Affluence and Influence - the book, etc.
I recently read Martin Gilens' book Affluence and Influence . It's an excellent, award-winning book from Princeton University Press.
This book analyzes policy preferences of the nation's majority, and the preferences of demographic groups including income strata, and compares that to whether polices similar to those are enacted within 4 years of the opinion poll. While the author knows this is not a perfect method to see how majority will is / isn't carried out, he explains why other methods are more flawed. The analysis finds the most affluent 10% have much more political influence than the other 90%. The book doesn't go into depth about the top 1% or 0.1% because there wasn't enough definitive data to make a fully scientific case for that. The book doesn't merely focus on saying the top 10% have more influence, but tries to find more specific rules on when, in which areas and why the 10% have how much more influence.
The book frequently discusses public opinion in terms of the most affluent 10% of the population, those at the income mid-point, and the poorest 10%. For simplicity, I'll tend to refer to these as "the affluent," "middle income" and "the poor."
The scope of the book does not result in much reference to aspects of the electoral system / government structure that diminishes majority rule (i.e., the Electoral College, states getting 2 Senators regardless of population, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of former prisoners, and voter suppression / discouragement.)
The book begins by trying to be thorough in considering voter knowledge, data sources / complexity, methodology, alternate interpretations, factors which make the general trends stronger or weaker, etc. All in all, the book seems to make great efforts to find the best approach to a scientific analysis and how to see which of alternate hypotheses are best supported by the data.
There's a substantial discussion whether the manipulation of public views by the elite indicates the general public (or parts of it) aren't qualified to play a role. A point the book didn't make is that if the manipulated public can participate it has some hope of picking something other than the elite's choice. If they're excluded, there's no hope. There's also reference to the claim that the "ignorant masses" lack the knowledge, intelligence and/or other capabilities to have a positive role in decision-making. The book deals with aspects of this question. I would add other points. For instance: Even if some unskilled laborers are poorly qualified on some matters, they're more qualified on what life is like for unskilled laborers, what unskilled laborers care about, etc. One could make similar points about businessmen - they might know how to increase profits or market a product, but that doesn't mean they understand international relations, environmental science, macroeconomics, etc. Those claiming to be "worried about qualifications" could propose requiring qualification tests for everyone - not excluding entire groups without giving individuals a chance. But they don't.
The book discusses how the system is designed to favor the status quo. Numerous mechanisms inhibit change. Both houses of Congress start at subcommittees and committees. Then, each house has it's own functions capable of blocking legislation (the Senate's filibuster may be the best known of these.) If the Senate and House bills aren't identical, they must negotiate. Then the president must sign it. As a result, data shows that if 3/4 of the public favors a change, there's only a 39% chance it will be enacted, but if 3/4 of the public oppose a change there's a much higher chance it'll be defeated.
Let me comment: It's been argued that making change hard is good - the majority can't frivolously change things back and forth. That's a mistaken view of history. When the Constitution was ratified, the status quo included: slavery, no vote for women, most states limiting the vote to property owners (and some other limits), etc. Wikipedia says that when the Constitution was first adopted only about 6% of the population was allowed to vote. Still, an even smaller minority didn't even want 6% to have full political power. They didn't allow the 6% to directly elect Senators - then allowed the 1%'s Senators to filibuster the 6%'s Senators; and they made an Electoral College that could overturn the majority of the 6%. If they meant to only let "qualified" people make decisions, they thought only a very few were "qualified." Now consider this: If they wanted knowledgable voters / officeholders, Wouldn't it have made more sense to require a level of education rather than a level of wealth? Back in those days, requiring a formal education would have been highly biased toward the affluent, but it might have also included mere school teachers. Apparently, that was unacceptable.
Since then, a number of those anti-majority measures were changed, but they've kept the Electoral College, the 2 Senators per state structure that favors conservative low-population states, the filibuster, etc. to be able to overturn majority will. various anti-majority measures such as gerrymandering have increased, some new kinds of voting restrictions have been created.
