Race v. Class

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

First off, Happy New Year. Haven't been here in a while. 

I think a significant part of the WWC envisions a meritocracy in which oligarchs deserve their spoils. "There but for the....go I," here in the land of opportunity. "Could be my kid someday."

GL2,

Happy New Year.

Read the article.

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

Great piece. I learned a lot from it.

To be fair to the WWC - there hasn't been much choice in who to vote for. The Dems, while better than the R's, haven't exactly big fighting for their interests lately.

Still - to ever expect that the R's would do anything to help the WWC is kind of asinine. To an R, if you need help, well, tough on you , you slacker.

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

From the article:

To be sure, Trump didn’t campaign like an archetypal GOP plutocrat. He railed against free trade and immigration, policies that many white working-class citizens believe, with some justification, have hurt their communities. He promised to bring back manufacturing and coal mining jobs, eliminate generous tax loopholes for wealthy families like his own, and—like Andrew Jackson, after whom he has patterned his presidency—privilege the many over the few.

I think its much more likely that the status quo wasn't working for the WWC.  Here was Trump making these promises and thumbing his nose repeatedly at this establishment. He violated every social norm the Political class holds dear.  The reason why so many people here hate him is exactly why many in the WWC are were drawn to him. 

I don't think there's any race calculation. Hilary Clinton was not going to fix any of those racial issues he brings up. Does any rational person really believe she was going to do that?

The presidential candidates offer rhetoric and policy.  The people vote for the candidate whose rhetoric and policy we prefer.  The one with the most electoral votes wins.   Alas, there is no guarantee that the president will actually pursue these policies once in office.  

This happens in every single election.  Donald Trump isn't the first.  He is only the latest. 

The WWC was drawn to him because he's a pathological-barely-sane liar?

I think its much more likely that the status quo wasn't working for the WWC.  Here was Trump making these promises and thumbing his nose repeatedly at this establishment. He violated every social norm the Political class holds dear.  The reason why so many people here hate him is exactly why many in the WWC are were drawn to him. 

Oh yeah - have you heard the news yet that Hillary actually won the WWC vote?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/16/economic-marginalization-reality-check/

So why conventional wisdom has been babbling on about Trump's support among them is a bit baffling. He did worse than Romney did in that demo.

People need to reset their reality.

drummerboy said:

Oh yeah - have you heard the news yet that Hillary actually won the WWC vote?

I’m missing that news in those links. The first is from the spring before the election. The second includes this statement: “We don’t have accurate exit poll data on the intersection of race and income.” (Exit polling is iffy enough as it is; a caveat like that is telling.) The blog goes on to make some inferences anyway. Among them is: “Trump absolutely decimated Clinton among white working class voters.”

drummerboy said:

So why conventional wisdom has been babbling on about Trump's support among them is a bit baffling. He did worse than Romney did in that demo.

Specifically, the second link says Trump did worse than Romney in the under-$50,000 demo — which does not account for race. And not actually worse, because the margin of error in those exit polls would mean they did the same, statistically.

drummerboy said:



Still - to ever expect that the R's would do anything to help the WWC is kind of asinine. To an R, if you need help, well, tough on you , you slacker.
 

The point of the article is that certain members of White Working Class believe they are being "helped" by the denigration of minorities so that they, the WWC, are "privileged".

terp said:

I don't think there's any race calculation. Hilary Clinton was not going to fix any of those racial issues he brings up. Does any rational person really believe she was going to do that?

 

Not sure what you mean by "fix racial issues". The WWC described in the article believe the "racial issues" arise from the coddling (for want of a better word) of Blacks and Hispanics by the Liberal Establishment.

I've looked at enough results by demographic from not only the 2016 presidential election, but other 2017 results, and there is one thing that jumps out in almost every case.  It's not just Trump himself, but GOP support generally that correlates very, very strongly with race.  I was certainly one of the people thinking that it was the "working class" part, and not the "white" part of that phrase that was operative in predicting voting preference. But the more I look at the way people voted, it's race and population density of the county where voters live that predict how people voted.  It doesn't prove that voters are racist, of course. But it certainly shows that race is one of the most relevant predictors.  No matter what demographic you look at, when it's crossed with race, it's the "white" part that correlated with Trump support.  White college educated, white women, white working class, white less than HS education, etc., all supported Trump.  Non-white and any other demographic characteristic, and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

The only exception would be white and urban, who are voters that tend to go Democratic.

A lot of people don't seem to want to acknowledge this fact, probably because they don't want to sound like they're accusing Trump supporters of racism.  But the correlation is real, and it's pretty strong.  To ignore it is to continue to misattribute what is happening in our elections.

