Money Talks

Whenever we get into vague conversations about the political views of "blue collar" types or the "working class" or especially the "white working class" there's a tendency to sometimes slip into a frame whereby Democrats are the party of the economically successful and Republicans the party of the economically struggling. But though I think there are good reasons to look beyond income statistics when talking about a social phenomenon like class, it is worth recalling the basic dynamic illustrated above -- Kerry did better among people who earned a below-average amount of money, whereas Bush did better among people who earned an above-average amount of money. And when you break it out in more detail, Bush did extremely well with people making more than $150,000 a year.

Now there's a large racial component to voting behavior in the United States so if you don't count any of the non-white people you wind up with a much stronger showing for the GOP among people with less money. But though these kind of racial breakouts are analytically useful for some purposes, there's no reason to rely on them for a general characterization of the American situation.

Comments

The term "working class" bugs me, because it makes people like me (fairly high income but I have to work for it) think their interests align with the GOP because they think of themselves as well-off, when they're really not.

To my mind, working-class means you work for a living, and if you lose your job and don't find another one, you're screwed. Those who are not working class can live comfortably off investment income.

People making $100k or $130k a year tend to think they're "like" the rich, but unless they have a million or two banked, they're not "like" the rich. They're like a fireman or a schoolteacher, in that they better keep that job or they're screwed.

That, to me, is what "working class" means. People tend to use that term and blue-collar interchangeably, but I don't think that's correct.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 25, 2008 10:52 AM

What about when you take age into account? While exceptions always exist, don't young-uns still tend to be more liberal? And us young-uns earn less money ...

Perhaps though what feeds the perception of liberals being just a coalition of young-uns and economically comfortable people is the matter of political activity and signage. A conservative friend of mine is fond of noting how Obama is an elite candidate and that you mainly see the Obama signs in rich neighborhoods. But you mainly see political signs in general in better heeled neighborhoods as well as among the young-uns.

However, liberalism claims to be "for the poor" in a way that conservatism does not. Thus, a bunch of rich people with GOP signage might be ignored as it is expected, while rich people with Dem. signage strikes one as hypocritical -- especially given that this country is mainly Christian and hence has a Testament which talks about liberal hypocrisy (remember the Pharisees were the Democrats of their time and place) ... so there is a certain religious/cultural resonance toward rhetoric painting liberals as a bunch of hypocritical rich people.

Nu? I betcha GOP and Dem. signage is heavier in richer rather than poorer neighborhoods. But the GOP signage is expected and not noticed while the Dem. signage makes an impression -- and the result is people think the Dems. are the party of limousine liberals -- and in politics perception is reality.

Posted by DAS | April 25, 2008 10:59 AM

I'm really tired of seeing everyone talking about "blue-collar workers" and their percieved voting habits.

There are NO MORE blue collar workers in the U.S. There just isn't the level of manufacturing jobs that there once was, they have all gone overseas. The idea of this huge voting block of middle class factory workers is farcical. Continuing to talk about mid and low income people in this language only ignores a huge problem in our economy - everyone works in the service or retail industry now, jobs with little or no security, no unions, little hope of advancement, and little satisfaction.

Posted by brady | April 25, 2008 11:00 AM

Republican Strategy: (1) help Hillary Clinton secure the Democratic Nominee; (2) McCain to actively try to win over African Americans that the Clintons have alienated, so that they will vote for McCain in November! So that is why you see McCain actively seeking out the support of African-Americans now, hoping to woo them back into the fold of the Republican party while, they smile in glee as the Clintons alienate them by their kitchen sink strategy. The Republicans in their plan to help Hillary make Barack look unelectable through their surrogates, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and others, continually ask their watching public to sow doubts, "do we really know who this guy is?" (ever after Barack wrote two very personal autobiographical books); they ask: "why can't this guy seal the deal?", then they continually bring up Rev. Wright, as if Rev. Wright's statements were Barack's. Do they ask of Clinton, "Was it not Rev. Wright you called on for prayer and support after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and invited him to the White House?" No, they rather ask with indignance, "why did he Barack) sit there for 20 years" though Rev. Wright's 9-11 comments were not 20 years ago but five. Then they praise Hillary -- saying how smart she is, how tough; how she can attract blue-collar white workers and dismiss all of the white support Barack gets in every election. They even praise her for her ability to drink down shots and for her acting ability to turn herself into a working-class girl who can shoot ducks behind a cottage (possibly another Bosnian fabrication) -- in otherwords for her performances and lies. Chris Matthews calls it impressive! In otherwords, they do not reward truth and authenticity in our politicians but how well they can act which has nothing to do with the true governing of a society.

