QandO
Questions and Observations| « Milton Friedman | Main | Tenet (Updated) » |
|
June 03, 2004 Bread and Circuses Thomas Frank has written a recent essay for Harper's Magazine (Lie Down for America: How the Republican Party sows ruin on the Great Plains) arguing that poor and middle class voters have been "tricked" into voting against their own interests by the Republican party....
In essence, Frank is arguing that, since Democrats would be more likely than Republicans to fill the pocketbooks of the poor and middle class at the expense of the wealthy, poor/middle-class voters are voting "against their economic interests". In a narrow, and short term, sense he may be right. Then again, he may not, as the Chicago Boyz argue....
In short, low-skilled people will tend to be poorer people, and poorer people will tend to congregate where the hurdles to employment are commensurate with their skill-levels. (i.e., low) Ok, let's leave alone for a moment whether it is in their immediate, narrow economic interests to vote Republican or Democrat. Instead, I would suggest that Thomas Frank too narrowly defines their interests by limiting it to "economic". Interests conflict, and while economic interests are certainly a part of that equation, they are by no means all of it, else we would only ever vote for appropriations, regardless of the cost to society. It might be in my short term "economic" interest to vote to have my neighbors house confiscated and conveyed to me...but it is contrary to my moral interests, (individual rights) as well as my long term economic interests. (i.e., I don't want my house confiscated one day) Thomas Frank's false assumption here is that, since Republicans are greedy, and work against poor/middle-class people, then poor/middle-class people who agree with them must be decieved. Assume an ad hominem and the possibilities for attack are endless! (but dishonest) Which brings me to this post at Washington Monthly... In the past there has always been a natural feedback loop that kept conservatives and liberals in check. Conservatives, by supporting tax cuts and prudent fiscal policies, earned the support of millionaires and big business. Liberals, by supporting broad growth of popular federal programs, earned the support of the poor and middle class. Neither side had a permanent advantage.He's wrong, you know. One side did have a permanent advantage: the Democrats. As the Romans learned long ago, you can always buy votes with bread and circuses. The Democrats basic electoral position is that: 1: Democrats will give you more. and... 2: More is better. then... 3: The party that gives you less (Republicans) is bad. It's hard to see how the Republicans can possibly succeed without adopting the "bread and circus" tactic. It is, however, interesting to see Democrats (Drum and Frank) concede to what is essentially vote-buying. (Hat tip to Obsidian Wings for the Chicago Boyz link) |
Voting against higher taxes and larger government isn't necessarily opposed to the best interests of low wage earners.
Back when I was working barely above minimum wage jobs to put myself through college, I was vehemntly opposed to taxing those making more than me. Why? Because I aspired to make more in the future. Why on earth would I lay a trap for my future self?
There is a great deal of pride in accomplishing something for yourself, be it an education, financial security, owning your own home, whatever. There isn't much pride in having it all given to you.
Posted by: Steverino at June 3, 2004 10:27 AM
Thomas Sowell is always making the point that most of those who today are poor may well BE the rich 20 years from now. In that case, it is in the best interests even of the poor to support policy that favors the rich.
Posted by: Wacky Hermit at June 4, 2004 08:20 AM
I note Thomas Frank's arrogance, which might be larger than the Great Plains.
Apparently for Franks, those silly rednecks couldn't POSSIBLY *want* to vote for any Republican, especially Bush! They had to have been duped into it by someone. (Maybe that Vast Right Wing Media.)
Of course, when "the wealthy are no longer burdened by the estate tax, or troublesome labor unions, or meddlesome banking regulators or 'confiscatory' income-tax levels" they do crazy stuff like start businesses, invest in businesses, buy stock, etc. Bigger businesses means greater production, increased employment, etc. Economics 101?
Why is this so hard for liberals? Some Thomas Sowell would put their brains in order.
Posted by: Mark at June 4, 2004 02:42 PM
Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a payday advance .
Posted by: payday advance at November 27, 2004 09:33 PM