One rule I'd like to mention is disenfranchisement of former prisoners. Wikipedia says that in the 2012 elections disenfranchisment, "blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general." This is a huge number of citizens and is disproportionately members of minority groups. The vast majority of people arrested for smoking marijuana are minorities, despite the fact so many whites use marijuana as well. Such biased justice results in taking the vote from the poor. What strikes me as more informative is that when poor people are convicted of a crime which has nothing to do with elections, politics or governance, they have their vote taken away. Yet, if a politician takes a bribe from a businessman, the law doesn't forbid the politician from holding government office in the future, nor does the law forbid the businessman from making political contributions or lobbying in the future. Those would be punishments closely related to the crimes. If you think a former prisoner is likely to do harm in the political arena, why forbid him to be one of many at the ballot box, but let him be a government official? Also, note: the electorate may refuse to elect a convicted corrupt politician, he could be appointed to a position by corrupt politicians still in office. Clearly, the point is not to have a punishment that suits the crime, but to have a punishment that minimizes the number of non-affluent citizens who can vote. And, while gerrymandering and "voter suppression" often has a partisan element, disenfranchisement of former prisoners is used in states controlled by each of the parties.
The book's general conclusion is that the affluent are strongly more influential. The book tests other interpretations other than the affluent get politicians to do what they want. For instance, Congressional salaries put members in the affluent income group. So, do they merely act for their own benefit? Data indicates Congress members tend to vote more according to their occupation group prior to being elected than their current income group. The book spends chapters finding more about variations depending on policy category, point in the election cycle, possibility of losing the next election, the role of interest groups, etc. One of the situations in which the rich are most dominant is illustrated by the fact that when 80% of the public favored a social welfare policy which the affluent opposed, fewer than 1/3 were enacted. (In the few cases the majority's wish prevailed, often either the wish was merely not reducing social welfare or social welfare was enacted with support from forces such as a particular industry.)
The book says the policy area where the affluent are less dominant is moral / religious issues. I wondered whether the elite are less aggressive in this area either: (1) because traditionally morality laws are less enforced on the rich, or (2) the backers of morality issues tend to be conservatives who often support the affluent's agenda.
In the economic policy area, in the 1980s, 2/3 of the public supported a government-run oil company and 3/4 supported requiring companies to give a year's notice before shutting down a workplace, but opposition from the affluent blocked these policies. Raising the minimum wage is broadly supported including many among the affluent, but have had difficulty being passed. Insufficient data prevented a definitive explanation, but opposition from the 1% seemed likely to the author.
The influence of interest groups varies. Generally, when interest groups support a successful majority-backed policy, it's something like health care or education where government money will go to businesses or schools. More often, interest groups act contrary to public wishes in other areas. The book notes that ads by interest groups don't change many minds. Perhaps, they do it to make what little difference they can. I wonder if business interest groups do it to give the public the false impression that a pro-business policy has more support than it does (and, therefore, there is less outcry when the government adopts a policy backed only by a few.)
The book says some people describe political parties as groups of office-seekers helping each other. It seems to me: The 2 major US parties have no ideological or policy requireents for primary voters, convention delegates, candidates, officeholders or party officials. In New York State, there has even been a group of legislators who were elected as Democrats, but blocked with the Republicans (giving them majority control) - and the Democratic Party didn't say that was a violation of party rules. When there's absolutely no political or moral compass that's enforced, career / personal finances will be a major factor in what these politicians do. Yes, it's convenient to throw enough crumbs to keep crucial activist groups loyal to you on election day. The book finds there are certain active supporters that parties depend on to raise money, do campaign work and otherwise help elect party candidates. The analysis shows that when a party fears losing the next election or fears an activist group is becoming disenchanted, the party will moderate the tendency to support policies for the affluent and do some policy for the necessary activist groups. However, that doesn't constitute being a party with inherent beliefs. It's been argued that the political atmosphere varies too much between regions of the US to have national party requirements. Regardless, that doesn't preclude having state or local requirements - yet, these do not exist. They choose to establish nothing but careerist goals. I've seen members of a rights group embrace a politician who was "one of us," but later sour to the politician as it became clear that climbing the career ladder was "more imporatnt."