Their plan and plotting is to get Hillary elected Democratic nominee, then unleash the "arsenal of weapons" they have against her and Bill, for they have been Planning this for a long time; then defeat her in the Fall with the very help of African-Americans that the Clintons have alienated and that McCain is so eagerly trying to impress at this time; -- beautiful though Machiavellian!

Let's be clear, Barack is fighting a Two-headed Giant: the Clintons as a unity for they are one, the Republican Party: McCain, Cable Television: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Wolf Blitzer Rush Limbaugh (we need to have Barack bloodied up) & Fox News -- a Mighty Giant indeed. Hillary actively seeks their support to help her beat Barack but they will turn against her like a mighty sword if she was to become the Democratic nominee come fall.
It is not easy to overcome this Mighty Giant of Special Interest Money & Corporate Greed, but what we can do, is to identify who they are and not give them anymore Power. Turn off TV shows which are disingenuous and have their own political agenda that is not in keeping with the welfare of the people, stop buying their books or newspapers, write more articles about the ways they try to divide us and fool us, write/call and email them and their producers our objections to the way they are reporting non-news, gossip, and trying to brainwash us for their own continued domination of the masses. Maybe we will have to write their sponsors and complain -- hit them in their pocket book. We all have to get involved in this effort. We can no longer let them distract us or divide us. We too have power!
This effort by the people, for the people, is the one kink in the armour of this Mighty Giant. We the people are finally waking up and seeing through their lies, distortion and domination, and we will nominate Barack Obama, the People's Champion. I say people because there are some disinfected Republicans and Independents who are finally waking up to the fact that under Republican rule this country has suffered, while big business and big money has prospered. And, in truth, we are all one, we all share the same Red blood. It is a sad fact, that we cannot recognize America anymore. They have hi-jacked our television with exploitation of sex and violence to our children, then they want to try them like adults, when they are only children and are trying to find their way. Dispicable! People are waking up to this and they are ready to get their power back, their jobs back, their very way of life back, which is the American way: peace, brotherhood, prosperity for all, not just a special few.

Then we have the Clintons , who were once the bedrock of the Democratic Party, or so we thought, who we have since learned that they will bed with anyone (Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife), say anything, do anything (fuel a racial and gender divide and push us back 50 years), put on any kind of Act to achieve their power again, it seems for powers sake! Does anyone really believe that Mark Penn is not vitally active in their Campaign though publically they say otherwise and does our corporate Media expose this myth? Sadly not! Unfortunately, the Clintons have lost their way, blinded by power and ambition. -- This is not the kind of Political Couple we want to lead America to a more holistic place, as we can no longer trust them to be truthful or authentic or have the best interest of the people at heart!

Posted by angellight | April 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Um, don't you know that only white working-class voters count?

Posted by Antid Oto | April 25, 2008 11:04 AM

I've never understood that hypocrisy argument (I know you're not making it yourself). I am a pretty well-off (but working class!!) liberal. I have a pretty nice house next to the country club and an Obama sign in my yard.

So, I'm a hypocrit for that, according to the rightwingers. What should I do about it? Quit my job, or become more selfish?

I mean, I see being in favor of a little more redistribution and a little more generosity toward the poor and struggling, despite the fact that my taxes may go up, as a sign of intellectual integrity and maturity. The kind of person that is actually critical of my behavior because it's insufficiently selfish tells you a lot more about that kind of person than it does me - that is, he's a self-absorbed clown and probably not very smart.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 25, 2008 11:06 AM

I don't even think guys like Chris Matthews think there is any overlap between "black" and "blue collar" -- they can't possibly be black and also working.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 25, 2008 11:17 AM

Puzzled Ibex - please do not create your own idiosyncratic definitions for well-settled terms like "working class" - your definition of the term would, as far as I can tell, make it apply to about 98% of the American population. Do you know what a tiny percentage of people live off of investment income?

There is nothing more annoying than people deciding that terms with long-established meanings are inappropriate, and then constructing ridiculous alternative definitions for them.