OK, I'll retract the "Hillary won WWC", but I'd still say that focusing on the WWC as the core of Trump voters is a mistake. Trump won by gaining the support of your regular Republican voter, not by some kind of enormous upswell of WWC support.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Oh yeah - have you heard the news yet that Hillary actually won the WWC vote?

I’m missing that news in those links. The first is from the spring before the election. The second includes this statement: “We don’t have accurate exit poll data on the intersection of race and income.” (Exit polling is iffy enough as it is; a caveat like that is telling.) The blog goes on to make some inferences anyway. Among them is: “Trump absolutely decimated Clinton among white working class voters.”

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

If you think that people are voting against their own self-interest, then you don't know what their interest are. 

That would be true if we were talking about their general self-interest. But we're talking about their economic self-interest, which, broadly speaking, can be safely interpreted as wanting to do better economically.

maps said:

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

If you think that people are voting against their own self-interest, then you don't know what their interest are. 

drummerboy said:

That would be true if we were talking about their general self-interest. But we're talking about their economic self-interest, which, broadly speaking, can be safely interpreted as wanting to do better economically.

maps said:

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

If you think that people are voting against their own self-interest, then you don't know what their interest are. 

I think it still holds true. If a person has a good paying job with benefits, they don't need Obama care. If a person has a good paying job they don't need to worry about student loans. If a person has a good paying job they don't need the government safety nets. They perceive the steps that Trump is taking as the way to good paying jobs. Are they wrong? I am not sure, can you point to a policy that trump has implemented that will hurt white people trying to get jobs?

It's not just a question of "getting jobs". It's a question of the WWC getting a bigger piece of the economic pie. And certainly, just to pick the most recent issue, the tax cut is definitely doing nothing to get them a significant piece of that pie, since it's sending almost all of the pie to people who don't need it. And Trump has rolled back several Obama EO's that tried to help workers.

A worker's economic self interest involves a lot. It includes a higher minimum wage, government paid for health care (mostly non-existent), stronger unions for better wages (under assault for decades now) , support for day care and family leaves,  paid vacations/sick time and fair overtime pay. The R's do nothing to meet those needs and in fact do what they can to diminish them.

But the WWC hates to admit they need these things, because they think benefits like this go to blacks and minorities primarily, and hell if they'll ever vote for that.

maps said:

drummerboy said:

That would be true if we were talking about their general self-interest. But we're talking about their economic self-interest, which, broadly speaking, can be safely interpreted as wanting to do better economically.

maps said:

LOST said:

Why working-class whites seem to vote against their own economic self-interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/31/trump-white-working-class-history-216200

If you think that people are voting against their own self-interest, then you don't know what their interest are. 

I think it still holds true. If a person has a good paying job with benefits, they don't need Obama care. If a person has a good paying job they don't need to worry about student loans. If a person has a good paying job they don't need the government safety nets. They perceive the steps that Trump is taking as the way to good paying jobs. Are they wrong? I am not sure, can you point to a policy that trump has implemented that will hurt white people trying to get jobs?

Which is exactly my point. All the things that you listed are things that you find are in their best interest not what they see as in their best interest. 

If the tax cut makes their taxes go down, it is still a tax cut for them that they would no have seen with a democrat in office. A smaller slice of pie is better than no pie.

I personally would side with your ideas of what makes good policy, but if tax cuts lower their taxes, and deregulation creates jobs, then the people who voted for trump are getting what they wanted out of their vote. They are not wrong, these things do benefit them, they are just going about it in a way that I do not agree with.

But the WWC hates to admit they need these things, because they think benefits like this go to blacks and minorities primarily, and hell if they'll ever vote for that.

No. The trivial tax cut is just a sop to them. Barely significant. And since deregulation does not create jobs, they failed in their choice there too. In both cases, the primary purpose of the policy is to reward the rich - whether in the form of increased profit due to deregulation, or in direct handouts to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. In BOTH cases, the only interests taken care of are the wealthy.

The fact that the WWC thinks they're benefiting doesn't mean they are.

It's the whole point behind being a Republican - they think, wrongly, that benefiting the rich benefits everyone. Any non-millionaire who votes Republican in the hope of getting help economically has been conned. And that vote, buy the same token, goes against their best interests.

maps said:

Which is exactly my point. All the things that you listed are things that you find are in their best interest not what they see as in their best interest. 

If the tax cut makes their taxes go down, it is still a tax cut for them that they would no have seen with a democrat in office. A smaller slice of pie is better than no pie.

I personally would side with your ideas of what makes good policy, but if tax cuts lower their taxes, and deregulation creates jobs, then the people who voted for trump are getting what they wanted out of their vote. They are not wrong, these things do benefit them, they are just going about it in a way that I do not agree with.

