2008/10/23 Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
>
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Michael, this was in the excerpt I attached to the post to which you're
>> responding:
>>
>> Frank's white working-class voters were neither liberal in absolute terms
>>> nor closer to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party on economic
>>> issues. On the central issue of government spending and services, voters who
>>> saw themselves as closer to the Republican Party outnumbered those who saw
>>> themselves as closer to the Democratic Party by four percentage points. On
>>> the issues of government jobs and aid to blacks the pluralities seeing
>>> themselves as closer to the Republican Party were even larger -- nine and 15
>>> percentage points, respectively.
>>>
>>
> My mind must be going. I remember this paper completely differently not
> only in its conclusions, but also in its construction.
>
> So you're right, he does say this. I will only say in passing that this
> emtire analysis of the economic views of the working class seems to be hung
> on their reaction to 3 questions, each of which seems to me to be a piece of
> crap designed to produce the Republican answer:
>
> Government aid to blacks:
>
> Conservative/Republican position:
>
> Government should not make any special effort to help blacks because they
> should help themselves
>
> Liberal/Democratic position:
>
> Government should make every effort to improve the social and economic
> position of blacks
>
> Government spending/ services:
>
> Repug position:
>
> Government should provide many fewer services to reduce spending
>
> Liberal position:
>
> Government should provide many more services even if it means an increase
> in spending
>
> Government jobs:
>
> Convervative position:
>
> Government should just let each person get ahead on their own
>
> Liberal position:
>
> Government should see to it that every person has a job and a good standard
> of living
>
> ***
>
> I don't think it's to airy-fairy to suggest that if we used concrete
> policies as a litmus test instead of this vaguely loaded philosophizing --
> for example, if we asked them if they supported single payer health care --
> we'd find the working class was to the left of the Democratic Party's
> current position on that issue. And I'm pretty sure we'd find it on other
> concrete issues too. I could swear Bartels himself used concrete issues
> himself in an earlier draft of this, but I clearly have early onset
> Alzheimers.
>
> Mind you, Bartels main point is that the Dems don't have to win the WC,
> which already supports them -- it has to win the middle classes, which have
> defected. [Note to James H: his class analysis is based on family income
> levels and divides the country into low/middle/high aka
> working/middle/affluent] The point of economic issues would not be to woo
> the working class. It would be to hold them (since they care more about
> economic issues) while wooing the middle class (which care more about social
> issues and are more liberal on them).
>
> Michael
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>