Are the Democrats the party of the rich? And does it matter?

Posted by on

At least as far as the House of Representatives was concerned, this year’s midterm elections were a success for the Democrats. They gained a decent majority, won 40 seats off the Republicans, and won the popular vote by roughly nine million people in what was the highest midterm turnout since 1914. While not a complete disaster for Trump, the results show a high degree of dissatisfaction with his presidency.

But dig deeper into the demographics driving the results, and its clear this wasn’t the populist anti-Trump resistance of the Democratic imagination. Rather, they confirmed the Democrats’ status as the party of the rich. Democrats now control all twenty of the most affluent congressional districts in the country- affluence here being defined as median household income. In districts in the highest income decile, Democrats won by an average of 65-34%; substantially higher than their 53-45 margin nationwide. Democrat districts are now 15% richer and 22% more productive than their Republican counterparts, and are responsible for 61% of all economic output.

Not only were Democratic voters and districts richer, Democrats also dominated in their fundraising efforts, continuing Hillary Clinton’s ability to out-fundraise Trump. They had the support of the tech companies, the sports industry, academia, a surprisingly high number of businesses and financial institutions, the trade unions and most media networks. Democrats have long warned of the pernicious influence of money in politics, but it seems as if money is working to their advantage. The party has achieved both an economic and a cultural hegemony, owed in no small part to their increasing popularity amongst college graduates.

There are two caveats to the Democrats’ status as the party of the rich. The first is that they are still the party of the most deprived. 69% of those in the poorest decile of congressional districts voted Democrat, and these included a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities, young people and immigrants. Secondly, Democrats’ policy preferences do not favour the rich as overtly as the Republicans’. A party that has just cut income taxes when they were already low by developed world standards, as well as slashed corporation taxes, can hardly claim to be a party for the working man.

Having said that, the Democrats’ increasingly elite nature will pose serious challenges for the party going forward. Representing the interests of both the upper class and the working poor is inherently contradictory, particularly for progressives and socialists who believe the interests of the two are intrinsically opposed. Even if economics isn’t a zero-sum game of class war, the upper class and the working class obviously have different priorities. Many Democrats want the party to embrace a more generous welfare state and single-payer healthcare, but will that be possible if they become too reliant on the votes of those naturally sceptical to economic populism? Taking the donations of the wealthy and progressive businesses may be good for get-out-the-vote drives, but it could look hypocritical when trying to critique money in politics generally.

Ultimately, the reason why both the wealthy and the working class vote Democrat is because both groups embrace social and cultural liberalism. For them, Trump’s emphasis on toughness, his crass nationalism, his prejudices and insularity, and his intolerance of dissent are an anathema. Add to that Trump’s trade war, which will hurt the businesses owned by the rich and increase the poor’s cost of living. More importantly, the trend for both the wealthy and the poor to vote for the Left is not a uniquely American phenomenon. The UK’s Labour Party represents wealthy constituencies like Hampstead and West Bristol, while also dominating in poor cities like Birmingham or Liverpool. In Spain, the hard-left Podemos party performs better in prosperous Catalonia than any other region. In Germany, most of the wealthy cities have socialist mayors.

So Democrats shouldn’t try to reverse what seems to be a structural change in the party’s support. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being more popular amongst the wealthy and well-educated. But the party will need to make a concerned effort to win back the votes of Middle America, instead of assuming voters believe they are the working man’s party, as they may have done in the past. Ad hominem attacks on the Republicans as the party of the rich will be as ineffective as ever. Equally poor would be to emulate Hillary Clinton’s decision to ignore white working class voters as a crucial voting bloc. Instead, Democrats should espouse a unifying, moderate message, focusing on the failures of Trump’s policies, his propensity towards corruption and his lack of temperament. Democrats may be the party of the rich, but they can also be for everyone else.

 

Cellphone addiction

Posted by on

I quote part of an article by Chris Tilbury in Prospect magazine (November 2018):

“How much is the smartphone truly useful or even enjoyable, and how much is it simply compulsion?
Expanding functionality, social media – and the linked fear of missing out – make these devices hard to put down. The average UK user is now eyeballing their palm for two and a half hours daily, up from 1 hour 13 minutes in 2014; 62% of Brits say they couldn’t live without their phone; half confess to needing it with them at all times. More than a third recognise a problem – feeling they use it too much. In the 16-24 age group 60% worry about using their devices too much. This falls to 24% for those 55 and over.56% of adults worry about the excessive use of the cellphone by their children.

Even Apple realises the dangers, and has introduced “Screen Time”, which allows users to track and cap their smart-phone use. The app, given the right instructions, simply stops operating if you exceed the time limit you have set.

