Maggie's Farm

Class Warfare

Gwynnie recalls that since the major Republican wins in November a number of Liberal politicians have expressed disappointment in their constituents not voting in accordance with the priorities attributed to their perceived “class” by liberal theoreticians. Indeed, blue collar employees are expressing resentment at being described as “working class” by ivory-tower liberals. Class warfare, an invention of Karl Marx, has just about disappeared in the United States, and with it, the block which the Democrat Party is accustomed to assembling, leading, instructing and patronizing.

This week, Gwynnie, while using the New York Times for her normal doggie purposes, noticed the three-part series on Class differences and is highly entertained. The articles were entitled:

• Class in America: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide

• Up From the Holler: Living in Two Worlds, at Home in Neither

• When Richer Weds Poorer, Money Isn't the Only Difference - Marriage between people of different classes often means moving outside comfort zones

The Times’ message was that class is really important, even if Americans don’t think so.  To prove its theory, The Times took a poll: “To discover how Americans regard social class and where they place themselves, The Times conducted a nationwide survey in March. The poll uncovered optimism about a financial future, opportunities and the reward of hard work. While there are differences in the views of rich and poor and some respondents have a sense of tension and inequality, there remains strong faith in the American Dream, however defined. ” [emphasis added]  Gwynnie was curious about the concluding spin concerning “some respondents” so she looked at the data. As usual, the quote was negative spin very much in line with The Times’ usual editorial tactics. [Although Mr. Bush was elected, some people (reporters?) think he should have lost in Ohio. Although there are no more public hangings of women in the soccer stadium in Kabul, some Afghanis {Talibani?) find the occupation repressive.]

Here are their data:

• Is it possible to start out poor, work hard and become rich?  80% said Yes, 19% said no, vs. 57% yes and 38% no in 1983. [The number of respondents having “a sense of tension and inequality” is not revealed]

• Current class vs. when growing up: 45% said higher, 16% said lower

• Likelihood of upward movement vs. 30 years ago: 40% said easier, 23% said harder

• Upward mobility vs. in the EU: 46% said easier, 13% said harder.

“Where,” says Gwynnie, “are the ‘shadowy lines’? Although The Times is trying hard to make class important and thus reopen class resentment (and benefit old-line Democrat tactics), their data disclose just the opposite. The Times says, “The movement of families up and down the economic ladder is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. But it does not seem to be happening quite as often as it used to.” Gwynnie suggests that maybe that’s because so many are now in the middle, but not “happening quite as often as it used to” could refer to 1946, 1935, 1920 or even 1815. Here are The Times’ statistics for the period 1988-1998: