Stupidity and ideology

Why? Because he’s a paid semi-contrarian.

(Though surely it’s ‘Yurp’, pace Steve Bell?)

I think it is perfectly rational for lower-middle-class Christian evangelicals to support Bush, but not for the reasons Aaronovitch cites. (By the by, I don’t think any survey of poor or working-class Americans who are supporting Bush would find them citing the reasons Aaronovitch gives.) If you’re a believing Christian evangelical, it’s surely far more important to you to limit the number of abortions, have parental notification when teens are having abortions, restrict or repeal federal funding of stem-cell research, and stop gay marriage than it is to improve your economic position, even by a relatively significant amount.

Let’s exaggerate absurdly and say that if John Kerry were elected instead of George Bush, the incomes of working-class Americans would rise five thousand dollars a year, their conditions at work would improve dramatically, and they would be guaranteed health insurance. (I’m pretty sure that no American president, however left he was, would be able to improve working-class lives to that extent that quickly, but let’s say it’s possible.) That’s the positive. The negative is that by voting for John Kerry — and therefore voting for essentially unrestricted abortion rights, for expansion of the use of embryos for stem-cell research, and for a dramatically more liberal judiciary — you would be committing any number of serious sins. Is five thousand dollars a year really enough of a reward to explicitly contradict God’s will?

Now, Tom Frank suggests that all the culture-war stuff is basically hooey, because there isn’t really any differences between Republicans and Democrats in terms of the cultural policies that actually get enacted. But this is just willfully misleading. There is no doubt that if we had a Democratic majority in Congress, and if the judiciary were dominated by Democratic judges, there would have been no restriction on partial-birth abortion, there would be no parental notification rules, there would be greatly-expanded federal funding for stem-cell research, there would be greater emphasis on contraception and less emphasis on abstinence in US family planning programs, and so on. These are real differences, not stylistic ones, and they are differences that matter, for good reasons, to believing Christians.

The basic flaw in Frank’s thesis — and in all false-consciousness arguments — is that it assumes that economic concerns are, in the last analysis, somehow more real than cultural or religious ones. But there’s no philosophical foundation for this. (Where is the metaphysically privileged standpoint that allows us to see the true nature of reality?) And you can only believe this if you’re a non-believer. From the perspective of a believing Christian (or Muslim), being more worried about an extra five grand a year than about your eternal soul is the real definition of false consciousness. Religion is not an epiphenomenon. In the US, as in the Islamic world, it is more real and important to many people’s experience of everyday life than their economic status or their job.

Is five thousand dollars a year really enough of a reward to explicitly contradict God’s will?

This is an admirable summary of Frank’s thesis, and it’s why I’ve tended to think that it the thesis needs to be turned back on itself; is a slight increase in the progressivity of the tax system really worth rolling back gay rights?

Aaronovitch makes the same mistakes which all on the left make again and again:

a) assuming that people vote purely with their self-interest in mind and

b) assuming that personal economic interest is the only thing which anyone cares about.

Which last charge? “It is also rather odd that he decries the idea their beliefs might be the product of false consciousness on the grounds that they are rather the product of their lived experience.” (Sorry I was unclear.)

This column made me freakin’ pissed off when I read it this morning.

Mainly because of that towering straw man that Aaronovitch sets up towards the end, quoting “one Democrat commentator” – who, as far as I can tell, appears to be a bloke called Jonny Lieberman reviewing WTMWK at a website called Ruthless Reviews.

I don’t even know what the fuck he thinks he’s talking about at the end. It just veers of on a completely ludicrous tangent, supposedly talking about “the alternative” to Bush.

Let’s just give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he didn’t really have time to figure this column out.

I’ve just started Frank now, and so I don’t know if I’m anticipating an argument he makes, but here’s a different take on the same issue:

The Kansas voters aren’t so dumb to vote Republican on social/cultural issues because it is the only way they have to restrain the national power of the bicoastal elites. They know they can’t make any inroads on economic issues no matter how much they try: neither Republican nor Democratic elites are going to give a lot of thought to transfer-seeking activities emanating from the underpopulated Midwest. Under Democrats, not only would the Kansans not get their own economic interests served, they’d probably see an increase in monies flowing to urban areas in the East and elsewhere.

The one advantage that non-elites in the Midwest and elsewhere have is their ownership of cultural and social issues, so by voting along those lines, they retain some sort of power, however anemic, over the authority of wealthier elites.

It’s just a tentative thought–just starting Frank, I can see that this is maybe one of the places he’s going as well.

Under Democrats, not only would the Kansans not get their own economic interests served, they’d probably see an increase in monies flowing to urban areas in the East and elsewhere.

Money flows from urban areas in the east to the MidWest, not the other way round.

I tend to agree with Steve Carr on this. We can easily flip the false consciousness argument if we want. Take a drive down tony Sheridan Road in Evanston, IL and you’ll see nothing but Kerry and Obama signs. Rich people voting against their economic interest. Why? Because of culture. I personally vote Democrat because of cultural issues, not economic ones (though I tend to agree with Democrats on economics more than Republicans anyway). I am committed to a secular society and I see the encroachment of fundamentalist Christianity as one of the most dangerous social phenomena in America. I happen to believe that abortion is grossly immoral too. But I refuse to vote with the Republicans on it because I find the fundamentalist critique of abortion (which lay at the heart of the Republican platform) to be unconvincing. If respect for basic human life is central to Christian opposition to abortion then why not more of an outcry against the death penalty? The answer, as far as I can see, is that the death penalty appeals to white Christian fundamentalists’ racism (protect white people from black aggressors) while prohibiting abortion rolls back the sexual revolution and restores male prerogative in sexual relations. Race (fear of non-whites) and gender (defense of masculinity) beliefs are more convincing explanations for party affiliation than class position.

Michael, that is part of Frank’s thesis, but it’s simply wrong. Republicans have won any number of battles against “gays and abortionists” (I’m not sure about Hollywood.) The ban on partial-birth abortions, the creation of parental-notification laws, restrictions on federal funding of abortions, the Defense of Marriage Act, numerous state laws defining marriage as heterosexual, restrictions on federal funding of stem-cell research: these are all concrete, important victories that Republicans won on cultural issues. You can only pretend they’re irrelevant if you think that, say, stopping partial-birth abortions (of which there were a couple thousand every year) is morally unimportant. I think it’s very unlikely that any believing Christian evangelical would be willing to trade the lives of two thousand late-term fetuses for a more progressive income tax.

As a midwesterner, I know that many Christians believe that righteousness will lead to prosperity. That is why they vote they way that they do. The Dems need to frame the argument in terms of taking care of others. If you are anti-abortion, you also need to be pro-universal health insurance so that mothers can take care of their children. If you are pro-family, you need to be pro-union to make sure that everyone can earn a living wage. I also point out to people that the Reps have had 30 years to change abortion laws and haven’t been able to. I also say that maybe it is time to throw your weight around with the Dems and pull the party to the right on social issues and to left on economic issues. The other option is to start a third party, which I hear seriously discussed among ordinary people for the first time in many years. Dems also need to drop the snotty urban hipster attitude I see on display so often and get back to the protector of the working class attitude that they used to have.They will start winnin elections then.

Republicans take advantage of people who project “evil” outward and then seek to attack it. Leading people to see themselves “at war” with evil (whether cultural or political) is a cynical way of taking advantage of them. I think Frank’s book is about this as much as anything. Given the choice between the truth or contentment, most people chose contentment and there are plenty of people out there who are willing to take advantage of this (for example the success televangelism).

It seems to me that the potential impact of government on social and cultural issues is minimal compared to governments potential impact on economic issues (which paradoxically may actually have more of an impact on the culture than the so called social/culture issues).

steve carr:

“The ban on partial-birth abortions,”

You mean the ban that just got nullified by the courts?

Barbara, the ban has not been “nullified” by the courts. It’s been ruled unconstitutional, unsurprisingly, by lower courts. Until the Supreme Court decides, we don’t know what will happen. But in any case, the judges’ decisions only emphasize how important the government is when it comes to social/cultural issues, since judges are political appointees. Voting Republican makes it less likely that judges will be appointed who will strike down these kinds of laws.