My comments: In this era, Democrats balance the policies for the affluent and some policies for their essential base by emphasizing "identity politics." To the extent they can maintain a sufficient base that doesn't focus primarily on economic issues, there's more they can do for the affluent while not alienating too much of their base. Of course, parts of the Democrats' base, such as women and African-Americans, do have issues, like equal pay, which are economic. This is partly circumvented by putting more effort on other points which provide more benefit for affluent or almost-affluent members of the groups. We may also see more attention to running candidate who belong to "identity groups," and less attention paid to what policies they enact. This may not be all they do, but this is the kind of method which has been used for this balancing act. Today, there's great enthusiasm for running women candidates, but I feel policy is more important. Sarah Palin and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are women, but I want different policies. It is possible to act for these underprivileged groups while not alienating other low- and middle-income people. Economic policies that decrease income inequality would disproportionately help women and minorities, but are supported by big majorities. (The book says there are some policies supported by the poor - such as raising the minimum wage - which don't do as badly under Democratic control. However, other pro-affluent policies - such as deregulation, free trade and reduction of public assistance - were carried out under Carter and Clinton. Yes, the deregulation trend began under Carter, not Reagan.)
The 2 parties may represent different sectors of the elite. Republicans tend to favor stricter immigration policies because their base groups are more uneasy with the "other" and because some businesses use deportation threats to keep down wages. While Democratic base groups sympathize with immigrants, Democratic politicians can also get support from significant business sectors depending on low-wage immigrant labor. It's not just differences among regular Americans, it's also differences between different business groups.
Politicians disproportionately act for the affluent. However, the careerist politician won't benefit from this if he loses his job on election day. So, their actions are not as far from majority will in election years. But the fact the same isn't true in non-election years indicate neither meeting majority wishes nor following personal principles is their primary motivation. (It also shows these politicians aren't selfless servants of the rich - their personal career is also significant.) The book also points out that majority-backed policies enacted in election years are more likely to be de-funded at a later time than are policies passed in non-election years.
During the 2011 "Debt Deal" pushed by conservatives, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) (member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus) referred to the legislation as "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich" and voted against it. But in an interview after the vote, he said if the "Satan sandwich" wouldn't pass without his vote he would have voted in favor of it. So, one can't look at a politician's voting record and know what to expect from them. Cleaver's voting record will say he voted "no," but that was only because he knew the bill would pass even with him putting on a show for his constituents. This kind of deception helps politicians let the affluent win while getting their base to vote for them.
The book finds that Democrats act closer to public opinion on social welfare issues. Republicans act closer to public opinion in other policy areas (religion, economy, national security.) At least in terms of religion, military, immigration and some other policies, I wonder whether this reflects policies which can activate "us vs. them" thinking. The balancing act Democrats do limits how much they use "us vs. them" on social welfare issues, tax fairness, income inequality, or other areas where the majority is being blocked by the affluent.
In the area of military issues, I felt there may have been bias in the public opinion polls. The book has examples of how one poll asked about the same policy with different wording than another poll. In an example about military aid, both versions of the question state the reason Pres. Reagan gave in favor of the policy, but neither gave an alternate view. This may have biased respondents' answers toward the GOP's answer.
The book says the poor and middle income have favored tax cuts, including the estate tax, despite the fact it's not in their financial interests. Such things explain some of the points on which public opinion and GOP policies coincide.
Policies which would redistribute wealth from the affluent to the poor don't get as much difference in support from the bottom 10% and the top 10% as you might think. The book says that, on average, for various re-distributive policies, the poor support them by 65%, and (on average) the affluent support them by 58%. Neither income group (on average) has a majority that favors policies that take from the poor and give to the rich. But it is more of the latter policies we've seen enacted in recent decades. The book says it lacks data to prove it, but one would imagine this represents the influence of the 1% or 0.1%.
When a survey asked voters what they liked about the Democrats, only 32% mentioned policies or philosophy. When asked about Republicans, 56% mentioned policy / philosophy. Later, the book tells us over the years there's been an increase in voters saying they preferred candidates based on policy and a decrease in those saying they chose based on character. This may suggest Democrats aren't doing as well as they could if they had a clearer, more consistent support for the 99%.
Analysis shows that the bias toward the affluent has grown in recent decades. The book tries to understand why. The author lacked enough data to test some hypotheses.
