Joe and working class values
Joe Wurzelbacher is not as educated as most of us here. He couldn't refute Das Kapital with quotations from Wealth of Nations. He couldn't explain Obama's or McCain's tax plans and how they would affect him. But that doesn't matter andit doesn't matter whether he would be better off under obama's tax plan or McCain's either. I think many here are making some of the same mistakes as Thomas Frank made in What's the Matter With Kansas. Its about values, working class values. And I'm really not all that sure how much similarity those working class values are to the liberal educated values.
Among the most left leading liberals there's a very real sense of compassion and a desire to take action based on that compassion. That's all good, imo, but so often the tendancy is toward some sort of welfare.
The thought of welfare rubs against the grain of working class people. You might call it the protestant work ethic, this belief that one should work for what they have and get to keep what they work for. Tax policy is progressive in this country and most accept that as generally fair. Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthest 5% is probably seen as fair given the benifits those same 5% have had over these at least last 8 years. But when obama so clearly says he is taking from the top 5% so that he can give to the lower 95% it smacks of redistribution of wealth, not progressive taxation. When Obama choses such an inept way of describing his tax plan, "spreading the wealth around" this is offensive to many working class people who don't want wealth spread around in that manner. It simply does not matter that they're the ones getting something.
Let me give you an example. I grew up working class. I internalized those values. I still believe in them. I didn't make enough money to pay income taxes last year. In May I got all I paid in back. In August I got an extra few hundred dollars from the stimulis package. Certainly it helped me, certainly I was happy to get it. But ethically it didn't feel right. It was a welfare payment I didn't need and I didn't ask for. Now Obama and Pelosi are talking about what appears to me to be another stimulis package early next year, couched in terms of early rebates.
Working class people vote their values, whether those values are social or economic, and will vote against their economic interests based on those values. To be sure those who are struggleing and have a sense that they have not gotten their fair share of the economic pie want change, want to see a fairer economic society. There are liberal programs to move toward that goal and Obama does have some plans to move toward a fairer society. But each time Obama says raise taxes on 5% and lower taxes on 95% working class folks hear, as Joe said, Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor. Hence shouts of socialism even from those who would likely benifit. To make such a direct connection rubs negatively against a core working class value, that one should work for, earn, what they get. This, I believe, is one reason that Obama is having trouble winning over working class voters. He's not speaking to their values.
Among the most left leading liberals there's a very real sense of compassion and a desire to take action based on that compassion. That's all good, imo, but so often the tendancy is toward some sort of welfare.
The thought of welfare rubs against the grain of working class people. You might call it the protestant work ethic, this belief that one should work for what they have and get to keep what they work for. Tax policy is progressive in this country and most accept that as generally fair. Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthest 5% is probably seen as fair given the benifits those same 5% have had over these at least last 8 years. But when obama so clearly says he is taking from the top 5% so that he can give to the lower 95% it smacks of redistribution of wealth, not progressive taxation. When Obama choses such an inept way of describing his tax plan, "spreading the wealth around" this is offensive to many working class people who don't want wealth spread around in that manner. It simply does not matter that they're the ones getting something.
Let me give you an example. I grew up working class. I internalized those values. I still believe in them. I didn't make enough money to pay income taxes last year. In May I got all I paid in back. In August I got an extra few hundred dollars from the stimulis package. Certainly it helped me, certainly I was happy to get it. But ethically it didn't feel right. It was a welfare payment I didn't need and I didn't ask for. Now Obama and Pelosi are talking about what appears to me to be another stimulis package early next year, couched in terms of early rebates.
Working class people vote their values, whether those values are social or economic, and will vote against their economic interests based on those values. To be sure those who are struggleing and have a sense that they have not gotten their fair share of the economic pie want change, want to see a fairer economic society. There are liberal programs to move toward that goal and Obama does have some plans to move toward a fairer society. But each time Obama says raise taxes on 5% and lower taxes on 95% working class folks hear, as Joe said, Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor. Hence shouts of socialism even from those who would likely benifit. To make such a direct connection rubs negatively against a core working class value, that one should work for, earn, what they get. This, I believe, is one reason that Obama is having trouble winning over working class voters. He's not speaking to their values.
Advertisement
This, I believe, is one reason that Obama is having trouble winning over working class voters.