Posted by John | April 25, 2008 11:25 AM

I'm getting increasingly repulsed by the idea that black votes somehow don't count. This mostly unarticulated attitude was actually articulated by Pumpkinhead Matthews when he said something along the lines of "So, Obama can win college-educated voters and black voters. But can he win regular people?"

It's all playing into the framing that this fantastical right-wing narrative that the only people who REALLY count in america are white christian men. Everyone else, well, we guess they can vote, but they don't really belong here. If they don't vote the right way, they're being ungrateful snots.

Posted by ArtB | April 25, 2008 11:32 AM

Delicious Pundit has it. When the press says "working class" they mean poor, white people, because everyone knows black folks don't work.

Posted by right | April 25, 2008 11:34 AM

I've never understood that hypocrisy argument - The Puzzled Ibex

* GOoPers believe (and some of this is, IMHO, projection) that the liberal focus on wealth redistribution indicates that we believe the size of the economic pie is fixed -- "as a liberal you believe that the economic pie is fixed and you are making more money than average? you must be a hypocrite for not giving that extra money away" (c.f. FWIW, Jesus' radical -- today we might call them Marxist -- critiques of the Pharisees, who were to some extent a liberal but bourgeois group ... and do not forget the modern GOP "intelligentsia" is dominated to a large extent by former quasi-Marxists and their descendents).

* Most people, especially Republicans, assume that Democratic programs involve tax hikes for everyone. In what needs to be called out for what it is -- an admission that progressive taxation is more fair than a flat tax -- even GOoPers realize that better off people can afford tax hikes more than not so well off folks. So for a rich liberal to propose things even if they raise his/her taxes but also raise the taxes of the less well-off (who can't afford such a tax raise) and then claim to be concerned about the poor is hypocritical

* Some cynics and glibertarians are so invested in the notion of self-interest they figure that anybody making a political stand is doing so only to support policies that benefit themselves: so if rich people support liberalism, that must mean liberalism is good for the rich -- that they claim it to be good for the poor must mean, therefore that means rich liberals are hypocrites (which of course, assumes a class war).

Interestingly, at some level these hypocrisy claims reveal more about conservative projection, beg the question in regards to what really are the assumptions of the conservative world view (which assumptions turn out to be rather Commie, actually) or really demonstrate the validity of certain basic liberal assumptions. But they do have a certain cultural resonance, aligning as they do with the anti-Pharisaic rhetoric of Matthew and good, ol' fashioned, American glibertarian cynicism. Hence they stick.

Of course, it doesn't help that most people's exposure to liberals is via likely self-identifying liberals in the media who do really seem to be out of touch elitist hypocrites. Certainly we bona fide liberals don't consider them to be in our crowd, but they consider themselves to be so and most Americans may very well agree.

Posted by DAS | April 25, 2008 11:35 AM

There is nothing more annoying than people deciding that terms with long-established meanings are inappropriate, and then constructing ridiculous alternative definitions for them.

Class definitions vary wildly across the world and in an academic sense it's a pie-fight. I've had a hell of a time trying to explain to Brits why all the politicians pander to the "middle-class" because to them that means big business owners and bankers and the like.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 25, 2008 11:35 AM

The Delicious Pundit (nice handle) pretty much has it. Republicans and blowhards like Matthews define blue collar/working class almost exclusively in cultural terms that belie actual financial reality. According to these folks, if you are a white, eat in diners, own a fishing boat, and enjoy duck hunting you are--poof!--blue collar/working class. Moreover, (and Matthews actually said this) these habits and attributes make you a "real person." In a twist of logic that I'm still trying to get my mind around, if you have a college diploma and support liberal programs and policies, you are by definition the elitist adopted love child of John Lindsay and George McGovern. This is frustrating.

Posted by Unreal Veal | April 25, 2008 11:39 AM

There is nothing more annoying than people deciding that terms with long-established meanings are inappropriate, and then constructing ridiculous alternative definitions for them.

Actually, something that is specifically more annoying is the whiningly smug "I earn over six figures, but I still consider myself 'middle class'" commenter--one of whom seems to appear in every political-blog thread that uses the term "middle class."