I'd suggest that one factor is the reduction in counterbalancing forces. The Great Depression created a social atmosphere in which business greed was a stronger concern in many people. There were also large Socialist and Communist parties in the US in the 1930s - 1960s, and unions influenced by them. In the 1950s, the Red Scare was used to weaken the left. In the 1960s, more people imagined an endless boom economy in which corporate greed wasn't as much of a threat. Business greed began to test the limits it could go to. By the 1980s, Reagan could publicly say, "Greed is good." Meanwhile, globalization has weakened unions. But, so far, opposition to this trend has largely been limited to association with the Democrats, whose nature makes them favor the affluent (even if in less extreme ways.)
The book says campaign spending has been rising as long as the FEC has kept records. It's not just a question of Citizens United. More likely, Citizens United was an effort to let the trend move to a new level. Meanwhile, rising income inequality has given the rich more money to influence politicians. Politicians have also had more businesses blackmailing them by saying, "Do what we want or we'll move our jobs elsewhere."
In 2006, Congressional campaign spending (adjusted for inflation) was 4 times as large as in 1974.
The book was published in 2012, so it doesn't discuss trends since the Citizens United ruling. It does explore a number of aspects in the increase in money in politics in the decades leading up to that.
- - - -
The book's analysis is based on public opinion polls done from the 1960s to about 2006. Sometimes, questions are asked about the same policy in different polls using different wording. The book gives examples of this. The varied wording can make us as why, what standard pollsters use and what effect it might have. Below are some examples with my comments.
Issue 1: Selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia (1981)
Question Version 1:
Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. to supply it with our highly sophisticated system for detecting hostile military activity, called AWACS. Supporters of the sale say the system will help Saudi Arabia defend itself against outside attack, and that providing them with the AWACS will demonstrate our friendship. Opponents of the sale say the AWACS could be used in a war against Israel, or that the top-secret system could fall into hostile hands. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. sending the AWACS system to Saudi Arabia?
Question Version 2:
Do you favor or oppose the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia?
My comment: The first question explains what AWACs are, and gives one possible "pro" argument and one possible "con" argument. The second version gives neither. In addition to asking whether pros and cons should be given, we might ask how to present pros and cons in such a way to put the least bias in the question.
- -
Issue 2: Criminalizing privacy violations (1983)
Question Version 1:
Would you favor or oppose federal laws that would make it a criminal offense if the privacy of an individual were violated by an information-collecting business or organization?
Question Version 2:
Would you favor or oppose federal laws that could put companies out of business which collected information about individuals and then shared that information in a way that violated the privacy of the individual?
My comment: The second version could be considered to suggest a particular penalty for breaking a proposed law. In reality, companies which violate federal laws are generally not subject to dissolving of the company, although a monetary penalty could be financially difficult for some companies. (In reality, fines against big business tend to be small compared to the profits from the violation.) The implication of a penalty which almost certainly would not be explicitly imposed by law presents a misleading question.
- -
Issue 3: Supplying $136 million in military aid to El Salvador (1983)
Question Version 1:
As you may know, President Reagan has charged that the Russians and Cubans are supplying arms to the left-wing guerrillas in El Salvador. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. taking each of the following steps to help the government in El Salvador: sending in 136 million dollars in military aid to the El Salvador government troops for 1983?
Question Version 2:
President Reagan has taken a number of steps in Central America to meet what he says is the mounting supply of arms from Russia and Cuba going to left-wing rebel forces in El Salvador and to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Let me ask you if you favor or oppose sending in 136 million dollars in military aid to the El Salvador government troops for 1983?
My comment: Both versions provide what amounts to an argument in favor by stating claims made by Pres. Reagan, and neither version makes any attempt to present an alternate view.
- -
Issue 4: Providing government money to faith based organizations (2001)
Question Version 1:
Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to give money to religious organizations so they can provide social services like job training and drug treatment counseling?
Question Version 2:
Do you favor or oppose allowing churches and other houses of worship to apply, along with other organizations, for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling to people who need them?
My comment: Version 2 explicitly indicates religious organization would have to apply for (implying meeting some standard) and that funding would also be available to non-religious organizations. Some respondents to Version 1 might take for granted that this would be the case. However, Version 1 could possibly be interpreted as meaning federal funds would only be available to religious organizations.