Please help me. Define working class?
October 20, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely many do think as you suggest.
Obama might benefit from presenting the shift in tax rates as a return to the system we had under Clinton, or something similar. He could also say it's in fact about fairness, and the top end has gotten too much of a break. He could point out that much of the government's budget is used to support business, from State Dept delegations, and Ag. Dept supports, to military support for open ports, enforced contracts, defense after naionalizations.
He could point out the unfairness of unearned income (the old term) getting lower rates than earned, or using modern terms, working stiffs pay higher rates than investors, who sit on their asses.
Or he could depend on the reasonable hope that enough people hear the facts to actually pursue their enlightened self-interest, by voting for more support for working-class and middle-class people.
October 20, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not the easiest term to define though its used constantly in both academia and in the news. Generally when I use it I'm referring to those who have less than a college degree and perform physical labor usually for an hourly wage. Plumbers, like Joe, factory workers, miners, painters, construction etc. Generally, imo, that's how its used in news articles. Wikipedia has a pretty detailed write up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class
October 20, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lumping all working class voters into an homogeneous group is as invalid, and bigoted, as lumping all women, African-Americans, or any group one might perceive into an homogeneous voting group.
Eric Hoffer, to present an obvious example, had no where near the same "values" as does Joe the Plumber appears to hold.
If all "working class" folks are an homogeneous voting block, then why are some workers voting for Obama and others for McCain?
I know it's a lot easier intellectually to tuck everyone, or every concept, into neat little categories; but it is never valid.
October 20, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, honesty and giving back are also 'working class values." Moderation, too. Greed isn't one, not one I learned. Hard work and an honest day's pay for an honest day's work was what I had drummed into my head by my factory worker grandmother and fisherman grandfather. Helping out your friends and family when times got rough was another one. Oh yeah, and EDUCATION.
How does today's Republican Party come even close to my fellow working class citizens values? I think those that look to the GOP are looking to GOP values. They aren't working class, they're "screw you I got mine" values.
October 20, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
oceankat, I think you are correct in stating that, the thought of welfare rubs against the grain of working class people. The most immediate example of the "working class" being rubbed the wrong way happened when Washington came to the rescue of Wall Street.
This was certainly a well publicized event. I just wonder how much "corporate welfare" falls outside "working class" view?
October 20, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "falls outside" is a good way to put it. Some things are just too big and complex to grasp without a lot of study. Like the financial crisis on wall street and the bail out even though there was a visceral reaction against it. Hell it was to big and complex for me to truly grasp and from reading the posts here I think many of these well educated folks don't understand it fully. Neither does congress have a clear idea what to do.
Some believe a politician should respond to the will of his/her constituents. Good politicians find ways to explain to their constituents in terms that relate to them why their policies are good for them. Those with out college degrees are not stupid they just don't have time to study and those who have worked on a line know why. Bill was skilled at that, he didn't always succeed but he could talk to the working class. Hillary got better and better at it as the primary went on. McCain is poor at it and i think that's why he's losing. He's had several good stories to tell but he never told them well. He's a terrible communicator. He's not even telling the Joe the plumber story very well. If he could tell a better story he'd be more competitive in this election.
October 20, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, your premise is not consistent with the data. Obama's doing fine among "working class voters," by which I assume you mean white working class voters. That's why he's up 8-12 in Pennsylvania and making a run of it in Indiana and Ohio, among other states. He's doing way better among white working class voters than Kerry did.
October 20, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be true now, NCSteve, but working class voters have been slow to sign on with Obama because (as oceankat points out above) McCain sucks worse than Obama at relating to working class voters on economic policy.
October 21, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Oceancat on this one. Wealth redistribution, as such, is unpopular in this country. Always has been. For that reason, Obama's answer to Joe W. was a poor one from a political point of view. That's why McCain and Palin talk about it everyday.
Don't get me wrong. A progressive tax system is essentially wealth distribution, and most people love to bitch about rich bastards making too much, which there is no way to address without regulating salaries or expanding progressive taxes. But Obama's words were nonetheless politically imprudent, which, as I understand it, is Oceancat's point.
October 21, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive tax rates look, at first glance, like redistribution. But considering that we have had many OCnressional elections since it was first instituted, and it has drifted up and then down, but never been tossed overboard.
