Trump‘s victory and the role of class.
While I personally detest the term “class” on account of its Marxist connotations I‘m, nevertheless, going to use it as a technical term in this post.
If people with a lower income are supposed to be voting for the party or candidate that offers more public spending directed towards them, more welfare benefits, larger entitlements and all of it financed by the “others“, then how come, President-elect Trump won over such a large chunk of the American households with an income below the $50.000 USD threshold?
That‘s the question many unnerved advocates of social democratic policies ask themselves these days. Even more so since the Democrats won more votes among households with an income upwards of $100.000 USD.
The Economist Adam Tooze presents an interesting explanation. He posits that there are, in fact, three classes that have to be considered to understand this phenomenon. A less educated, more dependent lower-income, working-class. A powerful, prosperous upper-class and a financially secure, educated professional-managerial class.
The core of his argument revolves around this third class. Trumpism, he suggests, is nothing less than a revolt against the PMC and against the values and norms people of that class tend to espouse.
Which raises the question of who belongs to that group. The boss at work whose views you have to accommodate to keep your job or to get ahead, the HR workers who tell you what you can say or how to conduct yourself in the workplace, the lawyers who tell you what‘s legal and what isn’t, the professional journalists, teachers, academics, scientists and experts who try to claim the authority to explain the world to you (and your children) and who try to adjudicate the difference between truth and lies, government bureaucrats and career politicians who tax you, regulate your life and economic activity while living on another ideological planet than you do.
So when working-class individuals see someone like Trump or Musk flout all of the norms and values of the professional-managerial class, as Tooze constructed it, without any repercussions, then a larger proportion of them will envy and admire that audacity and power.
In that sense, lower income people would like to emulate Trump. Become more powerful, through more self-reliance and financial success, in part, to be undeterred by social conventions that might contradict their own.
The goal is less dependency and self-employment. Not a career in an existing institution as a goal in and of itself - which is one major difference between these voters and voters who belong to the professional-managerial class.
That‘s why government handouts or the promise of higher taxes for the rich don’t appeal to this group of people. They‘re more inclined to think that their lack of social mobility is caused by foreign countries, hence their proclivity to support protectionism and isolationism or by immigrants, hence their aversion to legal and illegal immigration. They don’t see wealthy individuals or capitalism itself as the root of the problem, unlike people who’re drawn to left-wing populism. Most of all, they blame the elites or the establishment which, from their point of view, is the PMC. It doesn’t matter that Trump used to be President, that he went to Wharton School or that he’s a billionaire and son of a millionaire. He‘s not part of the establishment club. He‘s not a career politician, he‘s not a lawyer or political scientist. He‘s an idol. Powerful, rich, and incredibly candid and unencumbered.
This is best expressed by the overwhelming electoral advantage Trump has with male, non-college individuals with an income above $100.000 USD.
Trump’s promise is not a higher minimum wage or more public health insurance. He promises something that seems vastly more important to large parts of America‘s working-class. The opportunity to succeed independently. His promises focus on jobs, economic growth, wage pressure and on eschewing entitlement reforms.
Democrats can’t change the values and cultural identities of large parts of the country. They can try to take culturally moderate positions if they want to be more competitive. But most of all, they should embrace the idea of empowerment through economic growth, lower taxes, and a reduced dependency on government support.
As Tooze puts it, when people in West Virginia vote against more federal Medicaid matching funds, they should be taken seriously.
Democrats, however, should pursue policies that can actually ensure these objectives over the long-term and reject counterproductive, albeit intuitive ideas such as protectionism, activist industrial policies or restrictive immigration policies.
If people with a lower income are supposed to be voting for the party or candidate that offers more public spending directed towards them, more welfare benefits, larger entitlements and all of it financed by the “others“, then how come, President-elect Trump won over such a large chunk of the American households with an income below the $50.000 USD threshold?
That‘s the question many unnerved advocates of social democratic policies ask themselves these days. Even more so since the Democrats won more votes among households with an income upwards of $100.000 USD.
The Economist Adam Tooze presents an interesting explanation. He posits that there are, in fact, three classes that have to be considered to understand this phenomenon. A less educated, more dependent lower-income, working-class. A powerful, prosperous upper-class and a financially secure, educated professional-managerial class.
The core of his argument revolves around this third class. Trumpism, he suggests, is nothing less than a revolt against the PMC and against the values and norms people of that class tend to espouse.
Which raises the question of who belongs to that group. The boss at work whose views you have to accommodate to keep your job or to get ahead, the HR workers who tell you what you can say or how to conduct yourself in the workplace, the lawyers who tell you what‘s legal and what isn’t, the professional journalists, teachers, academics, scientists and experts who try to claim the authority to explain the world to you (and your children) and who try to adjudicate the difference between truth and lies, government bureaucrats and career politicians who tax you, regulate your life and economic activity while living on another ideological planet than you do.
So when working-class individuals see someone like Trump or Musk flout all of the norms and values of the professional-managerial class, as Tooze constructed it, without any repercussions, then a larger proportion of them will envy and admire that audacity and power.
In that sense, lower income people would like to emulate Trump. Become more powerful, through more self-reliance and financial success, in part, to be undeterred by social conventions that might contradict their own.
The goal is less dependency and self-employment. Not a career in an existing institution as a goal in and of itself - which is one major difference between these voters and voters who belong to the professional-managerial class.
That‘s why government handouts or the promise of higher taxes for the rich don’t appeal to this group of people. They‘re more inclined to think that their lack of social mobility is caused by foreign countries, hence their proclivity to support protectionism and isolationism or by immigrants, hence their aversion to legal and illegal immigration. They don’t see wealthy individuals or capitalism itself as the root of the problem, unlike people who’re drawn to left-wing populism. Most of all, they blame the elites or the establishment which, from their point of view, is the PMC. It doesn’t matter that Trump used to be President, that he went to Wharton School or that he’s a billionaire and son of a millionaire. He‘s not part of the establishment club. He‘s not a career politician, he‘s not a lawyer or political scientist. He‘s an idol. Powerful, rich, and incredibly candid and unencumbered.
This is best expressed by the overwhelming electoral advantage Trump has with male, non-college individuals with an income above $100.000 USD.
Trump’s promise is not a higher minimum wage or more public health insurance. He promises something that seems vastly more important to large parts of America‘s working-class. The opportunity to succeed independently. His promises focus on jobs, economic growth, wage pressure and on eschewing entitlement reforms.
Democrats can’t change the values and cultural identities of large parts of the country. They can try to take culturally moderate positions if they want to be more competitive. But most of all, they should embrace the idea of empowerment through economic growth, lower taxes, and a reduced dependency on government support.
As Tooze puts it, when people in West Virginia vote against more federal Medicaid matching funds, they should be taken seriously.
Democrats, however, should pursue policies that can actually ensure these objectives over the long-term and reject counterproductive, albeit intuitive ideas such as protectionism, activist industrial policies or restrictive immigration policies.