This book analyzes policy preferences of the nation's majority, and the preferences of demographic groups including income strata, and compares that to whether polices similar to those are enacted within 4 years of the opinion poll. While the author knows this is not a perfect method to see how majority will is / isn't carried out, he explains why other methods are more flawed. The analysis finds the most affluent 10% have much more political influence than the other 90%. The book doesn't go into depth about the top 1% or 0.1% because there wasn't enough definitive data to make a fully scientific case for that. The book doesn't merely focus on saying the top 10% have more influence, but tries to find more specific rules on when, in which areas and why the 10% have how much more influence.
The book frequently discusses public opinion in terms of the most affluent 10% of the population, those at the income mid-point, and the poorest 10%. For simplicity, I'll tend to refer to these as "the affluent," "middle income" and "the poor."
The scope of the book does not result in much reference to aspects of the electoral system / government structure that diminishes majority rule (i.e., the Electoral College, states getting 2 Senators regardless of population, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of former prisoners, and voter suppression / discouragement.)
The book begins by trying to be thorough in considering voter knowledge, data sources / complexity, methodology, alternate interpretations, factors which make the general trends stronger or weaker, etc. All in all, the book seems to make great efforts to find the best approach to a scientific analysis and how to see which of alternate hypotheses are best supported by the data.
There's a substantial discussion whether the manipulation of public views by the elite indicates the general public (or parts of it) aren't qualified to play a role. A point the book didn't make is that if the manipulated public can participate it has some hope of picking something other than the elite's choice. If they're excluded, there's no hope. There's also reference to the claim that the "ignorant masses" lack the knowledge, intelligence and/or other capabilities to have a positive role in decision-making. The book deals with aspects of this question. I would add other points. For instance: Even if some unskilled laborers are poorly qualified on some matters, they're more qualified on what life is like for unskilled laborers, what unskilled laborers care about, etc. One could make similar points about businessmen - they might know how to increase profits or market a product, but that doesn't mean they understand international relations, environmental science, macroeconomics, etc. Those claiming to be "worried about qualifications" could propose requiring qualification tests for everyone - not excluding entire groups without giving individuals a chance. But they don't.
The book discusses how the system is designed to favor the status quo. Numerous mechanisms inhibit change. Both houses of Congress start at subcommittees and committees. Then, each house has it's own functions capable of blocking legislation (the Senate's filibuster may be the best known of these.) If the Senate and House bills aren't identical, they must negotiate. Then the president must sign it. As a result, data shows that if 3/4 of the public favors a change, there's only a 39% chance it will be enacted, but if 3/4 of the public oppose a change there's a much higher chance it'll be defeated.
Let me comment: It's been argued that making change hard is good - the majority can't frivolously change things back and forth. That's a mistaken view of history. When the Constitution was ratified, the status quo included: slavery, no vote for women, most states limiting the vote to property owners (and some other limits), etc. Wikipedia says that when the Constitution was first adopted only about 6% of the population was allowed to vote. Still, an even smaller minority didn't even want 6% to have full political power. They didn't allow the 6% to directly elect Senators - then allowed the 1%'s Senators to filibuster the 6%'s Senators; and they made an Electoral College that could overturn the majority of the 6%. If they meant to only let "qualified" people make decisions, they thought only a very few were "qualified." Now consider this: If they wanted knowledgable voters / officeholders, Wouldn't it have made more sense to require a level of education rather than a level of wealth? Back in those days, requiring a formal education would have been highly biased toward the affluent, but it might have also included mere school teachers. Apparently, that was unacceptable.
Since then, a number of those anti-majority measures were changed, but they've kept the Electoral College, the 2 Senators per state structure that favors conservative low-population states, the filibuster, etc. to be able to overturn majority will. various anti-majority measures such as gerrymandering have increased, some new kinds of voting restrictions have been created.