But the WWC hates to admit they need these things, because they think benefits like this go to blacks and minorities primarily, and hell if they'll ever vote for that.

Thanks for the article link, @LOST

I have a new years resolution to try to be more concise... so two cents:

$0.01: White supremacy was part of the U.S. from the beginning. Less than a lifetime ago people even explicitly organized politically around it. Unless someone can convincingly point to some magic moment when white supremacy was expunged from the nation, then clearly it's still with us.

$0.02: As long as we use generic terms like "populism" and "anti-establishment" we can deny the racial aspects of Trumpism. If we have to look at Trump's actual words (remember how he opened his campaign?), this becomes impossible.

Most of voters' opposition to greater social welfare programs is based on the idea that white people will be paying for lavish benefits to undeserving black people.

That's all it is.  And the Republican party pushes that very idea - sometimes subtly, sometimes not.

PVW said:

Thanks for the article link, @LOST

I have a new years resolution to try to be more concise... so two cents:

$0.01: White supremacy was part of the U.S. from the beginning. Less than a lifetime ago people even explicitly organized politically around it. Unless someone can convincingly point to some magic moment when white supremacy was expunged from the nation, then clearly it's still with us.

$0.02: As long as we use generic terms like "populism" and "anti-establishment" we can deny the racial aspects of Trumpism. If we have to look at Trump's actual words (remember how he opened his campaign?), this becomes impossible.

Oh, for sure. Have you ready anything by George Lakoff? His theory of the Conservative Moral Hierarchy rings true (well, not true to me, but true that it exists). 

From this article:

"The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a world ordered by nature, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. Why do conservatives love Trump (who harms them) and hate healthcare (which helps them)? It makes more sense when you consider the conservative moral hierarchy.

The Conservative Moral Hierarchy:

• God above Man • Man above Nature • The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak) • The Rich above the Poor • Employers above Employees • Adults above Children • Western culture above other cultures • America above other countries • Men above Women • Whites above Nonwhites • Christians above non-Christians • Straights above Gays"

My retired parents in Michigan that make under $80K will see a $2,000 tax break. Given that they are on a fixed income, that is significant.  I have yet to find a tax calculator that would not have me saving about the same. Chances are you will also save with this tax plan. To say that trump is not doing right by his base is just silly. He Is doing what they want, it's just not what we want.  

My point in all of this is if you want to have a conversation, if you want to change things, you need to see where trumps policies ARE benefiting his base. A 2K tax break is a benefit. If we ignore that, then our message will always be off. 

Deregulation is more complex, this seems to cover my point, which is that regulations in general are often job neutral, but they often have a negative affect in one area and a positive affect in another.  https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/regulations-jobs/513563/

The way we present our message is hurting us.  My parents don't believe in climate change. I went on Youtube to try and find a video that would explain how scientist know what they know. I gave up because every video that I found at some point took a dig at people like my parents. I know from experience that insulting the people you are trying to communicate with doesn't work.

drummerboy said:

No. The trivial tax cut is just a sop to them. Barely significant. And since deregulation does not create jobs, they failed in their choice there too. In both cases, the primary purpose of the policy is to reward the rich - whether in the form of increased profit due to deregulation, or in direct handouts to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. In BOTH cases, the only interests taken care of are the wealthy.

maps said:

My retired parents in Michigan that make under $80K will see a $2,000 tax break. Given that they are on a fixed income, that is significant.  I have yet to find a tax calculator that would not have me saving about the same. Chances are you will also save with this tax plan. To say that trump is not doing right by his base is just silly. He Is doing what they want, it's just not what we want.  

What timeline are you looking at? The tax bill is structured so that, while many people will initially see at least a small cut, that shrinks and eventually turns into a tax hike (the corporate cut, OTOH, is written to be permanent).

PVW said:

maps said:

My retired parents in Michigan that make under $80K will see a $2,000 tax break. Given that they are on a fixed income, that is significant.  I have yet to find a tax calculator that would not have me saving about the same. Chances are you will also save with this tax plan. To say that trump is not doing right by his base is just silly. He Is doing what they want, it's just not what we want.  

What timeline are you looking at? The tax bill is structured so that, while many people will initially see at least a small cut, that shrinks and eventually turns into a tax hike (the corporate cut, OTOH, is written to be permanent).

The WSJ has a very good calculator that shows you how the bill changes in 2027. I have put in various scenarios and in 2027 they all go back to what we pay today or slightly higher, in my case $80 higher. That is $18,000 in savings for me and my parents at $2,000 a year for 9 years. It would take me 225 years with an increase of $80 a year before I burn through that savings.

