The Woebegone White Working Class

More than a year after the 2016 election I’ve come across yet another article debating the dilemma of the white working class. This one involved a study by a Princeton sociologist studying the views of rural Americans. To be fair, it’s a completely valid topic of study, as are most of the many looks into that segment of society. It’s not the inquiry into the thoughts and feelings of the white working class that I object to, but the weight and interpretation such studies are given. All the think pieces seem to come to the same conclusion: poor white people blame the government and people with darker skin for their troubles. Sometimes they argue that those troubles are real, so we need to show compassion. Sometimes they argue that there is a basis for those beliefs, that the government could do more for them, that minorities do receive a disproportionate share of benefits. But such arguments miss the big picture: the white working class generally have it better than minorities and the government policies that affect their lives are primarily conservative ones. The working class is a broad, poorly defined category. White working class breaks it down a little better, but it still not monolithic. It really tends to be rural white people without a college education that break strongly Republican in elections. And not the poor - even the white poor tend to split evenly left and right. It’s those who earn between $50-$100k that we’re talking about here. So not those who are really badly off. About 67% of them voted Republican in the last election. This is the cause for all the hand-wringing, all the articles castigating the elitist liberals for losing touch with the real America. It’s bullshit. First off, the Democrat won the majority of the vote. The only honest way to interpret that is that more Americans supported the liberal candidate than the conservative one. So if any group is out of touch with Americans, it’s not the left. But you can argue that a specific voting block, the white working-class, is strategic for electoral victories. That’s true and fine, but it doesn’t carry the same moral weight that you hear from the pundits. If you want to discuss strategic victories you should spend a fair amount of time discussing why we still have a system that disproportionately favors a minority group (low-population state voters) and whether such a system is fair and appropriate in our current age. Conversely, the Democrat won 66% of ALL Latino voters and 88% of ALL African-American voters, yet there is little to no discussion on how Republicans should reflect upon their failure to empathize and connect with such voting groups (who combined represent a similar number of actual voters to the white working class). If we’re interested in discussing why some groups feel left out and how some political ideologies distance certain groups, aren’t these groups worthy of the same concern and consideration? Because when you come down to it, all voters tend to be tribalistic and race is the largest tribal indicator in our country. So it’s not surprising that white voters vote for their perceived racial interest and people of color do the same. The difference is not in their behavior but in the racial reality in our country. Our society favors white people. Whether it’s the criminal justice system, employment opportunities, educational programs, or basic financial support through historical distribution of wealth, white people have the advantage. It’s not a fair system. The evidence for this is overwhelming and ubiquitous and I won’t even bother going into it here. That means that people of color are voting along racial lines to change an unfair system that disadvantages them. White people, specifically the white working class, are voting to maintain an unfair system that gives them advantage. It’s not morally equivalent and that is where the discussion should lie.

Analogies: The Dog Stipend

Let’s suppose the government decided to give a $50,000/year stipend to everyone who owns a dog. Why? Why not. I mean, dogs are great, most people love dogs, lots of people already own dogs, it’s really a common thing, practically part of the fabric of American society. Where does the money come from? We’ll get to that. First we’ll look at what happens. I would expect a lot more people to start owning dogs. Some people who didn’t even like dogs would probably get one. Most people would say they own their dog because they love it, and that they’d own a dog without the stipend, but they would also take the cash. But some people wouldn’t own a dog. Maybe they’re allergic. Maybe they don’t like dogs and they’re the type to stick to their principles. It’s their choice - they could get a dog and take the money if they want, so they really shouldn’t complain about missing out on the money. But that’s not it. If a significant majority of people get a dog (take the money) it would alter the value of money. If you earned $50k before, you now have $100k (and the marginal expense of owning a dog). But for those who stuck to their principles (and maybe their cats), they still only have $50k. They’re purchasing power is practically cut in half. Again, I hear you say, that’s on them. They could have gone along with the game. Sure, it’s rather arbitrary, and spending our government’s money to support dog-ownership means those resources aren’t available for many other much worthier goals, but that’s the game. Play along or suffer the consequences. I think most people would do just that. Most would take the money, and the large number of dog-lovers would never question the fairness of the system. But all of us know it isn’t right. Since this is a theoretical exercise it’s pretty easy to step back and say that forcing dog-ownership isn’t right. Penalizing people for sticking to their principles, especially when it doesn’t harm anyone, even worse, when going along with the system doesn’t even reward people for something worthwhile, is simply wrong. We know it is. Now imagine that it isn’t the government, but society itself. And instead of cash, it’s stature, respect, or privilege. Because this is in effect what we do. Maybe not to that degree, and not in such an obvious financial way, but our society rewards certain norms and standards that really don’t help society in any way (but clearly help certain subsets of society). Maybe it’s skin color, or being cisgendered, or simply meeting beauty standards like women wearing makeup and dresses. The amount of penalty/bonus varies depending on the societal standards and how strictly they’re enforced, but the concept is the same. We spend a huge amount of human capital enforcing ridiculous norms and waste more humanity by penalizing those principled enough to not play the game. We know it’s not right, but we so often take the cash anyway.