Meet the Poor Republicans

NY Times ^ | May 15, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

Last week the Pew Research Center came out with a study of the American electorate that crystallized something I've been sensing for a long time: rich people are boring, but poor people are interesting.

The Pew data demonstrated that people at the top of the income scale are divided into stable, polar camps. There are the educated-class liberals - antiwar, pro-choice, anti-tax cuts - who make up about 19 percent of the electorate, according to Pew. And there are business-class conservatives - pro-war, pro-life, pro-tax cut - who make up 11 percent of voters.

These affluent people are pretty well represented by their parties, are not internally conflicted and are pretty much stuck in their ways.

But poorer voters are not like that. They're much more internally conflicted and not represented well by any party. You've got poor Republicans (over 10 percent of voters) who are hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative, but like government programs and oppose tax cuts. You've got poor Democrats who oppose the war and tax cuts, but are socially conservative and hate immigration. These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. If you're looking for creative tension, for instability, for a new political movement, the lower middle class is probably where it's going to emerge.

Already, we've seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P. George Bush won the white working class by 23 percentage points in this past election. Many people have wondered why so many lower-middle-class waitresses in Kansas and Hispanic warehouse workers in Texas now call themselves Republicans. The Pew data provide an answer: they agree with Horatio Alger.

These working-class folk like the G.O.P.'s social and foreign policies, but the big difference between poor Republicans and poor Democrats is that the former believe that individuals can make it on their own with hard work and good character.

According to the Pew study, 76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work. Only 14 percent of poor Democrats believe that. Poor Republicans haven't made it yet, but they embrace what they take to be the Republican economic vision - that it is in their power to do so. Poor Democrats are more likely to believe they are in the grip of forces beyond their control.

The G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.

But when you look at how Republicans behave in office, you notice that they are often clueless when it comes to understanding the lower-class folks who put them there. They are good at responding to business-class types and social conservatives, but bad at responding to poor Republicans.

That's because on important issues, the poor Republicans differ from their richer brethren. Poor Republicans aspire to middle-class respectability, but they are suspicious of the rich and of big business. About 83 percent of poor Republicans say big business has too much power, according to Pew, compared with 26 percent of affluent Republicans. If the Ownership Society means owning a home, they're for it. If it means putting their retirement in the hands of Wall Street, they become queasy.

Remember, these Republicans are disproportionately young women with children. Nearly 70 percent have trouble paying their bills every month. They are optimistic about the future, but their fear of their lives falling apart stalks them at night.

Poorer Republicans support government programs that offer security, so long as they don't undermine the work ethic. Eighty percent believe government should do more to help the needy, even if it means going deeper into debt. Only 19 percent of affluent Republicans believe that.

President Bush has made a lot of traditional Republicans nervous with his big-government conservatism. He's increased the growth of nonsecurity domestic spending at a faster rate than Lyndon Johnson and twice as fast as Bill Clinton. But in so doing, he's probably laid down a welcome mat to precisely these poorer folks.

Even so, Republicans have barely thought about how to use government to offer practical encouragement to the would-be Horatio Alger heroes. They've barely explored their biggest growth market. If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement, then Hillary Clinton, who is surprisingly popular with poor Republicans, will take their place.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

[oldbrowser]

In a nutshell that is the difference between capitalism and communism.

[Nowhere Man]

While that may be true, you're essentially saying, "If you think being deaf is bad, try being blind." The mere fact that poverty in Africa is worse, doesn't diminish the struggles that working class Americans endure. Anyone who thinks things have been getting better for working class Americans is either blind or stupid. In my own lifetime, we've gone from a society where a single wage earner, in a menial position could support a family, to a society where a double income family isn't meeting that same mark.

What passes for poor in this country is different than what passes for poor in Africa. if we take African rules, the poor in this country are a lot better off than even some who would pass for a "middle class" in Africa. Still by our standards, even the "rich poor" that would be rich in Africa would still be poor here. Also don't forget history too, in many cases, the poor have a lot more than even Queen Victoria had in many cases, but if we substitute 2005 US standards for the 1890-1900 Queen Victorian standard, they would be still be poor. So in short, what you say is correct and it is generally a cop-out to bring up the poor here in America are doing fine.

