Another reason I found Chait's Republican class war thesis implausible is that current data shows a strong shift toward Democratic party identification among the wealthy.

Did you ever consider that the primary factors in voting and party identification might be other than economic class identification?

How can any educated person support the party of intelligent design? Is the Iraq war not of some importance? Ever heard of global warming?

Dogmatic approaches to history are always flawed as they must be.

Best, Terry

Sorry don'tknow how to make the link work

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2004/11/what_does_the_2.html

They're "catching up" because they've always been behind.   And because Bush has proved a disaster for the right. Does it prove that Democratic proposals favored the rich all along? That wouldn't be a legitimate deduction, whether it is true or not. And would that further prove that right-wing policies have favored the poor and middle class all along? Interesting logic....

Or maybe it's supposed to prove that the right never sold people a bill of goods, because now they're losing voters. Chait's merely trying to account for past policy successes. Since Wilkinson has previously indicated his support for those policies, I presume he doesn't deny that they ever existed. (Oh, what tax cuts?) I'm sure there's some logical fallacy that hasn't yet been co-opted for the cause, and I hope Wilkinson posts again so that I've the needed refresher course in such things.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Oh gee, a household making $135,000 in Connecticut isn't really what any rational person could possibly consider wealthy considering the cost of living here.

Now, if they lived in say, Alabama, they might be, but apparently you just like to ignore the obvious in favor of politicking.

As far as "the wealthy" in this country go, if you said households that made $1,350,000 a year were "becoming democrats" I might consider that you have a point. Your argument breaks down when you talk about the ACTUAL wealthy in this country. They make seven figures, not six.

BTW, although Connecticut is considered the most "conservative" of New England States, it has ALWAYS tilted Democratic. Always. Considering the size of it, it's quite obvious why you chose it for your "example."

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Chait's argument is more complicated than that. He's saying that the tax code over the last 25 years has created an uber-wealthy class that has a lot of power and uses it to protect their own interests. That class doesn't really include people with six figure incomes in Connecticut or even 7 figure net worths (including home values) on the coasts. In the current economy you can be doing well (ie better than average) but still find yourself struggling. You might still identify more closely with Democrats than with the party of the oligarchs. Among the uber-wealthy there are few liberals. Warren Buffett is more the exception than the rule. But here's the truth -- a well paid manager at AIG who is doing better than the average American still has way more in common with somebody making $40k a year than they do with former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg. The difference in wealth is that dramatic.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think that this is precisely the point that Wilkinson is making. Wealthy people are voting for reasons other than the desire to protect their wealth, contrary to Chaits thesis. The fact that the wealthy trust that Democrats will do nothing to seriously threaten their wealth makes it safe to do so.

I think this is exactly Will's point. Why does he sound dumb?

The day that we get public financing of elections will be the day that I consider there could be a difference between the party elites on corporate and individual tax policy. Until then, both Republicans and Democrats will maintain favorable taxation terms for the already wealthy. Though D.C. Democrats campaign on 'real change', once elected and looking toward re-election, they will deliver only table scraps to the non-wealthy. Money trumps votes, in fact, in our media age of 'packaging candidates', money creates images that create votes. This is the reality which is especially nuanced and hidden throughout the blur of rhetoric during election seasons.

I remember all the Democratic candidates at one forum this summer speaking of the need for public financing, but I see that none of them have put out a detailed proposal to bring about such public financing. The candidates themselves will not again broach the subject unless asked in a future forum because, rigged as the election system is toward millions needed for campaigns, such a subject is suicidal. It is like saying you'll sit down and play at a game of poker, knowing that some players already have the money-purchased aces up their sleeves.

At least Obama was honest to say he knew he was swimming in muddy waters...........

Well, maybe it would be simpler to just have the wealthy appoint a House of Lords and we could dispense with the House of Commons altogether.

They would be. I'm saying unless and until we have Americans demanding a political party that is working for the common good, we might as well write off democracy because we seem to be content to live in a plutocracy obediently waiting for a little to trickle down and if it doesn't well it must be our fault for asking for too much.

Re: If the Republicans have, over the years, become a party increasingly identified with the economic interests of the rich

Because that truism is no longer true. Thge old Eisenhower-Rockefeller GOp was the party of the upper classes. Today's GOP is not. It has become the party of a number of radical (and dangerously illiberal) movements, from the Amerika Uber Alles nationalism of the Neocons to the theofascism of the Religious Right. The upper classes are no longer very well represented by the GOP and so are beginning to abandon it.

Politics is ALWAYS about redistributing wealth. What do you think the "trickle down" theory was all about? If they'd meant waterfall they wouldn't have said trickle. Nope, it was all about making sure there was a nice big dam to prevent anything but a trickle from being "redistributed" away from those with the power make the rules in the interests of a few.

I do have the rare Congressman who is actually a liberal but the Democrat representing me in the Senate might as well be a Republican.

Thge old Eisenhower-Rockefeller GOp was the party of the upper classes. Today's GOP is not. It has become the party of a number of radical (and dangerously illiberal) movements, from the Amerika Uber Alles nationalism of the Neocons to the theofascism of the Religious Right.

Actually the Taft wing of the Republican Party that featured the like of Joe McCarthy was always a potent force in the Republican Party.

The upper classes are no longer very well represented by the GOP and so are beginning to abandon it.

Yeah, they are attempting a takeover of the Democratic Party with the Clintons and other "moderates."

Best, Terry

Joshua Marshall had a comment up after the 2006 elections talking about how the professional classes are abandoning the Republican party for its crass ideological and un-professional nature.

The loyalty first, faith based policy making grates on professionals' nerves, because they are forced to work in a meritocracy where rules and procedures matter. In a way, the new republicans offend the American upper middle class' sensibility. Since this is the class that is the most politically active, well it's a electoral sea change in the making.

Supply side economics and tax cuts fall into the 'faith based' policy making and are helping to drive this alienation between republicans and professionals. Do top marginal rates below 40% help the Democrats in removing an irritant with this class? Absolutely, but they are only a part of the story, in my estimation one tenth. Republican 'madness' is more important.