Posted by James Gary | April 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Yeah, this only reveals how MSM pundits generally uses phrases like "ordinary" and "average" and "working-class" as a shorthand for "white with no or some college." The sad part is that so many are not even conscious that they're doing this. There's just so much laziness and unreflective thinking in most teevee political analysis. They've let Republican framing shape every discussion they have.

Posted by Philly | April 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Delicious Pundit is likely right about why the punditocracy distinguishes "working class" as particularly white, but there is a bona fide cultural reason to distinguish white from black working classes: how many white working class folks attend churches where the minister has a doctoral degree? how many black working class folks do?

As much as you always hear talk from concern-troll whites about "black kids who do well in school getting picked on for acting white", that the primary career path (the ministry) for an intellectually talented African-American kept said African-American far more in touch with his community than the career paths available for similarly talented white kids (who could end up in some ivory tower, or prior to that monestary, somewhere) has allowed for what seems to me to be a far greater comfort with intellectualism in the black community than in the white community.

Dem. candidates get slammed amongst whites for being too pointy-headed -- look at what the GOP did too Gore and Kerry. They are now being very successful at it with Obama. But the "he's too smart to be Presnit ... you want a Presnit with whom you could have a beer and not some poindexter" argument, IMHO, just doesn't work amongst African-Americans to the same degree that it works for working class whites ... which does make a difference in the degree to which "elitist" (Dem.) candidates do well in each working class community.

FWIW, in some ways African-Americans, as descendents of slaves to rich whites, have certain markers distinguishing them as a higher social class (if also a lower economic class) than working class whites. E.g., Ebonics, like the speech of the Southern gentry and unlike the speech of many working class Southern Whites, is non-rhotic.

This is actually typical for oppressed minorities where the oppression is part of a larger attempt to maintain an economic hierarchy. Consider, e.g., how Jews, even when we were mainly poor in Eastern Europe, had certain markers of being "middle class" -- which made it easier for the Russian government to keep the peasants mad at us (and hence not at the Czar). You see similar dynamics in, as MLK put it, feeding hungry whites Jim Crow.

I could go on, but already I'm rambling, and I should get back to working.

Posted by DAS | April 25, 2008 11:50 AM

"In a twist of logic that I'm still trying to get my mind around, if you have a college diploma and support liberal programs and policies, you are by definition the elitist adopted love child of John Lindsay and George McGovern. This is frustrating.

Posted by Unreal Veal | April 25, 2008 11:39 AM"

Part of the plan has always seemed to be aimed at making high-information liberals ashamed to be liberals and different from white working class Democrats as a way to break those two groups permanently apart. If you are ashamed and think it's wrong to be liberal, you won't speak up for yourself and think it's somehow more legitimate to be a conservative. David Brooks has made a career out of going after educated boomer liberals' insecurity.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM

First--no one's saying that black voters don't count. What people mean when they say one has to control for race in these discussions is that black voters of a given socio-economic level behave very differently from white voters [i.e. few blacks of any level vote Republican], and that, since black voters are generally poorer than white voters, an argument such as Matt's that mixes poorer whites and blacks fails to capture those differences. But another issue concerns this constant confounding of "working-class" with "poorer." As Judis and Teixeira have repeatedly pointed out, the poorest third of the population [regardless of race] tend not to be working at all, and many "working-class" households with double incomes are doing relatively well. A better grip on the population we're talking about has to do with education; the great divide in this country tends to be between those with college degrees and those without. And if you look at the white portion of those people [who are nowadays more likely to be service workers than in manufacturing, even if the guy who thinks there are no blue-collar jobs left in this country is dead wrong], they are (a) still a critical chunk of the voting population, and (b) a chunk with which the Democrats have big problems--not least of which is the attitude toward them one commonly finds here in the left blogosphere.

Posted by David in Nashville | April 25, 2008 11:55 AM

I think that there is (or at least was with Bush/Kerry 2004) an age component to this as well. Kerry did well with voters under 30, many of whom were making less than $50,000 but had college degrees and would eventually be earning above-median salaries. Kerry also did well among voters who were still in college (or grad school) and were making very little or no money.

But I agree with your overall point; I don't think the magnitude of this phenomenon is enough to contradict the fact that Democrats do better with voters who are less well-off.

Posted by Lauren | April 25, 2008 12:03 PM

David in Nashville,

Just to warn you, I am not going to be PC in what I am going to say. I know my disdain for some of the white working class has to do with the fact that they voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Anybody who reads the newspaper and looks up the internet could tell that Bush was bad news. If people had bothered to even to do those things we probably would not have suffered another 4 years of Bush.