I'd say the referendum is that voters feel it's not far off of a truly fair version of who gets what for the money they pay in.
October 21, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What no one has been saying is that between 1989 and 2004 the median US household net worth has increased 35.3% while the mean net worth has increased 64.4% , (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States). That represents a large redistribution of wealth to the upper 50% of US households. If the "working class" could internalize that statistic, the Obama tax plan would look a lot less like socialism, or any other abrogation of their values, and a lot more like getting back to where they started from. With no one actually telling these voters this, is there any wonder they see the Obama tax plan as "welfare"?
October 21, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, thanks for bringing this important topic up...
Several things:
a) The term "wealth redistribution" is a major misnomer. It's from the Right and it plays into their meme. What it's really called is "paying your way". Those with more wealth have more to protect, and actually expect more from the government to protect it (e.g. national defense, police, fire, etc.)
b) Working class to my mind is a very dated term. It also divides needlessly. Middle class is more like it. I know construction workers how earn -honestly and via sweat- near 6 figures, and more. Working class? Don't think so. Middle class? You betcha!
c) It's too bad that math is an unpopular topic. The basic trickery of those "rich" people arguments is to project an exponential curve of distribution onto a linear scale. As a result, when you talk about the upper 20% of earners in the country, the range is *vast*! Want to see how badly the scale is tilted? Look here.
I claim that $150K/year AGI is *middle class* in many areas of the country. In fact, you aren't even really doing that well -- you are just living in a nice suburban neighborhood, but nothing special and are sending your kids to public school. Yes, this isn't true for all parts of the country, but in and around the major cities, that is what you need to earn to be middle class.
If people understood this primary trick of the Right, they would recognize once and for all that not only are they not rich, the odds of becoming rich are very small indeed. Therefore, they are voting against their economic interests. At some level that should trump their perceived cultural interests.
d) This isn't going to be popular but I will say it: children should have the crap scared out of them that if they don't study hard and apply themselves, the odds of having a dead-end job are highly likely. No more complaining, no more excuses. I have seen people on these boards assume that people breeze into colleges by nepotism and fall into jobs via family.
Doesn't wash. Sure, you can bring up a favorite of the working class (Hillary Clinton) as a job-via-nepotism ;-), but look at the Dem Nominee for President. Pretty unexceptional background -- in fact, pretty much lower middle class.
Want an anecdotal comparison of where we are today? Once upon a time the average person would be able to name general facts, be aware of the world, and a working knowledge of literary classics. Take a look at some of the popular quiz shows from the 1950s like "21". Today we have "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"
This should scare the bejeezus out of any rational person -- regardless of economic status. It also plays into the "hard work" notion of the lower middle class.
October 21, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your statements about education actually would be very popular. Every time someone stands up and says something similar people respond in support. Unfortunately it never results in TV's being turned off or children being read to much more often. If in fact there is a general downward trend in average people's knowledge I'm not sure what can be done to reverse it. People look for activities to spend their free time on. When there was no TV more people read more. What's going to get people to chose reading over TV? A major ad push with public service announcements saying, "Have you read to your child today? Isn't it about time you turned your TV off and did that?" Its hard to use a medium to work effectively against itself.
That most people are not rich and are not going to be rich is really not an issue for most people, especially those without college educations working mostly for hourly wages. What matters to them is whether they are doing better this year than in earlier years. More and more people are seeing themselves fall behind and older americans are more often looking at their adult children and seeing them not do as well as they did at that age and not likely to. Some evidence of progress is all that matters to most and the lack of it in so many people's lives is what is fueling discontent imo. I'm not saying that's all that should matter. Politicians should have a broader vision.
Your jab against Hillary as job by nepotism is seriously off base. Do you diminish Kennedy in the same way? What ever help she received as the wife of a president doesn't negate her own accomplishments. Even if one were to discount all her work previous to her election to the senate and attribute that election to nepotism that still leaves her no different than Ted Kennedy, Pelosi and many others who began their political career as a gift from powerful relatives. Having gotten to the senate any work done was her's alone just as Kennedy's accomplishments are not diminished by the nepotism that gave him his start in the senate. Hillary's accomplishments in her senate career are significantly more substantial than obama's accomplishments in the senate as well as her lifetime accomplishments.
