Middle class status and political alignment

[suarezguy]

I would argue that in American election campaigns, the winner often depends on whether the middle class favors the Democratic or Republican Party and does so because, in turn, the middle class identifies more, respectively, with the poor rather than the rich or with the rich rather than the poor.

Do you think it makes more sense for the middle class to identify more with the rich or the poor, with which other class are their interests closer to? Or with neither, do they have interests distinct from that of either and should they try to advance mainly or only those?

I think the Democratic Party and Republican parties are pretty identified with favoring the poor and rich, though they both try to claim they're for the middle class also or more so. How would you identify them, and could there be a political party that really did favor and prioritize the middle class? Or is one of the parties already doing so?

 

[Spot261]

All political parties at the bare minimum are aware of the need to entice moderates somehow, but I do wonder if the days of elections being won and lost in the wallets of voters are on a temporary hiatus.

I think it's going to be very hard to make any economic cases in the US (or any British GE for that matter) which doesn't become about race, sovereignty, populism in one direction or the other and the nature of national identity.

 

[Timewalker]

...could there be a political party that really did favor and prioritize the middle class?

In Canada, our previous election in 2015 had nonstop speeches by Justin Trudeau (who won) claiming that his party was all about support and jobs for "the middle class and those seeking to join it". He seemed averse to directly acknowledging the people who are well below the middle class, and his notions of who the middle class actually are, are out to lunch.

Scary that his party was the better choice over the one he defeated (and that's trying to make a comeback this year).

"Middle class" has become a buzzword for politicians. I don't think they actually understand what it means anymore, or that they really do need to court the votes of those who are not middle class. In Canada, even homeless people are allowed to vote as long as they're at least 18, Canadian citizens, and have a way of verifying some sort of address (ie. someone to vouch for them at a homeless shelter).

Here in Alberta, the people who receive disability benefits were suddenly - after years of asking - granted a small increase. There were excuses offered as to why it wasn't done sooner, which I absolutely do not believe, as they had hundreds of millions they were prepared to give Calgary to bid on the 2026 Olympics. I do believe that the premier suddenly realized that disability benefit recipients are allowed to vote, and she'd better do something to persuade them to vote for her party.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I think your assessment is not that far off if we're talking about the state of politics in the 1990s or maybe even early 2000s. But things have changed since the recession. The "middle class" is not a solid, monolithic voting bloc that decides the fate of elections. I think that the very idea of a "middle class" is rather outdated. I feel like when it comes to economics, we've moved more toward having two categories: the super rich, and everyone else. Someone who may be considered middle class today may be just one medical emergency away from being destitute tomorrow. So if the middle class is facing this sort of financial instability on a regular basis, is it really a middle class anymore?

And politically, everything has been jumbled up. I would say that race, identity, and social issues define voting blocs more than economic status does. When I think of the people I know that are will likely vote Republican, they span all classes. Same for Democratic voters.

 

[Mudd]

Nah - in America you've got a huge chunk of the electorate that considers itself "middle class." And most of us don't spend a lot of time fretting about "the super-rich" or "the one percent," which is a really simplistic and misleading way of describing the actual distribution of wealth in this country.

The folks that have most recently driven our political radicalism are people who've never been quite included solidly in the middle class - working class voters in rural areas and places with declining populations.

Concern about medical bills being overwhelming is not a new thing, either. We've had employment-based medical insurance at least since WWII, so folks have always been the loss of a job away from losing the ability to afford our medical care. One difference is that insurance covers a great deal more today than it did forty years ago, and we avail ourselves of all kinds of medicines and treatments that were unheard of then.

The main thing to remember, politically, is that between them the two dominant American political parties comprise about 60 percent of the eligible voters. Where national elections are concerned, the outcome is determined by people who call themselves either Republican nor Democrat, and most of whom have no say about the party nomination process.

If most voters consider the economy to be in pretty good shape this time next year, we'll probably reelect the doofus currently in the White House. Sad!

 

[tafkats]

I suspect that damn near everyone thinks of themselves as middle class. With a handful of exceptions, most people don't want to think of themselves as poor, and they also don't want to think of themselves as filthy rich.

There certainly are a lot of people who cherish the belief that their tax dollars are subsidizing others, when in reality they're probably taking out more than they're putting in.

 

[Amaris]

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There's the group that was once referred to as 'Upper middle class', people like tech and financial professionals. Which can't be considered to be either super-wealthy or poor. They aren't wealthy enough that they can buy politicians and just do whatever they want, but they have enough money to be well insured and be able to survive a little while with no income. (I am in that group).