One rule I'd like to mention is disenfranchisement of former prisoners. Wikipedia says that in the 2012 elections disenfranchisment, "blocked an estimated 5.85 million felons from voting, up from 1.2 million in 1976. This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general." This is a huge number of citizens and is disproportionately members of minority groups. The vast majority of people arrested for smoking marijuana are minorities, despite the fact so many whites use marijuana as well. Such biased justice results in taking the vote from the poor. What strikes me as more informative is that when poor people are convicted of a crime which has nothing to do with elections, politics or governance, they have their vote taken away. Yet, if a politician takes a bribe from a businessman, the law doesn't forbid the politician from holding government office in the future, nor does the law forbid the businessman from making political contributions or lobbying in the future. Those would be punishments closely related to the crimes. If you think a former prisoner is likely to do harm in the political arena, why forbid him to be one of many at the ballot box, but let him be a government official? Also, note: the electorate may refuse to elect a convicted corrupt politician, he could be appointed to a position by corrupt politicians still in office. Clearly, the point is not to have a punishment that suits the crime, but to have a punishment that minimizes the number of non-affluent citizens who can vote. And, while gerrymandering and "voter suppression" often has a partisan element, disenfranchisement of former prisoners is used in states controlled by each of the parties.
The book's general conclusion is that the affluent are strongly more influential. The book tests other interpretations other than the affluent get politicians to do what they want. For instance, Congressional salaries put members in the affluent income group. So, do they merely act for their own benefit? Data indicates Congress members tend to vote more according to their occupation group prior to being elected than their current income group. The book spends chapters finding more about variations depending on policy category, point in the election cycle, possibility of losing the next election, the role of interest groups, etc. One of the situations in which the rich are most dominant is illustrated by the fact that when 80% of the public favored a social welfare policy which the affluent opposed, fewer than 1/3 were enacted. (In the few cases the majority's wish prevailed, often either the wish was merely not reducing social welfare or social welfare was enacted with support from forces such as a particular industry.)
The book says the policy area where the affluent are less dominant is moral / religious issues. I wondered whether the elite are less aggressive in this area either: (1) because traditionally morality laws are less enforced on the rich, or (2) the backers of morality issues tend to be conservatives who often support the affluent's agenda.
In the economic policy area, in the 1980s, 2/3 of the public supported a government-run oil company and 3/4 supported requiring companies to give a year's notice before shutting down a workplace, but opposition from the affluent blocked these policies. Raising the minimum wage is broadly supported including many among the affluent, but have had difficulty being passed. Insufficient data prevented a definitive explanation, but opposition from the 1% seemed likely to the author.
The influence of interest groups varies. Generally, when interest groups support a successful majority-backed policy, it's something like health care or education where government money will go to businesses or schools. More often, interest groups act contrary to public wishes in other areas. The book notes that ads by interest groups don't change many minds. Perhaps, they do it to make what little difference they can. I wonder if business interest groups do it to give the public the false impression that a pro-business policy has more support than it does (and, therefore, there is less outcry when the government adopts a policy backed only by a few.)
The book says some people describe political parties as groups of office-seekers helping each other. It seems to me: The 2 major US parties have no ideological or policy requireents for primary voters, convention delegates, candidates, officeholders or party officials. In New York State, there has even been a group of legislators who were elected as Democrats, but blocked with the Republicans (giving them majority control) - and the Democratic Party didn't say that was a violation of party rules. When there's absolutely no political or moral compass that's enforced, career / personal finances will be a major factor in what these politicians do. Yes, it's convenient to throw enough crumbs to keep crucial activist groups loyal to you on election day. The book finds there are certain active supporters that parties depend on to raise money, do campaign work and otherwise help elect party candidates. The analysis shows that when a party fears losing the next election or fears an activist group is becoming disenchanted, the party will moderate the tendency to support policies for the affluent and do some policy for the necessary activist groups. However, that doesn't constitute being a party with inherent beliefs. It's been argued that the political atmosphere varies too much between regions of the US to have national party requirements. Regardless, that doesn't preclude having state or local requirements - yet, these do not exist. They choose to establish nothing but careerist goals. I've seen members of a rights group embrace a politician who was "one of us," but later sour to the politician as it became clear that climbing the career ladder was "more imporatnt."