My comment: I don’t have a cellphone, but do have an i-pad, which I use for this blog. This means I spend quite a time on it, but I argue that it is my “job” and that the screen time is justified. Smartphones are really useful and a wonderful source of instant information. But this is an opportunity to revert to Epicurus, who advocated moderation, whatever that means in terms of phones. I will be argumentative and say that cellphone use should be capped at 1 hour daily. Would that wok for you – honestly?

More on China

Posted by on

As we see the Chinese undermining democratic values, such as free speech, we also have to observe that the Chinese are busy, not only lobbying, but using constant propaganda, censorship in academia, spying on American institutions, and using the Chinese Students and Scholars Association to glean secrets and techniques which are useful to the Chinese economy and military. They are also attempting to influence think-tanks and have stolen technology using the “Thousand Talents “program, which involves recruiting over 300 experts and researchers and paying for secrets (why the 300 are not arrested baffles me).

Leading Americans who have, over the year, been strong advocates of engagement with China are now increasingly disillusioned now that China is assuming such a figure on the world stage. Xi Jinping has increased repression at home and is becoming increasingly assertive abroad. Now China has joined Russia as being America’s main strategic threat. Pence has called the Chinese approach a “whole of government” approach, which is more alarming than interfering in elections (something they might or might not be doing). Now maybe the Justice department will insist that these Chinese agents are registered with under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The danger is that the US over-reacts and makes things even worse. As it is the emphasis of the Trump Administration has been the trade deficit and the current tariff/trade war, which could easily become a case of shooting yourself in both feet. But at least Administration is now awake to the threat.

Why do only white youngsters deserve mercy?

Posted by on

“In the US, juvenile drug offenders are routinely tried as adults,” says Eric Levitz. Thirteen-year-old murderers have been sentenced to life without parole; teenagers who text naked pictures of themselves are regularly arrested for child pornography. The American Right has worked hard to bring this situation about, and wants the law made still harsher.

Trump has previously supported the death penalty for teenagers. But since Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault as a 17-year-old, “the Right’s thinking on juvenile justice appears to have radically changed”. Many of Kavanaugh’s defenders argue that even if the allegations are true, it would be unfair to hold alcohol-fuelled bad behaviour from his high-school days against him now.

So why does such leniency only apply to the white and privileged? African-American teens are often arrested and sent to prison for crimes far less serious than attempted rape. When Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in 2012, many conservatives blamed him for looking like a “thug”. In our society, it seems that “law and order” doesn’t apply to everyone equally. (Eric Levitz, New York magazine amd The Week 6 Oct 2018)

Fear of the “other” and the need of so many people to feel superior (“I may be poor but at least I’m not black”) are given as reasons for the stubborn failure to treat blacks as equals under the law. At least there are moves in Congress to reform sentencing and maybe to reduce the obscene number of people rotting in jail, many for trivial reasons.

Epicurus is supposed to have welcomed all comers to his Garden – women, slaves, foreigners, anyone committed to intelligent discussion and debate, all treated equally. He would be appalled that, after so many centuries prejudice, discrimination and racial violence continue as if we as human beings have learned nothing in the interim.

The Chinese – should we fear them?

Posted by on

A friend of mine confided that he feared the Chinese. Should he be regarded as bigoted?

I replied that I thought his fears were well justified. I referred to the history of the late 19th and early 20th Century history as a parallel.

After the death of Bismarck, who created modern Germany, the tinpot Kaiser went helterskelter into competition with Britain. He envied Britain her huge empire and massive naval fleet. Secrets were ruthlessly stolen, the Prussian military strengthened even further, and a naval building programme put into top gear. Not content with Schleswig Holstein, Alsace and Lorraine; he wanted dominance in Europe and an empire to rival that of Britain. We have just “celebrated” the end of the outcome of the Kaiser’s ambitions.

Now, fast forward, we have another megalomaniac, this time in China, set upon total control over his people and an effective empire in South East Asia, right through the old Stans of South Asia to the borders of Turkey, and down into Africa. He is arguably smarter than the Kaiser, and has modern electronics to help control the behaviour and loyalty of his huge population in minute detail, and, as we can see with the Uighers, uses it ruthlessly in the manner of Mao before him. The Chinese attitude is also informed by the way China was humiliated in the 19th Century. Revenge lurks in the shadows.

Now we are back again in the old atmosphere of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. We are carelessly playing baby politics, led by a man whose ignorance matches that of the old Kaiser, while the sinister Chinese expansion roars ahead at fearful speed. Indians should be particularly fearful, along with all South and South East Asia. I know a number of charming individual Chinese, but, in general, to fear the Chinese government and its intentions is quite as rational as it was for Brits to fear a rising Germany.

No, my friend is not bigoted, he is a realist, and way ahead of the poorly educated and informed people who think tariffs on Chinese goods are going to make China humbly kowtow to people they probably laugh at and despise.