October 21, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course, I view Kennedy in the same way. And Bush.
As Archimedes once said: Give me a lever and I can move the world. We can talk about what happens when office is attained, but first you have to get there.
Getting into office as an unknown is incredible difficult. That is the one thing that people seem to forget about Palin -- she has a talent most of us don't: she broke into the GOP in a state that has essentially only one party and got elected governor. That she doesn't play well on the National stage are for other reasons -- for starters, there are 2 parties.
I also have a tremendous amount of respect for Bill Clinton and Joe Biden for similar reasons.
In fact, I would claim (and it would be an interesting study) that people who attain office through this most difficult way, are usually the most successful leaders and legislators. They attained office through a thorough "vetting" of their personality.
I have many more views on this topic, but don't want to sidetrack your thread.
October 21, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot of truth in what you say, oceankat, and many don't like thinking that elites believe they might 'need' welfare. At this point though, it seems many are getting that their incomes have stagnated or decreased while the un-progressive tax policies of the last 8 years have contributed to the increase in the wealth of those at the top, and they can see the sense in getting those policies fixed. As such, fairness is not equated with socialism.
Which brings us back to Joe and his objections to spreading the wealth. From certain references he made, such as the tap dancing faster than Sammy Davis Jr comment, it is reasonable to entertain the idea that Joe may have a racism problem. Specifically, Joe may feel that spreading the wealth around will actually benefit a population with skin color much like Obama's that doesn't like to work much, but does like to have babies and satellite dishes for their flat screen TVs.
Because the term 'welfare queen' has been somewhat discredited since 1980, the new economic buzzword adopted to take its place is now 'socialism'. It is proving to be as effective as the old term, if Joe is any example.
By the way, your stimulus check could hardly be termed welfare because the qualification for getting one was holding a job, not net worth. I don't have a job and I didn't get a check, but I tried to do my part in stimulating the economy, anyway. ;-)
October 21, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You say "references" like the tap dancing like Sammy Davis Jr. yet that is the only reference I've heard like it. Is this more of the power of pluralization or can you back up you assertion? I haven't made a point of reading everything Joe said or listening to every interview so I may have missed others.
If it is the only such statement you're extrapolating quite a bit here. And even to infer racism from that one statement is a stretch. Parsing every phrase for racist content will only create anger and drive people farther apart.
What constitutes welfare is certainly a matter of opinion. When I get all my income tax back and than get a check for several hundred dollars more than I paid in I think one could rationally see it as the equivalent of welfare through the tax code. its your right of course to hold a differing opinion.
October 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
ocean kat after I responded to your post, I went on to look and read some of my favorite blogs and websites. The New York Times was one of my stops. I clicked on the "Politics" link on the far left hand side of the page. I think this the masthead. I wandered around the page until I came upon the Election Guide 2008 section which gives demographic information on each state and somewhat current voting inclinations. I clicked the drop box to the down position and opened it to look for and I found California because I am a resident. I looked over the data for educational experience. It says approximately 26% of 38 million, California's population has a college degree. If this is true then it leaves approximately 74% of the state's population (38 million) without any college degree. California is one of those unique U.S. states where there is no white majority. I am going to hazard a guess and say that a fair number of the 76% with no more than a high school degree are people of color based on the states demographics.
According the New Times data 21% are blue collar workers and approximately 62% are white collar workers. I hope I am not making the mistake of saying that these data points to a fair number of high school diploma holders are one in the same: white collar workers.
These white collar workers are under your definition--or at least the one provided-- working class. Furthermore the median income in California is approximately $47,000 a year.
At the beginning of this Election guide 2008 (specifically for the state of California) there is a poll on the presidential candidates. It says that Senator Obama is ten points ahead of Senator McCain. It is very interesting that there seems to be--in this survey---a ten point spread within the pool of working class white collar voters for Senator Obama.
October 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
These white collar workers are under your definition
---------------------------------------------------
I suggest you reread my definition and then check this site for the difference between "and" and "or"
http://dictionary.reference.com/
It might also be helpful for you to check out the wiki article I linked.
October 21, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it. Is your definition of working class as wikipedia describes it?
October 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
test
November 9, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink