From an ideological standpoint, there should be little doubt in which direction the G.O.P. policy vector is pointed with respect to social insurance. The fiscal crisis Republicans have hastened will provide a future opportunity, albeit a highly risky one.
There is a profound and broad class interest in supporting and expanding social insurance. I won't burden you with a rehash of the merits. Voting G.O.P., while they build their apparatus and lay (and lie) in the weeds, waiting for a better chance than 2005, is contrary to the interests of the many, well above Rose's income cut-off of $40,000 a year.
Rose is also burdened by a narrow view of social interest. A social safety net is mostly beneficial to those with average annual incomes under $40K, but it is beneficial to anyone who approves of such a system. In other words, if out of altruism you like the idea, you benefit. Alternatively, class is not just the economic circumstances you end up with, it's also those you might have experienced but did not.
What might be called a narrow money-liberal-transfer frame of reference inhibits the view of public investment. I don't mean any old spending, but spending aimed at providing facilities and services that augment economic growth and are in insufficient supply from the private sector. The modern equivalent of nationalizing the railroads held by the old populists of the 19th century. An example is city governments setting up public broadband.
In short, by reducing populism Steve demonstrates its limited importance. In its place he offers an understanding of "middle-class aspiration." What this leads to is left to another article.
Aspiration is crucial. People want to get rich, or at least see a path forward, for their children if not for themselves. On average they have unrealistic expectations. Woe to the politician who dares to tell the truth on that score.
Safety nets aside, social insurance -- more not less -- is a vital foundation for any such aspiration. So too is public investment. Other populist interests for another time are fair trade and democratic money. All of these facilitate financial solvency and earnings growth along a broad swath of the population, not just the bottom 30 percent.
On all of these fundamental matters the post-labor, modernist, centrist Dems (Hi, Ed!) are weak at best. That's the trouble with the new America Third Way new Democratic network information economy Daily Kos hyper-partisan netrooted voices. (Have I left anybody out?)
E.P. Thompson said something to the effect that class is not a group of people; it's a happening.
Without class-interest populism, the Democratic Party isn't happening.
I doubt Steve Rose's thesis even on narrow grounds. Take worker safety issue for example. I have RSI from typing on a computer keyboard. If the odds are you spend a signficant amount of time keyboarding or filing - both of which have serious health and safety issues.
Or perhaps Steve thinks nurses have no health issues to worrry about? The dirty secret of nursing is that most nurses end up with back injuries from lifting patients on and off things. Middle managers get ulcers and heart problems from stress (not that workers lower down the food chain are exactly spared these things.) They could use some union protection too.
I'm betting a similar case for other issues Rose thinks affect only a small percentages of workers. For example, how does a higher minimum wage affect workers further up the food chain? I wonder if , by narrowing the difference difference between their labor price and lower paid workers, it does not improve their bargaining power. If the boss is considering firing them and replacing them someone cheaper - hey not that much cheaper.Don't know how far up the ladder that could carry.. Hey, answering stuff like that is one of the things you are there for.
April 26, 2006 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inequality manifests itself in different ways. Hierarchies of wealth and power have a direct effect on the health, mental health, and overall well-being of any society.
Class based populism is good for our over all well being- as individuals, as members of a social class, and as a society.
April 26, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The regulatory comment is well-taken. I am not supporting Rose's analysis on that score, just not contesting it for the sake of the broader points, such as Dale's. He is on much safer ground on the means-tested point, as far as it goes, which isn't far enough.
Max B. Sawicky
http://maxspeak.org/mt
max@maxspeak.org
April 26, 2006 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off topic, but this essay on class is an interesting way at looking at the topic from a non-economic point of view.
Class Matters
Part of the problem is that people don't realize how little economic mobility they actually have these days. Hopes that a person will hit the jackpot have become more prevalent now that the opportunities have actually diminished. This helps explain the rise in popularity of lotteries, "deal or no deal" types of game shows, and all the elimination contest shows (American Idol, the batchelor, top model, etc.). The media helps with the mythology by spending an undue amount of time on the lives of celebrities.
The one thing you don't see in the news are stories about labor issues, except for the rare strike story like the current NYC MTA issue. It's all bread and circuses...
