Posted on 05/14/2005 3:33:42 PM PDT by 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
I am the poorest republican here!!
*plays sobbing violin*
oh wait...I got a job, food in my belly, and a roof over my head...oh yah and a pick up truck(yeehaa)
Hell I am doing better than most of the free world and all of the not so free parts :)
perspective...its all bout it! :P
Your analysis is spot-on. I live in what is predominantly a blue-collar GOP town, and this is exactly the sentiment that exists. Trade and immigration are the hot issues in these areas.
I LIVE in upstate NY...and Hillary the Bitch isn't popular with me!
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the poor republican and I also believe that the NY Times is full of it. In fact, I bet most poor republicans would agree that the economy benefits from these tax cuts to the wealthy.
Your reply has a flaw.
I was born a blue collar Democrat...realized at an early age that my values were those of a Republican..
..and I worked and studied hard..and became a professional..
a physician..
So..am I now a "rich" Republican..who doesn't know anything about or care about "poor" Republicans?
Nope... I WAS a poor Republican!
My values and beliefs now ..are the SAME ones I had when I was poor.
..and I didn't envy or hate the rich then.
I was one of the poor blue collar Repubvlican "optimistic individualists"..described in the article.
Guess what?
In the USA..if you are smart and are willing to work hard..you succeed.
The DELPHI Technique -- (Let's us Freepers Dominate Liberal Planning Groups)
BTW, Brooks is, at least he describes himself as a conservative, somewhere on the right side of the political spectrum.
Because David Brooks is the liberal's "conservative," the William Safire replacement. He's always willing to tell you how the Republicans get it wrong. He's always willing to tell you how the Democrats are getting it right at the same time.
Not that he needs to do a whole lot of work figuring out the former, when there has been no Contract for America push by Bush or Congress, and the Democrats need only point fingers and say "they suck" to look better than the GOP to the average sheeple in the media.
Glad you made the big time. However, your pulling your own chain if you think you're speaking for the working class, Republican or not. Amongst the working class there is a growing resentment towards both the haves and the have nots. The haves for their success and the have nots for their entitlements. Anyone who's arguing otherwise is living in a dream world.
You just stumbled on the "consensus building" process.
If you had said, "some republicans would agree..." I might have agreed with you. Most? No way in hell. The vast majority of people aren't particular adept at big picture, long run thinking, regardless of party affilliation. The vast majority of people are only able to discern the immediate benefits.
Maybe I'm getting dense. Could you explain to me what I'm missing?
Sorry, meant to respond to poster #2. My apologies.
This article is right on the money.
Both parties are the captives of their upper middle class constituencies. As a consequence they are indifferent to the economic interests and moral values respectively of blue collar voters. Indifference breeds resentment. In the Minutemen movement, a movement of blue collar Americans who think their government has sold them out, we are seeing the first thunderclaps of that resentment.
There is such a cryin need for a party that is nationalist economically and conservative on cultural values. Such a party could dominate American politics. And frankly, Nowhere Man, if Hillary could even pretend to be such a politician, she would win in a landslide and in the process rebuild the Democrats as the new majority party. That is what is at stake here.
You live in DC! Just kidding.
The gap between the Porsche driving Georgetown democrat and the democrat in Capital Heights is another.
We do have a pseudo-royalty in this country who is far removed from the wealth that suffered to found this country. It is on both sides. The difference with the current bunch is that they have no higher calling other than their own pockets, ego and "Legacy."
Social programs, public works, etc.
Bump for later.
So what is your solution? Use the power of the government to level the playing field?
That would mean taking from the haves (which never works) and taking from the have nots. Sounds like a successful election plan to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.