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/republican-tax-plan-calculator/

Again my point is not to see the world through my eyes, but to understand that trump supporters are seeing real benefits in areas that they find important including economic gains.

maps said:

PVW said:

maps said:

My retired parents in Michigan that make under $80K will see a $2,000 tax break. Given that they are on a fixed income, that is significant.  I have yet to find a tax calculator that would not have me saving about the same. Chances are you will also save with this tax plan. To say that trump is not doing right by his base is just silly. He Is doing what they want, it's just not what we want.  

What timeline are you looking at? The tax bill is structured so that, while many people will initially see at least a small cut, that shrinks and eventually turns into a tax hike (the corporate cut, OTOH, is written to be permanent).

The WSJ has a very good calculator that shows you how the bill changes in 2027. I have put in various scenarios and in 2027 they all go back to what we pay today or slightly higher, in my case $80 higher. That is $18,000 in savings for me and my parents at $2,000 a year for 9 years. It would take me 225 years with an increase of $80 a year before I burn through that savings.

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/republican-tax-plan-calculator/

Again my point is not to see the world through my eyes, but to understand that trump supporters are seeing real benefits in areas that they find important including economic gains.

Until he cuts Medicare and social security. And when the Great Lakes become poisoned again because he cut environmental funding for them. This is an Ann Arbor newspaper: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html

shoshannah said:

maps said:

PVW said:

maps said:

My retired parents in Michigan that make under $80K will see a $2,000 tax break. Given that they are on a fixed income, that is significant.  I have yet to find a tax calculator that would not have me saving about the same. Chances are you will also save with this tax plan. To say that trump is not doing right by his base is just silly. He Is doing what they want, it's just not what we want.  

What timeline are you looking at? The tax bill is structured so that, while many people will initially see at least a small cut, that shrinks and eventually turns into a tax hike (the corporate cut, OTOH, is written to be permanent).

The WSJ has a very good calculator that shows you how the bill changes in 2027. I have put in various scenarios and in 2027 they all go back to what we pay today or slightly higher, in my case $80 higher. That is $18,000 in savings for me and my parents at $2,000 a year for 9 years. It would take me 225 years with an increase of $80 a year before I burn through that savings.

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/republican-tax-plan-calculator/

Again my point is not to see the world through my eyes, but to understand that trump supporters are seeing real benefits in areas that they find important including economic gains.

Until he cuts Medicare and social security. And when the Great Lakes become poisoned again because he cut environmental funding for them. This is an Ann Arbor newspaper: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html

If medicare and SS are cut it will have a big effect, but until it happens, it hasn't happened. They have already decided to shelve it until after the 2018 mid-terms. 

As for the EPA, I don't see trump supporters caring about the clean-up of pollution that have been there for as long as anyone can remember. These are the same people cheering for drilling in Alaska. 

People do not remember what pollution used to be like, but there will be a tangible change in their paycheck when new withholding tables go into effect in Feb.  It may even be a bigger change than in 2019, if for 2018 they spread 12 months of tax decrease over 11 months.  Changes in the environment will be more gradual, and may even be invisible depending on where one lives. 

As an ancient person, I can remember not being able to see to the end of the elementary school playground in southern Calif because of smog, and tears running down my face after h.s. gym period.  Maybe people here on MOL remember similar, or pollution of the Hudson?  Shore beaches?

Changes in social security and medicare, as noted above, aren't here till they're here, and the current office-holders will presumably be gone by then, "IBG" "I'll be gone," just like the mortgage shysters pre-crash.

eta Gotta love Dave Chappelle, and, he's right! Thanks nan for posting.

I remember driving on the turnpike through the NJ Meadowlands in the 80/90s and the smell was terrible.  The Meadowlands are incredibly clean now compared to then. 

mjc said:

People do not remember what pollution used to be like, but there will be a tangible change in their paycheck when new withholding tables go into effect in Feb.  It may even be a bigger change than in 2019, if for 2018 they spread 12 months of tax decrease over 11 months.  Changes in the environment will be more gradual, and may even be invisible depending on where one lives. 


As an ancient person, I can remember not being able to see to the end of the elementary school playground in southern Calif because of smog, and tears running down my face after h.s. gym period.  Maybe people here on MOL remember similar, or pollution of the Hudson?  Shore beaches?


Changes in social security and medicare, as noted above, aren't here till they're here, and the current office-holders will presumably be gone by then, "IBG" "I'll be gone," just like the mortgage shysters pre-crash.




eta Gotta love Dave Chappelle, and, he's right! Thanks nan for posting.

maps said:
If medicare and SS are cut it will have a big effect, but until it happens, it hasn't happened. They have already decided to shelve it until after the 2018 mid-terms. 

Of course they have.