Here's What's the Matter With Kansas

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Kevin Drum

Why has income inequality grown so explosively over the past 30 years? Why do so many working and middle class voters cast their ballots for a party that's so obviously a captive of corporations and the rich? Why is there no longer any real sustained effort to improve the lot of the middle class?

There's no shortage of answers. There's the "What's the Matter With Kansas" theory. There's the demise of labor unions. There's the well-worn story of the rise of conservative think tanks. There's the impact of globalization on unskilled and semi-skilled labor. There's the growing returns to education in a world that grows more complex every year. But these are all limited and therefore unsatisfactory explanations, and no one has yet put them all together into a single organic whole that feels genuinely complete and compelling. Until now. The book that finally does it is called Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, and it puts together all of these pieces with a clarity of explanation that's breathtaking. I hesitate to summarize their argument for fear of ruining it, but here's the nickel version:

1. In the 60s, at the same time that labor unions begin to decline, liberal money and energy starts to flow strongly toward "postmaterialist" issues: civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, etc. These are the famous "interest groups" that take over the Democratic Party during the subsequent decades.
2. At about the same time, business interests take stock of the country's anti-corporate mood and begin to pool their resources to push for generic pro-business policies in a way they never had before. Conservative think tanks start to press a business-friendly agenda and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce start to fundraise on an unprecedented scale. This level of persistent, organizational energy is something new.
3. Unions, already in decline, are the particular focus of business animus. As they decline, they leave a vacuum. There's no other nationwide organization dedicated to persistently fighting for middle class economic issues and no other nationwide organization that's able to routinely mobilize working class voters to support or oppose specific federal policies. (In both items #2 and #3, note the focus on persistent organizational pressure. This is key.)
4. With unions in decline and political campaigns becoming ever more expensive, Democrats eventually decide they need to become more business friendly as well. This is a vicious circle: the more unions decline, the more that Democrats turn to corporate funding to survive. There is, in the end, simply no one left who's fighting for middle class economic issues in a sustained and organized way. Conversely, there are lots of extremely well-funded and determined organizations fighting for the interests of corporations and the rich.

The result is exactly what you'd expect. With liberal money and energy focused mostly on non-economic concerns, the country moves steadily leftward on social issues. With conservative money and energy focused mostly on the interests of corporations and the rich—and with no one really fighting back—the country moves steadily rightward on econonomic issues. Thomas Frank's famous working-class Kansans who vote against their own economic interests are easily explained. It's not just that conservatives appeal to them on social grounds, it's that there's no one left to really make the economic case to them in the first place. And even if anyone did, they have little reason to believe that Democrats would actually follow through in concrete ways. So why not vote on abortion and gay rights instead?

link

[^_^ 5,021]

I'm middle class. I'm sitting in a cube in a corporate headquarters with nearly 10,000 other people just like me. Most of us are middle class. Most of us are comfortable. The culture is chill, the money is good and the business (without getting into details) is not very volatile so recessions don't hurt much. Company stock has weathered this recession well, as it did the last one.

So you'll understand if I find it very confusing when the narrative from the left implies that the middle class and corporate America are at war with each other. It sure doesn't feel like it where I sit. In fact, it never has.

[evli1966 88]

I'm middle class. I'm sitting in a cube in a corporate headquarters with nearly 10,000 other people just like me. Most of us are middle class. Most of us are comfortable. The culture is chill, the money is good and the business (without getting into details) is not very volatile so recessions don't hurt much. Company stock has weathered this recession well, as it did the last one.

So you'll understand if I find it very confusing when the narrative from the left implies that the middle class and corporate America are at war with each other. It sure doesn't feel like it where I sit. In fact, it never has.

+1

Oh wait I make earn less then $200k so I am not Middle class.

Dang it where is my point of view to come from now.

[^_^ 5,021]

Oh wait I make earn less then $200k so I am not Middle class.

?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm middle class. I'm sitting in a cube in a corporate headquarters with nearly 10,000 other people just like me. Most of us are middle class. Most of us are comfortable. The culture is chill, the money is good and the business (without getting into details) is not very volatile so recessions don't hurt much. Company stock has weathered this recession well, as it did the last one.