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
April 26, 2006 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I would submit that part of the reason that the Dems have lost voters to the GOP since Reagan is that a certain segment of the Dems continually wishes to convince those people that they are dreaming and that they are worse off than they really are, that they will never get ahead and that they need help to get anywhere. It's simply not a good selling point to tell people they are stupid and poor and are going to stay that way and especially to hear it from educated elites. Slamming dreams, regulating things like gambling, whether on lotteries or real estate investing, or local education of children, with the attitude that those in government power know what's better for you, basically a "welfare" society, this is the type of thing that soured many on the Dem party.
In this vein, I really truly like the line: "there's nothing wrong with Kansas." I wish Dem candidates would use it! That some on the left are so puzzled by "Kansas" that they have had to have people like Thomas Franks explain it to them is part of the problem that Dems have been dealing with the last few decades. "Kansas" wants "social security," i.e., civilization with help during hurricanes and attacks on the homeland and courts and highways just like everyone else. But they don't like being told that the American dream is bullshit and they shouldn't fall for it. Not only is it counter to what they want to hear from politicians, it's an insult: it implies they are stupid to believe in it.
If people are not angry about upward mobility potential, there's nothing you can do to get them upset that they won't resent.
April 26, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that one could advance several populist planks:
1. Trust fund requires trust -- something that GOP, but its own admission, does not offer. To us, social security trust funds are IOUs -- not MERE IOUS, but money that are OWED. Really. In our system, OWING does not mean joking.
2. Undo the bancruptcy reform. Middle class needs more protection than banks. We have too much of consumer credit offered on bad terms as it is.
3. Consider some protectionist measures. with some caution. Jobs are bleeding and the balance of trade is abysmal.
4. Medical care for all.
5. Force employers to comply with the existing laws -- it would cut on lethal accidents, worker abuses and illegal immigration. If such an enforcement would lead to shortages of workers (say, in farming), consider special visa programs, but only then.
6. About the latter: we need to offer a positive program to American born workers and to relatives of immigrants. Enforcement would protect the former. Refusal of demagogic criminalization and a plan to offer full (workers') rights to those immigrants who are truly needed should reassure the latter. GOP plan and practice is the have an ample pool of thoroughly cowed illegal laborers.
April 26, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thematically, I think the Democrats would benefit greatly by countering the Tax Cut Populism favored by Republicans with its own brand of Middle-Class Populism.
Instead of defining itself as the party that "takes care of the poor", Democrats should define themselves as the party that knows how to increase the amount of REAL WEALTH that ALL Americans are able to enjoy, even the wealthy.
The key---as you have pointed out, Max---is in federal spending on Public Investment; not on 'handouts to those in need.'
April 26, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well reasoned and persuasive post. The degree of sickening patronizing from people who think, like Frank, that they are better and smarter than most voters on this site is risible. Edmund Burke would be glad to take tea with idiots like that.
April 26, 2006 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a firm believer that if our party take a more liberal populist approach in our policies we will start winning more elections. John Edwards Brand of Populism is very catchy and I think after eight years of Republican rule I think it will be even more catchy. We Democrats should point out that we go by the bottom up effect and at one point the strengthned lower and middle class will consume more goods thus helping out the rich. A lot of voters say we don't have a plan on economics but our bottom effect is our plan. In future elections we should adopt John Edwards Liberal Populism and start winning elections.
April 26, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . not on 'handouts to those in need.'
Damn right! Give those handouts -- mortgage interest deductions and tax free employer provided health insurance, for example -- to those not in need.
April 26, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Alan Abramowitz has made the best point against Rose's argument, one that Rose has never addressed:
April 26, 2006 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so right, Ellen. Of course, there is nothing wrong with giving handouts to those in need (or to those not-in-need for that matter, if it makes sense). But we do have a perception problem, don't we?
Naked appeals to self-interest have been made and they've been successful, politically. My Republican friends admit to a disdainful attitude (that I've seen working-class stiffs emulate) toward those 'Do-Gooder' Democrats out there who are always trying to use someone else's money to benefit some people who might not be deserving, and probably aren't.
