It is becoming increasingly clear that the issue of social class will determine who wins the 2012 presidential election. Following the lead set by President Obama in his SOTU address, Democrats will mine a treasure trove of non-partisan data on social inequality, income redistribution and unfair tax rates to suggest that we "level the playing field." They will argue that we should give everyone an equal shot at success. The GOP candidates and spokespeople will have predictable knee-jerk reactions to any discussion of social and economic inequality, suggesting that anyone who talks about the social and economic divide is engaging in "class warfare."
The issue of "class warfare" popped up recently in the tirade of GOP responses to President Obama's rhetorical return to economic populism. In South Carolina, Mitt Romney told a questioner that any mention of class division (the economic advantages the richest 1% percent of the population as opposed to the economic disadvantages of everyone else) is socially divisive. He said that President Obama is trying to divide us at a time when we need to be united in common cause. In his response to President Obama's SOTU speech, Mitch Daniels, Indiana's GOP Governor, brought up the same issue.
No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category.
Like Romney, Governor Daniels, ignoring increasing economic and social disparity, suggests that Barack Obama has failed to unite Americans. For their part, President Obama and other Democrats continue to appeal to fairness. If we all play by the same rules and pay our fair share of taxes, we will move forward into the 21st Century with clarity of purpose.
If this conflict of philosophical perspectives is indicative, the central political question of 2012 election may well turn out to be: is there class mobility in the United States, or have powerful global economic forces and shortsighted government policies undermined the American Dream? These fundamental questions, of course, help to shape our perceptions about social class.
As I mentioned in an earlier blog post on this topic, most Americans don't like to talk about social class. We like to believe that everyone is middle class. We like to believe America is the land of equal opportunity. In my introductory anthropology class two days ago, I asked the students to characterize American culture. One student said: "It is the land of equal opportunity. If you work hard, you can become a great success."
I asked him: "Does the child of a sanitation worker have the same set of opportunities as a Vanderbilt or a DuPont?"
Awkward silence.
We like the myth of a classless society because it corresponds nicely to the stories we like to tell ourselves about the United States and the American Dream. For these reasons, the GOP spin on social divisiveness gets some traction in the public. Because we live in a land of "equal opportunity," many prosperous Americans like to recount their "rags to riches" story. Upon hearing these stories, many people say: This is America, if they can do, so can I!
Indeed, the GOP will do everything and anything to keep circulating an interconnected set of social and political myths that divert public attention away from American social inequality. Using unlimited pools of non-transparent corporate money, their Super Pacs will bombard voters with an interminable series of political ads that will weave tapestries of half-truths, lies and illusions.
GOP candidates and Super Pacs are likely to promote the following themes. In America, equal opportunity has erased class divisions. In America, business is good and social welfare is bad. In America less government is better than more government. In America low taxes decrease the deficit and increase freedom.
Despite past and present barrages of Super Pac propaganda, there is emerging class resentment in the U.S. These days people talk much more openly about American social inequality. People resent the fact that in 2010 Mitt Romney paid taxes at a rate of 13.9 percent while a middle class person with an income of, say $50,000, would have to pay at a rate of 30 percent. Most people would say that this disparity not only makes little sense in a deficit-plagued economy, but also is patently unfair. What's more, increasing numbers of people feel that corporate money and -- greed -- has rendered them powerless and disenfranchised. Accordingly President Obama and Democratic candidates will argue that smart government is a good way to confront these social and economic issues. They will acknowledge the increasing division between the haves and have-nots in American society. They will suggest that the erosion of the middle class has been bad for our economy and for our way of life.
In short, there are two political narratives at play in 2012. The GOP narrative suggests that in America opportunity is equal and unlimited, which means that in a classless society individuals can compete for success in a society of limited government and personal responsibility. The Democratic narrative suggests that in an America where, according to a 2011 special report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 46.2 million Americans are living in poverty, we need to do everything we can to rebuild the fast disappearing middle class -- the only path to a prosperous future.
Whoever wins the debate on these competing narratives about social class wins the 2012 election.