It’s perfectly rational for any individual voter to vote in whatever way he finds most entertaining, since the chances his vote will sway the election are approximately zero. Hence his vote has no influence on anything. So voting is about expressive/imaginative behavior, not rational calculation. It’s perfectly understandable for the poor to identify with being rich in their political lives. It’s got to be more fun than thinking about the actual fact that they are poor.

Steve you wrote:
it is not minimal when government is making a decision between women being allowed to abort a million fetuses a year, etc.

I think every instance you mention is not really decided by “government” and imposed down, as much as the government responds to what the most politically energetic portion of society demands (or appears to demand). (The squeaky wheels get the grease, used to be the womens rights movement and now there is no squeakier wheel than the born-again Christian).

What is cynical is that the Republican party has always represented the interests of the wealthy and they, to my mind, are taking advantage of people who hold these strong beliefs on social issues.

They have their convention and who is speaking on prime time? The pro-choice, pro-gay marriage members. How can someone who cares so deeply about these issues stand for it? I was under the impression that there was no middle ground in the culture war. How can the people who vote based on these intensely important social issues not feel like rubes?

Paraphrasing Tom Frank, they vote for anti-abortion and get social security privatization. The vote against gay marriage and get corprate welfare for haliburton.

Matt Weiner,
not it’s not that “19% of people thought they would benefit from Bush’s tax proposals”. Here, I found an article by David Brooks, appropriately titled The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest:

The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them.

I bet 95% of the US population have no idea how bad the US income distribution really is. So, yes, they are – maybe not stupid – but certainly too ignorant to recognize their self-interest. Not that it necessarily has anything to do with the Republicans and Democrats.

“Rich people voting against their economic interest. Why? Because of culture.”

You can go a lot deeper than this and make an interesting argument that they’re actually not voting against their economic interest.

I believe Kevin Phillips has done work along these lines – the rich who vote Democrat do so because of the power structure at their jobs and how that works out related to the government. For example, on economic issues non-management professionals have become much more liberal over the last 30 years.

People who are well educated and financially and socially secure tend to be more socially liberal, no? So, if I identify as a low- to moderate-income social conservative, and I support policies that lead to better education, better wages, and a wider social safety net, I am in fact supporting the erosion of “my way of life.”

It’s less about individual self-interest than declared group identity. When my own economic self-interest is best served, the social cohesion of my “kind” is threatened.

There’s a daily drama played out throughout the Blue states, where proud conservative parents are delighted to see their children succeed academically and financially, and then dismayed to see those same children demonstrate totally alien (yet almost inevitable) values and beliefs. I know it wasn’t easy for my parents.

Regarding the 39% polling numbers–it’s less about what people believe they will achieve than what their children will achieve. Exceptional children will always find a way to succeed, and every parent believes his child is exceptional. But if society gives every child the tools of success, then conservative America is doomed.

abb1–
I don’t necessarily disagree with your main point about people’s perception of the income distribution; I’d add that I think people are deeply mistaken about US income mobility.

But as for the specific poll, I think David Brooks has just reported it wrong (and from Brooks, is that a surprise?). I find this Brookings piece more trustworthy–it says

An October 2000 Time-CNN news poll showed that 19 percent of Americans thought that they were in the high income group that would benefit from proposed tax cuts – defined as roughly the top 1 percent of the distribution

which suggests that they were mistaken about the effects of the cuts, not about their own income percentile.

I would dispute that even upper-middle-class Americans are voting against their economic interests by voting Democratic. Yes, their taxes go up a bit, but their stocks also perform better, crime rates drop so they are less likely to be robbed, et cetera. You have to be pretty rarefied before the outright class warfare of the Republican Party starts to seriously help you.

I am no fan of the income distribution in the US, but I see a lot people quoting the percentages as if they reflected a permanent class structure, rather than yearly snapshots of a population that is in various stages of upward and downward social mobility.

The urban poor ARE, in fact, entrenched in multi-generational cycles of poverty, but they do not vote Republican, when they vote at all.