My comments: In this era, Democrats balance the policies for the affluent and some policies for their essential base by emphasizing "identity politics." To the extent they can maintain a sufficient base that doesn't focus primarily on economic issues, there's more they can do for the affluent while not alienating too much of their base. Of course, parts of the Democrats' base, such as women and African-Americans, do have issues, like equal pay, which are economic. This is partly circumvented by putting more effort on other points which provide more benefit for affluent or almost-affluent members of the groups. We may also see more attention to running candidate who belong to "identity groups," and less attention paid to what policies they enact. This may not be all they do, but this is the kind of method which has been used for this balancing act. Today, there's great enthusiasm for running women candidates, but I feel policy is more important. Sarah Palin and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are women, but I want different policies. It is possible to act for these underprivileged groups while not alienating other low- and middle-income people. Economic policies that decrease income inequality would disproportionately help women and minorities, but are supported by big majorities. (The book says there are some policies supported by the poor - such as raising the minimum wage - which don't do as badly under Democratic control. However, other pro-affluent policies - such as deregulation, free trade and reduction of public assistance - were carried out under Carter and Clinton. Yes, the deregulation trend began under Carter, not Reagan.)
The 2 parties may represent different sectors of the elite. Republicans tend to favor stricter immigration policies because their base groups are more uneasy with the "other" and because some businesses use deportation threats to keep down wages. While Democratic base groups sympathize with immigrants, Democratic politicians can also get support from significant business sectors depending on low-wage immigrant labor. It's not just differences among regular Americans, it's also differences between different business groups.
Politicians disproportionately act for the affluent. However, the careerist politician won't benefit from this if he loses his job on election day. So, their actions are not as far from majority will in election years. But the fact the same isn't true in non-election years indicate neither meeting majority wishes nor following personal principles is their primary motivation. (It also shows these politicians aren't selfless servants of the rich - their personal career is also significant.) The book also points out that majority-backed policies enacted in election years are more likely to be de-funded at a later time than are policies passed in non-election years.
During the 2011 "Debt Deal" pushed by conservatives, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) (member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus) referred to the legislation as "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich" and voted against it. But in an interview after the vote, he said if the "Satan sandwich" wouldn't pass without his vote he would have voted in favor of it. So, one can't look at a politician's voting record and know what to expect from them. Cleaver's voting record will say he voted "no," but that was only because he knew the bill would pass even with him putting on a show for his constituents. This kind of deception helps politicians let the affluent win while getting their base to vote for them.
The book finds that Democrats act closer to public opinion on social welfare issues. Republicans act closer to public opinion in other policy areas (religion, economy, national security.) At least in terms of religion, military, immigration and some other policies, I wonder whether this reflects policies which can activate "us vs. them" thinking. The balancing act Democrats do limits how much they use "us vs. them" on social welfare issues, tax fairness, income inequality, or other areas where the majority is being blocked by the affluent.
In the area of military issues, I felt there may have been bias in the public opinion polls. The book has examples of how one poll asked about the same policy with different wording than another poll. In an example about military aid, both versions of the question state the reason Pres. Reagan gave in favor of the policy, but neither gave an alternate view. This may have biased respondents' answers toward the GOP's answer.
The book says the poor and middle income have favored tax cuts, including the estate tax, despite the fact it's not in their financial interests. Such things explain some of the points on which public opinion and GOP policies coincide.
Policies which would redistribute wealth from the affluent to the poor don't get as much difference in support from the bottom 10% and the top 10% as you might think. The book says that, on average, for various re-distributive policies, the poor support them by 65%, and (on average) the affluent support them by 58%. Neither income group (on average) has a majority that favors policies that take from the poor and give to the rich. But it is more of the latter policies we've seen enacted in recent decades. The book says it lacks data to prove it, but one would imagine this represents the influence of the 1% or 0.1%.
When a survey asked voters what they liked about the Democrats, only 32% mentioned policies or philosophy. When asked about Republicans, 56% mentioned policy / philosophy. Later, the book tells us over the years there's been an increase in voters saying they preferred candidates based on policy and a decrease in those saying they chose based on character. This may suggest Democrats aren't doing as well as they could if they had a clearer, more consistent support for the 99%.
Analysis shows that the bias toward the affluent has grown in recent decades. The book tries to understand why. The author lacked enough data to test some hypotheses.