There's just nothing between working class and upper middle class now.

The way it's been going lately, if the working class people are feeling good about their lives they stay with the same party, if not they switch to the other party.

 

[Amaris]

There's the group that was once referred to as 'Upper middle class', people like tech and financial professionals. Which can't be considered to be either super-wealthy or poor. They aren't wealthy enough that they can buy politicians and just do whatever they want, but they have enough money to be well insured and be able to survive a little while with no income. (I am in that group).

There's just nothing between working class and upper middle class now.

The way it's been going lately, if the working class people are feeling good about their lives they stay with the same party, if not they switch to the other party.

That's the irksome part of it. The working poor can be convinced that they're doing well because so little shifts in their direction that even the most minor of financial upticks, ones that would barely register for someone more well off, makes them believe they're achieving some kind of success with the political party to which they've aligned themselves. It's how Trump can say "the economy is doing great!" with a straight face and his supporters, many of whom are working poor, believe him. The rich guys say there's money everywhere, so it must be true. The immigrants/foreigners/people on welfare are just stealing it.

 

[T'Bonz]

There's still a middle class. They're not as plentiful as they used to be, but they survive.

Through my life, I've been anything from poor to upper middle. Money isn't the answer to life, but it makes it a helluva lot easier.

The working class really took a major hit when manufacturing left for good.

 

[Jayson1]

I think we would have a stronger middle class and working class if Democrats still put some effort in fighting for unions and getting ride of, right to work laws that allow red states to exploit workers. Use to be against outsourcing as well but they never talk about those issues anymore. Jason

 

[Mudd]

I think we would have a stronger middle class and working class if Democrats still put some effort in fighting for unions and getting ride of, right to work laws that allow red states to exploit workers. Use to be against outsourcing as well but they never talk about those issues anymore. Jason

You're right.

 

[suarezguy]

That's the irksome part of it. The working poor can be convinced that they're doing well because so little shifts in their direction that even the most minor of financial upticks, ones that would barely register for someone more well off, makes them believe they're achieving some kind of success with the political party to which they've aligned themselves. It's how Trump can say "the economy is doing great!" with a straight face and his supporters, many of whom are working poor, believe him.

If he has made things indeed even a little better for them that's not great but it is much better than things getting worse for them, evaluations do, probably unavoidably, depend a lot on expectations.

That's probably especially true with taxes, a small tax cut isn't great but it is real good if the alternative is taxes being increased.

 

[Amaris]

If he has made things indeed even a little better for them that's not great but it is much better than things getting worse for them, evaluations do, probably unavoidably, depend a lot on expectations.

That's probably especially true with taxes, a small tax cut isn't great but it is real good if the alternative is taxes being increased.

Taxes need to be increased in the right direction. If we're going to try and make this capitalist system work, then capital needs to flow to everyone, otherwise it's just feudalism with 20" rims.

 

[Damian]

These days I don't think either political party represents a majority of Americans. I consider myself a right of center conservative, but also a pragmatist. In some ways sort of like how President Reagan, and maybe Clinton looked at things...getting half of what you want is better than getting nothing. In general I think that's how the world works...we all have to compromise in life. No one gets everything they want.

Unfortunately I think our two existing political parties have abandoned that idea. I really think the US needs a 3rd--moderate party that represents what I believe are most Americans.

Frankly, I don't think most people hate or even envy the rich. I have a life to lead, I can't be worried about being envious of what the rich have. I believe most people just want a fair chance to be successful. For myself, I don't feel the need to be a multi-billionaire. I just want to be able to live my life, pay my bills, go on vacation and raise my daughter in a good environment. I think most people feel the same way.

I'd like to see the Republicans become more pragmatic and realistic. Government has a role to play, though as a right of center conservative I prefer a limited government. But where the government has a role is to make sure everyone has a fair chance to succeed and to make sure things are above board (there is a big gap between equal opportunity and equal results though--which is where I part ways with some liberals--I'm not into this Robin Hood idea of tax the rich and give to the poor---I'd much rather find ways to help the poor lift themselves out of poverty with good jobs rather than simply giving them handouts, teach a guy to fish and all that). I'd like to see the Democrats drop all the identity politics nonsense. For instance, I don't believe most African-Americans need me to be ashamed to be a white guy. Like everyone else they just want a fair chance. I don't think people in general are impressed with grandstanding. How do you being ashamed of being born the way you were help anyone?