If people voted according to their personal financial interest, liberals should win easily since the 10% paying the bills (those who objected) would not have the votes to defend themselves.

That’s blindingly obvious to me too, and it shows the genius of the Republican Party in building a coalition of strange bedfellows indeed. Their core constituency, the 10% you speak of, can afford to support the social conservatives because they can avoid any inconvenience the social conservatives might cause short of a Taliban-style theocracy. For instance, they can afford to get their abortions abroad. They send their kids to private schools, so they needn’t worry about what the religious right would do to the public schools.

I wonder how many social conservatives know how few of their wealthy political allies actually share their values.

Sorry for the double post. It won’t happen again.

“I am no fan of the income distribution in the US, but I see a lot people quoting the percentages as if they reflected a permanent class structure, rather than yearly snapshots of a population that is in various stages of upward and downward social mobility.”

True enough, but the percentages seem to be comparatively stable. There isn’t THAT much social mobility – a person might move from one tier to the one above or below, but rarely makes huge steps in even relatively long time-frames (even 10 years). There are exceptions (students being the obvious one), but not many. I.E., the US does have a class structure.

There are a few points here that I agree with, and a couple are contradictory: I agree with Steve Carr that refusing to choose self interest can be a logical choice, and yet I wouldn’t deny false consciousness plays a big part as well. There are plenty of people who think Bush actually cares about them. Others just hate being condescended to by rich liberals. There’s also the question/problem of individualism. I go off on this subject enough (too much) so I’ll leave it at that. But there is no need to see any of the proposed reasons as mutually exclusive.

And by the way, poor or working class evangelicals in the south vote Democratic by a margin of 4-6%. It’s the middle class and up who vote Republican. I forget where I read that, Tapped maybe.

Ignacio: “The urban poor ARE, in fact, entrenched in multi-generational cycles of poverty, but they do not vote Republican, when they vote at all.”
The white urban poor vote republican or against their economic interests. There are some great stories about the response in the white working class neighborhoods in Chicago when Harold Washington started making sure the streets were cleaned. It was something like grateful amazement.
Washington was quite a character.

Regarding social mobility. . .

I’ve seen lots of studies showing that significant social mobility is real.

Here is reference to one from the University of Michigan:

“Tracking individuals’ incomes over time gives a startlingly different view of the forces shaping America’s income distribution. Let’s begin with the people who were in the bottom fifth of income earners in 1975. The conventional view leads us to think they were worse off in the 1990s. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the University of Michigan sample, only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991.

Even more important, a majority of these people had made it to the top 60 percent of the income distribution—middle class or better—over that 16-year span. Almost 29 percent of them rose to the top quintile. This is a far cry from the popular vision of a society in which the poor are getting poorer. In fact, the evidence suggests that low income is largely a transitory experience for those willing to work, a place where people may visit but rarely choose to live.[See Exhibit 4.]

There’s further evidence that being in the low-income bracket isn’t, for a large majority of people, permanent. Less than 0.5 percent of the sample showed up in the bottom quintile every year from 1975 to 1991.[3] Nearly a quarter of those in the bottom tier in 1975 moved up the next year and never again returned. More than three-quarters of the lowest 20 percent in 1975 made it into the top 40 percent of income earners for at least one year by 1991. In fact, the poor made the most dramatic gains in the income distribution. Those who started in the bottom quintile in 1975 had a $25,322 average gain in real income by 1991. In the top quintile, the increase was $3,974. In other words, the rich have gotten a little richer, but the poor have gotten much richer.[See Exhibit 5.]

The patterns are similar in other quintiles. Among the second poorest quintile in 1975, more than 70 percent had moved to a higher bracket by 1991—with 26 percent going all the way to the top tier. From the middle grouping, almost half of the income earners managed to make themselves better off. A third of the people in the second highest quintile made it to the highest fifth during these 17 years. All through the University of Michigan data, there’s a consistent, powerful thrust toward the top of the income distribution.

http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html

[NOTE–I am aware that this is not a disinterested source, but I have seen comparable results compiled elsewhere].