Follow Paul Stoller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stol1
Steve Mariotti: The Power of Owner-Entrepreneurship Education to Restore Our Middle-Class
Jonathan Weiler: Mitt Romney and the Politics of Envy
Bob Burnett: Obama's Common Sense
Robert L. Borosage: Semi-Tough: The President's State of the Union Address
GOP blasts Obama for engaging in class warfare - CNN.com
Republicans blast Obama for waging class warfare - NYPOST.com
Jon Stewart Rips GOP's Hypocritical 'Class Warfare' With Mitt ...
State of the Union: Is Obama's vision 'common sense' or class ...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-01/news/ct-met-pensions-villanova-20110902_1_municipal-employees-annuity-city-pension-pension-fund
It isn't class warfare - one political party has positioned itself to get money from the government, so they like more govt. More govt means more money for them..........the other party has positioned itself to get money from private enterprise. More private enterprise means more money.
Neither party cares much for anything else beyond that.
1800’s ---Gilded age ---- Era of Class Warfare
This was an era of Congressional supremacy. The Republican party dominated the Presidency and the Congress for most of these years. Both houses of Congress were full of representatives owned by big business.
Laws regulating campaigns were minimal and big money bought a government that would not interfere.
1920’s----roaring Twenties---- Era of Class Warfare The Roaring Twenties
The Roaring Twenties were an era dominated by Republican presidents: Warren Harding (1920-1923), Calvin Coolidge
(1923-1929) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933). Under their conservative economic philosophy of laissez-faire ("leave it
alone"), markets were allowed to operate without government interference. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels.
The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, then, on the Republicans' watch., Many try to blame the worsening of the Depression on Hoover, for supposedly betraying the laissez-faire
ideology. As the time line in the next section will show, however, almost all of Hoover's government action occurred during his last year...
2008---Repubs---- Second Gild age ---Class Warfare
Awkward silence.
Excellent indictment of establishment republicans, who are always afraid of their own shadow and being called 'racist' or some other silly term.
The kid should have said "Absolutely!", and that good men took their musketts, fixed bayonetts and slaughtered the British and their Hession soldiers to end laws that sanctioned and recognized class differences between the child of a sanitation worker or the son of a Vanderbilt.
The son of a sanitation work will never become the King of England. Anyone including a man of color born to a Kenyan citizen, can become President of the United States.
Our Constitution explicitly does away with preference for a State sponsered religion as well as State sponsored 'classes'.
All you get is the right to pursue Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and do it on your own or don't do it all. Government is limited to providing for national defense, security at the borders, clean air, land and water and do that things that need to be done at the national level to promote commerce between the States. That means an Interstate highway system - not Obamacare.
The most interesting point in this conversation is the conversation itself. The Aristocrat is telling the Middle Class that it is impolite to raise your voice. Go back to your little hovel and be quiet.
"A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244." (1)
The number of monstrous mega-yachts has increased by more than 400% since 1997, the same period that four million Middle Class families lost their homes (2).
Mitt Romney is now the very personification of the Aristocrat. He runs for President, but shields his financial past (except of one year), and hides money in bank accounts in Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, and Bermuda. Offshore accounts in thee countries are used for one thing, to dodge taxes. The Aristocrat wants to reduce your standard of living so he can better his.
Reference:
1. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
2a. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25804188/ns/travel-luxury_travel/t/where-big-boys-go-berth/
2b. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/foreclosure-rate-american_n_647130.html
This class warfare nonsense has got to stop. It is nothing but envy masquerading behind social concern. A few points:
(a) Income inequality is mis-measured, overstated, and not a problem at all.
(b) All American economic classes are better off than they were in 1950’s, 60’’s 70s, 80’s, etc. And compared to the 50’s or 60’s or 70’s etc. we are more equal, with less poverty, and better standards of living.
(c) Economic mobility is alive and well in the United States.
(d) The middle class has never had it so good as has everyone else.
(e) OWS is a hate group, that is collectively hating the 1% despite the fact that most of the 1% are self made, do not work on Wall Street, and are simply hated for having worked themselves to wealth…through hard work.
(f) Taxes are unfair…to those in the upper income brackets. The bottom 40% have negative or near 0 all-in federal tax rates. They need to start paying their fair share for the government goods and services upon which they are freeloading.
Kai
(b) Do you believe there is a difference between middle INCOME, and middle Class
(c) Is Economic mobility getting a better paying job or being able to start your own business to compete in the free market. (Large Business pays lobbyist to write laws that are passed by the bought and paid for gov't for the express purpose of keeping small business from growing competively.