Politics has become so poisonous anymore. It's to the point if you're seen just talking to someone on the other side you might find yourself 'primaried' by radicalized elements in your own party. We will continue to decline in the US if we don't find a way to work with each other and find areas of agreement.

The biggest culprit frankly is social media and the mainstream news media...on both sides. CNN and MSNBC for instance are just huge echo chambers for liberals and FOX is for conservatives. When you only ever hear from the side you agree with you start to think everyone thinks like you do. You need to engage with the other side and consider their viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them, but LISTEN. Maybe within such debates you might actually find a liberal agree with a conservative about a particular issue and plan of action.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think the idea that minorities, women, etc want you to be ashamed to be a white male is generally a fiction created by far right conservatives to create anger. Nobody wants you to feel bad about yourself, just to acknowledge that you have received advantages that they have not.

Or maybe, there are a few professors at liberal arts colleges who do want you to feel bad for who you are, and clever social media marketing by conservatives has created the false perception they represent the liberal mainstream.

I agree most of America wants a moderate party, which is perhaps center left on civil rights issues and center right on economic issues. That will never happen with winner take all voting. One reason we need ranked choice voting.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Also, I agree we should not punitively tax the rich just because they are rich. But, the way to give people the tools to help themselves comes from equal access to education, equal legal representation, equal access to health care. That money has to come from somewhere, and the rich are the ones who aren’t struggling for rent and groceries. If you both believe in equal opportunity and in not taxing the rich, at some point you need to make a trade off to achieve both.

 

[Amaris]

I think the idea that minorities, women, etc want you to be ashamed to be a white male is generally a fiction created by far right conservatives to create anger. Nobody wants you to feel bad about yourself, just to acknowledge that you have received advantages that they have not.

Or maybe, there are a few professors at liberal arts colleges who do want you to feel bad for who you are, and clever social media marketing by conservatives has created the false perception they represent the liberal mainstream.

I agree most of America wants a moderate party, which is perhaps center left on civil rights issues and center right on economic issues. That will never happen with winner take all voting. One reason we need ranked choice voting.

I try so very hard not to lump people together (and often fail miserably) because I take people for who they are on an individual basis. Sometimes, though, when you get the same ideology spouting the same deception, you start to put them all together. It's not fair, but it's hard to prevent when you visit a forum and you see people of specific political positions saying the same things, as if they're just copy pasting.

That said, there are a lot of moderates in the country, but how many? "Moderate" is kind of a difficult position to suss out, because most people are conservative in some areas, liberal in others, right wing and left wing as well. Back when I was I guess a moderate, my ballot looked like a checkerboard. I chose the person whom I believed would do the best job. I still hold to that, but the differences for me have become more stark the further left I go. What used to feel like wide margins between liberal and conservative now just occupy a short dash on the slight right side of the political spectrum. My idea of centrism is further left than others, and even then I still prefer the left wing because it more closely lines up with what I believe we need to create, refine, or eliminate as a society.

I don't care for party, and my agenda is only to remove the barriers that keep people in poverty, that keep them oppressed, stressed, overworked, all those things that suppress their free agency, and which isolate them from one another by convincing them that their neighbor is their competitor, rather than their ally, someone necessary not only to their survival, but to their growth and prosperity. That means facing our problems, including this resurgence of white nationalism in our public meeting places, and by those who claim to represent us. White people don't have to feel guilty, feelings of guilt isn't part of it. They do need to address white privilege so it can be dealt with rather than insisting that because they grew up poor, or that they worked hard to gain some modicum of economic success, that they didn't experience privilege. The whole system is structurally oppressive against people of color, against women, against the LGBTQIA+ community, against the poor, and that it's not just white people, but the white, wealthy ownership class that keeps it that way.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think the majority is in favor if LGBTQ+ rights but against politically correct social enforcement of the right language to describe them. In favor of gun rights but with background checks and strict limitations on semiautomatics. In favor of universal health care but against individual mandates.

 

[Amaris]

I think the majority is in favor if LGBTQ+ rights but against politically correct social enforcement of the right language to describe them. In favor of gun rights but with background checks and strict limitations on semiautomatics. In favor of universal health care but against individual mandates.

That comes down to social conditioning, which wouldn't be a problem if everyone was honest. Unfortunately, not everyone is honest, so you get "I identify as an attack helicopter." You get "from my cold, dead hands." You get people convinced that the government wants to come between them and their doctor, when they don't realize the insurance company already comes between them and their doctor, and the insurance company says no, you're not getting that medication because it's too expensive. There are agendas underneath all of these issues. So ask who stands to profit from such division.