I'd suggest that one factor is the reduction in counterbalancing forces. The Great Depression created a social atmosphere in which business greed was a stronger concern in many people. There were also large Socialist and Communist parties in the US in the 1930s - 1960s, and unions influenced by them. In the 1950s, the Red Scare was used to weaken the left. In the 1960s, more people imagined an endless boom economy in which corporate greed wasn't as much of a threat. Business greed began to test the limits it could go to. By the 1980s, Reagan could publicly say, "Greed is good." Meanwhile, globalization has weakened unions. But, so far, opposition to this trend has largely been limited to association with the Democrats, whose nature makes them favor the affluent (even if in less extreme ways.)
The book says campaign spending has been rising as long as the FEC has kept records. It's not just a question of Citizens United. More likely, Citizens United was an effort to let the trend move to a new level. Meanwhile, rising income inequality has given the rich more money to influence politicians. Politicians have also had more businesses blackmailing them by saying, "Do what we want or we'll move our jobs elsewhere."
In 2006, Congressional campaign spending (adjusted for inflation) was 4 times as large as in 1974.
The book was published in 2012, so it doesn't discuss trends since the Citizens United ruling. It does explore a number of aspects in the increase in money in politics in the decades leading up to that.
- - - -
The book's analysis is based on public opinion polls done from the 1960s to about 2006. Sometimes, questions are asked about the same policy in different polls using different wording. The book gives examples of this. The varied wording can make us as why, what standard pollsters use and what effect it might have. Below are some examples with my comments.
Issue 1: Selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia (1981)
Question Version 1:
Saudi Arabia wants the U.S. to supply it with our highly sophisticated system for detecting hostile military activity, called AWACS. Supporters of the sale say the system will help Saudi Arabia defend itself against outside attack, and that providing them with the AWACS will demonstrate our friendship. Opponents of the sale say the AWACS could be used in a war against Israel, or that the top-secret system could fall into hostile hands. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. sending the AWACS system to Saudi Arabia?
Question Version 2:
Do you favor or oppose the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia?
My comment: The first question explains what AWACs are, and gives one possible "pro" argument and one possible "con" argument. The second version gives neither. In addition to asking whether pros and cons should be given, we might ask how to present pros and cons in such a way to put the least bias in the question.
- -
Issue 2: Criminalizing privacy violations (1983)
Question Version 1:
Would you favor or oppose federal laws that would make it a criminal offense if the privacy of an individual were violated by an information-collecting business or organization?
Question Version 2:
Would you favor or oppose federal laws that could put companies out of business which collected information about individuals and then shared that information in a way that violated the privacy of the individual?
My comment: The second version could be considered to suggest a particular penalty for breaking a proposed law. In reality, companies which violate federal laws are generally not subject to dissolving of the company, although a monetary penalty could be financially difficult for some companies. (In reality, fines against big business tend to be small compared to the profits from the violation.) The implication of a penalty which almost certainly would not be explicitly imposed by law presents a misleading question.
- -
Issue 3: Supplying $136 million in military aid to El Salvador (1983)
Question Version 1:
As you may know, President Reagan has charged that the Russians and Cubans are supplying arms to the left-wing guerrillas in El Salvador. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. taking each of the following steps to help the government in El Salvador: sending in 136 million dollars in military aid to the El Salvador government troops for 1983?
Question Version 2:
President Reagan has taken a number of steps in Central America to meet what he says is the mounting supply of arms from Russia and Cuba going to left-wing rebel forces in El Salvador and to the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Let me ask you if you favor or oppose sending in 136 million dollars in military aid to the El Salvador government troops for 1983?
My comment: Both versions provide what amounts to an argument in favor by stating claims made by Pres. Reagan, and neither version makes any attempt to present an alternate view.
- -
Issue 4: Providing government money to faith based organizations (2001)
Question Version 1:
Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to give money to religious organizations so they can provide social services like job training and drug treatment counseling?
Question Version 2:
Do you favor or oppose allowing churches and other houses of worship to apply, along with other organizations, for government funding to provide social services such as job training or drug treatment counseling to people who need them?
My comment: Version 2 explicitly indicates religious organization would have to apply for (implying meeting some standard) and that funding would also be available to non-religious organizations. Some respondents to Version 1 might take for granted that this would be the case. However, Version 1 could possibly be interpreted as meaning federal funds would only be available to religious organizations.
Comments
Post a Comment