I think weh ave many factors here that are not seen. First off, the welfare system wants to keep them on the "plantation," that is wrong, it should be geared to be a hand up not a hand out, to encourage the learn of a trade or skill as well as responsibility along with stopping our jobs from leaving. True, some of the blame is on the recipients themselves for being lazy and slothful but they are not totally to blame, it is sort of like the snake chasing it's tail where cause and effect build up on each other into a downward spiral. Without teaching responsibility and the idea of learning a skill/trade, these people have become irresponsible with spending what little they have. There is plenty of blame to go around on this one and it is a shame that good people get caught up in this.

[Nowhere Man]

You embody precisely the kind of smugness that poor Republicans have come to expect from pro-business rich Republicans. Like a guy who sees a panhandler and shrugs, "He probably makes more than I do."

It is the smugness of a party heading for a fall.

In some ways, this is our version of the Democrat's "barking moonbat" problem or better yet, a sort of reverse class warfare.

[Sam the Sham]

A lot of poorer Republicans are ex New Deal Democrats and retain the distrust of "fat cats".

[goosie]

I believe the Pew people call that "consensus." I could tell stories.

[x]

It has something to do with theory and practice. A lot of people who might be theoretically for tort reform or bankruptcy reform are concerned about the powerful economic interests that would influence any changes that Congress would make in the real world. It's similar with things like welfare and health care. People are open to free market reforms, but are concerned about losing what's available to them if things go sour, and mistrustful of what the laws will look like after the lobbyists get through with them.

In general, ideologies are by definition developed by people who value theory more than practical considerations. So the experts have a hard time figuring out the positions that people take in the real world. But any change has to overcome a lot of objections before it gets approved. It's part of the process and it prevents government from acting too rashly.

[ClearCase_guy]

I didn't read any arrogance and/or condescension in this article. What are you referring to?

No condescension? The author sees two main groups:

There are the educated-class liberals And there are business-class conservatives

Smart people, the ones with an education, are Liberal. The rest of us (the uneducated) are conservative. At least, this dichotomy is true for the Rich, as far as the author can see. It’s a little different for the poor:

These less-educated voters are more cross-pressured and more independent than educated voters. Already, we've seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P.

The gains that the GOP has made in recent years is because uneducated poor people are suckered into voting Republicans. You wouldn’t catch educated people doing that!! And how does the Republican party repay these voters?

But when you look at how Republicans behave in office, you notice that they are often clueless when it comes to understanding the lower-class folks who put them there.

Clueless Republicans. Uneducated and not-too-bright. Whether they are the ones running the party, or just the ones suckered into voting for the party, those Republicans are very different from the Educated Liberals!

And you see no arrogance in this?

[RobFromGa]

The main problem with this article is it believes that the income levels are fixed over time. Many of the so-called "poor" Republicans are hard-working folk who have every intention of getting to the "rich" Republican threshhold. The "poor" Democrats do not believe in the AMerican dream and have no such aspirations.

America is really three groups in my opinion:

1. The elite moneyed class, mainly liberals, never earned a dime on hard work, they got theirs through privelege (a small numer of people). College professors who are spared the rigors of real accountable work also fall in this class.

2. The downtrodden "poor" who have given up- mostly Democrats. Includes criminals and minorities convinced of their oppressed state.

3. Then there is the rest of us, the people who work hard to get ahead. We actually like America and believe that it is the greatest place and time in the history of the world. We are mostly Republican, but there are some of us that are Democrat because they have been conditioned by the MSM and government skools that there are really different classes of people. If the MSM was even slightly fair, these people would all be pro tax-cut fiscal conservatives.