Posted by Micheline | April 25, 2008 12:05 PM

John -

My apologies. I should have consulted your list of accepted terms and definitions first, but I have misplaced it.

My point - which I don't think was overly difficult to understand - was that economically the vast majority of Americans share similar concerns and that the real dividing line is between those of us who have to work for a living (the 98%, as you put it) and those of us who do not.

Apparently by urging a few people to reconsider their allegiances and commonalities, though, I've violated your list of approved terms. That means either that I'm an intellectual dilettante or you're a big douche.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 25, 2008 12:08 PM

"First--no one's saying that black voters don't count."

I agree with you this far - I don't think anybody's saying that on this thread. But that's the clear implication of the pundits' shorthand throughout the campaign. Obama can't win the "working class" they say, not "the white working class." Clinton wins "women", not "white women".

Posted by left-handed screwdriver | April 25, 2008 12:10 PM

a chunk with which the Democrats have big problems
So what is it they don't like about Democrats?

Posted by fahey | April 25, 2008 12:14 PM

Anybody who reads the newspaper and looks up the internet could tell that Bush was bad news.

That Bush was CEO of two different companies that went bankrupt says it all.

Posted by Mike | April 25, 2008 12:18 PM

Re: There are NO MORE blue collar workers in the U.S. There just isn't the level of manufacturing jobs that there once was, they have all gone overseas.

Of course there are still blue collar jobs. Construction and repair jobs, trucking, shipping, and extraction industry jobs-- all these are blue collar, and employ significant numbers of people. And yes, there are still manufacturing jobs albeit not a many as there used to be. and most of the losses in manufactuing are not due to outsourcing-- they are due to automation.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 12:28 PM

Re: There are NO MORE blue collar workers in the U.S. There just isn't the level of manufacturing jobs that there once was, they have all gone overseas.

Of course there are still blue collar jobs. Construction and repair jobs, trucking, shipping, and extraction industry jobs-- all these are blue collar, and employ significant numbers of people. And yes, there are still manufacturing jobs albeit not a many as there used to be. and most of the losses in manufactuing are not due to outsourcing-- they are due to automation.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 12:31 PM

There are NO MORE blue collar workers in the U.S. There just isn't the level of manufacturing jobs that there once was, they have all gone overseas.

That's odd, I guess the fact that the US leads the world in manufacturing means that all the work is done by robots. We lead #2 Japan by $600 B in output (which is 66% of Japan's output).

Though I guess that wouldn't fit your preconceived notions based on your political beliefs. We're still a dominant economic power, just not as dominant as before.

Posted by Mo | April 25, 2008 1:07 PM

re: I've had a hell of a time trying to explain to Brits why all the politicians pander to the "middle-class" because to them that means big business owners and bankers and the like.

I would think that even in Britain big business owners (e.g., Bill Gstes) would be a good deal more than middle class. Small business owners however probably do belong in the middle class, just about everywhere.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 1:41 PM

JonF,

Do they still use the historical definition of Middle Class in Great Britain? I.e. Middle Class = not of the landed gentry or nobility but not a peasant, laborer or such? If so, then, until he would have managed to purchase himself a title or otherwise retired to a large enough estate that it could remain in the family without being divided into nothingness, even Bill Gates would be "middle class".

Posted by DAS | April 25, 2008 1:54 PM

But Matt, why should 44% of those morons vote for a guy who hasn't done jack for them? Why should even 1% vote for him???

Posted by Big Pimpin | April 25, 2008 2:32 PM

Obama is the Stuff White People Like candidate, that segment of the white population whose obsession is outcompeting other white people for status.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 3:20 PM

Jeebus f***ing Christmas, Sailer, you are one obsessed dude!

Do you ever write about anything else?

Posted by El Cid | April 25, 2008 3:23 PM

All this chatter about white folks...does it matter that Bill Clinton did NOT win the majority of the white vote in either of his general elections?

Winning coalitions are made of all make of slices and dices. We're all Americans is the real point to make and forgetting that will only lead to more years of no solutions to ANY of the very serious problems we face as our American nation.

Posted by G Davis | April 25, 2008 4:00 PM