(d) I agree, the middle class does have it good, so good that they think they are rich. The bottom of the top 2% makes 250k, the top of the 1% makes 27 million.
(e) calling OWS a hate group for pointing out facts makes you look silly
(f) Everyone who works and earns a wage pays TAXES, I don't care what kind of taxes you call them Payroll, Sales, Property, Local, etc.
Unknown
Thanks for asking some very valid questions.
(a) You rightly ask, ‘Can you give us an example of how Income inequality is mis-measured as opposed to just stating it
‘Misperceptions About the Magnitude and Timing of Changes in American Income Inequality’
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15351
‘This paper shows that a conceptually consistent measure of this growth gap over 1979 to 2007 is only one-tenth of the conventional measure. Further, the timing of the rise of inequality is often misunderstood. By some measures inequality stopped growing after 2000 and by others inequality has not grown since 1993.’
And, ‘U.S. Income Inequality: It’s Not So Bad’
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/itv/articles/?id=1920
‘Income inequality should not be vilified, and public policy should encourage people to move up the income distribution and not penalize them for having already done so.’
‘EARNINGS INEQUALITY AND MOBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES: EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL SECURITY DATA SINCE 1937’ (this link will break, search for the title and narrow search to pdf)
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~saez/kopczuk-saez-songQJE09SSA.pdf
‘Long-term mobility among all workers has increased since the 1950s but has slightly declined among men.’
‘The Welfare Implications of Rising Price Dispersion’
http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/4005
‘As a consequence, we believe that more thought may need to be placed on exactly what we care about when we study inequality, or indeed when we make any conceptually similar comparisons.’
Please provide me a definition of both so I know that we are speaking about the same thing before I answer. Additionally could you expound on the question so as to indicate what you think the implications for the difference are. Thanks in advance.
(c) ‘Is Economic mobility getting a better paying job…’
It generally means getting more income, in absolute terms, though I agree with you about the government’s restrictions of individuals and protection of incumbents. Another reason to limit the powers of government. Regardless, economic mobility in the States is almost as good as it has ever been. Better than the 1950’s to 1970’s in fact if you are a woman or a minority.
(d) You state, ‘I agree, the middle class does have it good, so good that they think they are rich.’
Richer than they were at any other time in history that is for sure. Thanks. I accept your capitulation on this point.
There are a lot of urban legends about "entitlement" programs. People have very distorted ideas about the food stamp program and the like (meaning, they always think it is WAY more help than it is). Some lower middle class people know how expensive it is to just put food on the table and keep the lights on........they resent that people who have less than they do, get help,
because they are just over the income level to qualify.
They side with the people who have way more than they ever will and bash the poor-er. And so it goes.
When the President bailed out the auto industry (which I loved), there were a lot of people posting on another chat board with disgust. They wanted to end the UAW and just let it fail. Talk about class warfare. I will never forget a post by a very smart person who said "It reminds me of my days in the garment district, when a sewing queen got a nickel raise - and everyone hated her".
For a single person making $50k and taking the standard deduction their effective Federal income tax rate would be 14.3%.
You can still be outraged that a guy making $42 million paid the same rate rates as someone making $50k but distorting the issue does not help the debate.
When did charitable contributions become classified as any form of taxes?
Those in the 47% who earn so little, they pay no "income tax", aren't given any consideration for all the other taxes they pay, they're raked over the coals practically for breathing..... while Mitt wants to include his charitable contributions in the effective tax rate he paid.
Distorting the issues is the root of many of the problems in politics, bicker, blame, avoid, deny, delay, it's a never ending game of greed, corruption, money and power.
So does this mean moving Mitt's of the world from 13.9 to 14.3%? Except of course $50k is above the median and someone making the median would pay an even lower rate.
So is this an attack on the rich only aimed at reelection? And do we want to make the tax code even more complex to have no effect?
Personally I support a flat tax of 15% at the Federal level that includes income, capital gains and FICA(employer & employee contribution) . Allow a single deduction of $3-4k for everyone.
Even if you reject the above we should not be adding even more complexity to the tax system and basically make no difference in the taxes paid.