[listenhillary]

The sad part is you really believe that. In stark contrast to you cheery little picture, I've actually loaned money to a neighbor so she could pay the co-pay when she took her kid to the doctor. That's the reality of many working class Americans

Your drawing conclusions from one example and saying that it applies to every working class American. That was a kind gesture of you to pay the co-pay for your neighbor. No one held a gun to your head to do it did they? That is what the government does when it takes money from you and redistributes that wealth. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and real estate/property taxes.

My wife and I both worked for minimum wage when we started working @ $2.85 an hour. Had food, housing, a car, took vacations and put away money for a down payment on a house. It took 7 years to save enough money, but we did it.

Did we eat fillet mignon and stay at the Hilton? We sure didn't. Did we have cable TV and buy precooked meals? Nope.

How easy do we want to make life for the working poor? Don't we want them to become the working middle class?

I've always felt giving too much assistance is much like a mother refusing to let her baby learn how to walk. How compassionate is that?

[listenhillary]

You embody precisely the kind of smugness that poor Republicans have come to expect from pro-business rich Republicans.

You are on Free Republic, right?

Welcome to Free Republic! Free Republic is the premiere online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

[Melas]

How easy do we want to make life for the working poor? Don't we want them to become the working middle class?

That sentence there exemplifies where we part company. I don't think anyone should be working poor, and I don't believe that one should have to move up to the middle class in order to provide adequately for themselves. My welfare gripes have always concerned the non-producers. I think it's a shame when the producers are going begging as well.

[Melas]

Sam isn't lacking in conservatism. Conservatism isn't now, nor has it every been marked by short-sightedness. Unfortunately, in this case, you seem to insist on a "see no evil" litmus test when it comes to this issue.

[wisdomcube]

Such is the system in theory. I suggest you read this from William F. Buckley. Now, say whatever you want about his writing style, if there is one person on Earth who can't properly be called "liberal" it's him.
The reality is, with many CEOs more tax breaks doesn't mean more investment just more money for them. Look at Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco who was throwing a Roman themed party for his second wife that included a $250,000 apperance of Jimmy Buffet and an ice scuplture of David that pissed vodka (!) thanks to millions he pillaged from his own company. Not to mention what gluttons like Kenneth Lay stole, literally at the expense of their workers' pension funds.
Now, don't misinterpt me as a socialist loony. I'm a strong believer in capitalism and despise socialism especially when I see how the former benefited and the latter squashed the land of my parents' birth (India). Where I differ from many lefties is that I hardly think that re-distribution of wealth or "univeral health care" is in order. We should all get what we EARN. Not more but certainly not less. That's what I always thought free markets were all about, one of the reasons I joined the Republican party in the first place.
What really pisses me off is that this problem stems from the supposedly free market Republican Congress giving endless benefits and tax breaks to huge corporations (while smaller companies and their employees get the squeeze) and CEOs and other bigshots giving themselves (or having their boards give them) huge bonuses and income hikes at the expense of their workers, its no wonder the belt is tightening.
There is a difference between free markets and greed. Thanks to Republicans we're getting more of the latter and we all get the ass end of the deal. That's lousy capitalism and a betrayal of the ideals I thought I was buying into when I joined the Republicans.

[Torie]

One of my favorite gleaming toys of psephology is that the county that voted with the highest percentage for Nixon in 1960 was also the poorest - Jackson County, Kentucky - 90.4% Nixon.

[Sam the Sham]

You have blundered.

He distinguishes two groups. Highly educated pro-business Republicans and blue collar social conservative Republicans. Basically, country club Republicans vs social conservative NASCAR Republicans.

[A. Pole]

What passes for poor in this country is different than what passes for poor in Africa. if we take African rules, the poor in this country are a lot better off than even some who would pass for a "middle class" in Africa. Still by our standards, even the "rich poor" that would be rich in Africa would still be poor here.

That poverty is relative it does not change that it is real. Not being able to have a car in many countries does not mean poverty. In USA having a car can be a necessity. You can be fine and happy in some parts of the world without heating system - in Canada or Russia you will die without it.

You are poor if you cannot afford necessities and necessities depend on the country, climate, cultural norms etc ...

$100 goes much longer way in Central Africa, than in USA.