So you'll understand if I find it very confusing when the narrative from the left implies that the middle class and corporate America are at war with each other. It sure doesn't feel like it where I sit. In fact, it never has.

Across the board, for most middle to lower income workers, that doesn't hold true.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/

[^_^ 5,021]

Across the board, for most middle to lower income workers, that doesn't hold true.

What doesn't hold true? I saw your graphic. I think you need to make your point clearly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What doesn't hold true? I saw your graphic. I think you need to make your point clearly.

How about this one...

[^_^ 5,021]

You said "that doesn't hold true", in response to my post. I'm trying to understand which specific element of what I wrote isn't true.

[Heracles 417]

I'm middle class. I'm sitting in a cube in a corporate headquarters with nearly 10,000 other people just like me. Most of us are middle class. Most of us are comfortable. The culture is chill, the money is good and the business (without getting into details) is not very volatile so recessions don't hurt much. Company stock has weathered this recession well, as it did the last one.

So you'll understand if I find it very confusing when the narrative from the left implies that the middle class and corporate America are at war with each other. It sure doesn't feel like it where I sit. In fact, it never has.

You are pulling a spook, as that is not the norm. The norm is over 60 million Americans live in poverty and that's using US standards of poverty. Using international first world standards, over 86 million Americans would be classed as living in poverty.

The average household income is $44k in the United States. Over 80% of the country only has access to 14% of the wealth, the rest is held by the top 20%. With that in mind, how can you anyone say Americans are not being short-changed? The reality and stats illustrate otherwise.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Heracles

[^_^ 5,021]

You are pulling a spook, as that is not the norm.

Over 60 million Americans live in poverty and that's using US standards of poverty. Using international first world standards, over 86 million Americans would be classed as living in poverty.

The average household income is $44k in the United States. Over 80% of the country only has access to 14% of the wealth, the rest is held by the top 20%. With that in mind, how can you anyone say Americans are not being short-changed? The reality and stats illustrate otherwise.

I never claimed it was the norm. What I'm getting at is that there are large populations of people like me, mostly concentrated in the affluent suburbs around NYC, DC, LA and a few other big cities, to whom this narrative does not ring true.

How about this one...

ps. Heracles made your point better than you did. For shame, brother.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You are pulling a spook, as that is not the norm. The norm is over 60 million Americans live in poverty and that's using US standards of poverty. Using international first world standards, over 86 million Americans would be classed as living in poverty.

The average household income is $44k in the United States. Over 80% of the country only has access to 14% of the wealth, the rest is held by the top 20%. With that in mind, how can you anyone say Americans are not being short-changed? The reality and stats illustrate otherwise.

Take your first world status with you on the first flight back to the promised land. You live here, cry baby.

[^_^ 5,021]

Take your first world status with you on the first flight back to the promised land. You live here, cry baby.

All he has to do is say "spook" and you show up? You two scare me.

[Heracles 417]

The US had the largest boom in its history during the same time period that it also had the highest tax rates on the highest earners.

The country did the best when the majority of Americans earned a good salary, which also happens to coincide with the aforementioned time period.

Even more interesting is how the equivalent period is being successfully repeated in Australia today. A country recognized and internationally revered for their robust economy in this global crisis.

How about this one...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You said "that doesn't hold true", in response to my post. I'm trying to understand which specific element of what I wrote isn't true.

Your example was anecdotal. You said you don't understand the OP's argument about income inequality growing in America or that the Middle Class is an endangered species based on your own personal existence. I'm saying for most middle to lower income families, your personal experience doesn't hold true. I'd go even further to suggest that if you look solely at your wife's salary as a benchmark for income growth, you'd be less inclined to think this way. You happen to work in a specialized field with marketable skills. It's unfortunate, but for many careers such as teaching, it's not that simple (market driven).

Edited September 10, 2010 by El Buscador

[^_^ 5,021]

Australia ... A country recognized and internationally revered for their robust economy in this global crisis.

revered?