Yes, it's a false generalization but there are just enough unfortunate exceptions to sustain it. The perception is that voters are being asked to make sacrifices for poor people but they don't see any results that could justify it. Kinda like the Iraq War.
I'm not saying that Democrats should abandon their high-minded sympathy appeals in order to distance themselves from the Do-Gooder image. What I am saying is that we can directly appeal to the self-interest-inclinations of these people with success. I'm saying that we should help these self-focused individuals to see that the Democatic Party is THE political party that is best able to help them become WEALTHIER, in real terms, because we know how to get it done and how to solve problems like Poverty.
See the difference? I'm not saying that we should become more like the Republicans just so that we might escape some of the politically-damaging criticism that the Republicans are using against us (isn't that what the DLC is ultimately suggesting?). I'm saying we should make appeals to the self-interest of voters, generally, because we can legitimatley promise to give them (1) Economic Security, and (2) more real wealth to enjoy with their families.
There are a lot of voters out there who want to know just one thing (at the encouragement of the Republicans). Are we asking them to make another sacrifice or are we saying that we can help them to become richer? Why yield this 'issue' to the Republicans when we are holding all of the high cards?
April 27, 2006 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where the hell has Rose been for the last decade? If he wrote this in the early 90s maybe he'd have a point, but it seems pretty clear that Democrats have been aiming at the middle class for some time. They've opposed means testing, they reformed welfare, their proposals for tax reform target only the wealthy, and they've been turning social safety nets into "social insurance" or some other security based terminology--the better off you are, the further you have to fall to the bottom.
The other problem I have with this article is that if worker's interests dovetail with those of the Democratic party but they simply don't realize that, or they value some other issue more, than the "What's the Matter with Kansas" argument is actually true. Rose confuses the issues of whether policies actually benefit the middle class with whether the middle class realizes that they do. In the first case its a question of looking for different policies, in the second case its a question of talking about policies in different ways.
Lastly, people may be moving up the economic ladder, but there is definitely a huge backlash against "the End of Big Government". As corporations get bigger, more remote, and more globalized, even the upper middle class and wealthy are starting to feel like they're being pushed around. This manifests itself in issues like the Dubai Ports World deal or anger at oil refinery profits--even if they themselves are comfortable, they feel like their country is being taken out of their hands. There's an opportunity here for Democrats to become the party of small business and small entrepreneurs--maybe even tax credits for the middle class to start new businesses or something.
April 27, 2006 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to the issue of whether Dems are condescending or not, that seems to be in the eye of the beholder, but...
The Dems have not lost voters to the Republicans, at least not in the way you think. What has happened since LBJ is that the Dixiecrats have gone from the Dems to the Repubs. Since they never were really part of the progressive part of the party the alliance was always a bit of a marriage of convenience. Thus, the shift has been almost completely limited to the old South. Actually the trend has been for Repub suburbs to become more Dem in recent decades. Just in the NY metro area, for example, Both Long Island counties as well as Westchester are now headed by Dem administrations. In Nassau this change came after 50 years of Republican control.
As for upward mobility: Politicians always preach hope and the promise of a better tomorrow. Those who don't lose. This puts those trying to be honest in a pickle. There is a good chance that the US is entering a period of weakening economic dominance in the world. The other power centers: India, China, the EU, and perhaps Russia will cause an increase in competition for markets and raw materials.
The effect will be a decline in the standard of living of the middle class. One can face up to this and try to minimize the impact, or one can preach false hope and have the voters jump from one set of failed promises to another set from the other party.
You cannot have a society living beyond it means, and spending half the federal budget on militarism, forever. At some point the poor fiscal and industrial policies yield unpleasant results.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
April 27, 2006 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything Consumatopia said -- except for the wealthy "starting to feel like they're being pushed around?"
Class warfare hiding behind a communitarian "We're all in this together" ethos. I like it.
April 27, 2006 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the popularity of means-tested programs it's crucial to consider income volatility. At any given moment their direct benefit may be to "only" 30% of the population, but over the course of a few years -- especially years like we've been having lately, the benefit extends much further. And if, as Max points out, you're looking at sustaining a national culture of confidence rather than pinched careerism, the safety net is priceless for almost everyone.
April 27, 2006 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink