Why people vote the way they do (4) : Last place aversion and race

Following up on our series why people vote in ways that potentially damage them, a discussion of how race yet again percolates to the surface.

Contrary to popular belief, the incomes of the very rich increase more under Democrats than they do under Republicans. While pretax and transfer incomes are rather similar, the main shift occurs posttax and transfer.

Similarly, in absolute terms, whites do better under Democratic than under Republican leadership. But that doesn’t really matter.  People weigh their well-being relative to those around them. There is strong evidence that whites often oppose actions against inequality because of “last place aversion,” the desire to ensure that there is a class of people below oneself. Among white voters, racial bias is strongly correlated with lower support of redistributive programs. For example, research shows that opposition to welfare is driven by racial anger. Approximately half of the difference between social spending in the U.S. and Europe can be explained by racial animosity.

I think one thing having an African American President has taught us, is that the toxic brew that is racism is far from being solved in this country.

And what is this "last place aversion"? It comes from this paper, which showed (my emphasis)

 In money-transfer games, those randomly placed in second-to-last place are the least likely to costlessly give money to the player one rank below. Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could differentially help the group just beneath them. Using survey data, we show that individuals making just above the minimum wage are the most likely to oppose its increase.

So, rather than viewing it as an advantage to bring someone up to the next level, the person previously at that level resents now being at the bottom. And race, as in everything else, enters into it.

Or as Lyndon Johnson put it, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

And yet, so many of these people who are unwillng to help their fellows call themselves Christians. I think it's no coincidence that, as the saying goes, Sundays at church are  the most segregated day in America.

Why people vote the way they do (3)

So we've had an on-going vigorous discussion here on why the less privileged white voters are such vehement supporters of the Republican Party, the current iteration of which is actively hostile to their economic interests, at least those interests perceived by those of us in the chattering classes.  The Democratic party is popular with minorities and those with higher education, but dismally poor at attracting poor whites and the blue collar middle class.

The active hostility to President  Obama by these voters seems to many of us like barely hidden racism. 

The Republican blogger GOPlifer offers a really fascinating discussion on these issues that places the blame, if you will, on lingering white supremacy.  Our institutionalized racism is the only thing, he argues, protecting poor whites from the degree of misery that poor minorities suffer.

Lower income whites have consistently enjoyed better access to economic, social and political opportunities by virtue of their race than they would have had by virtue of their income or education. Race matters less than it used to, but it remains a vital shield, a hidden yet powerful social safety net.

... and this extra advantage increasingly matters, so of course people will struggle to maintain it.

What remains of that shadow safety net matters enormously because life at lower income levels in this country is becoming increasingly precarious. The Middle Class is largely a dead concept. Access to good paying work is highly dependent on education. Getting an education is more expensive than ever while free public schools are increasingly sorted by household income.

... For lower and middle income white households that did not make the transition from the old economy to the new over the past generation, the picture is stark and legitimately frightening. For large swaths of rural and suburban America, the decline of white supremacy has meant the arrival of competition they were unprepared for.

He offers a number of descriptions. Indeed, he offers the most compelling explanation of the visceral hatred of Obamacare that I've seen yet (my emphasis)

Most middle and low income whites have some access to health insurance through their employers. The ACA extended Medicaid coverage to the very poor while middle earners who are disproportionately white were excluded from subsidies. The structure of the Affordable Care Act placed a new mandate on struggling middle-earning households while excluding them from most of the benefits of the Act. No one should be surprised at the political result.

The characterization of the Democratic Party as a force for “dependence” makes perfect sense through this lens. White families struggling to hang on to their economic status correctly understand that Democratic policies will do little for them until they’re destitute. Lower income whites are not voting against their interests. With no political options on the table that could reasonably be expected to level the economic playing field, low income whites are making a rational choice to remain tied in racial solidarity to wealthier white households for as long as possible.

He concludes,

If either party is going to lead us beyond the politics of racial polarization, they will have to find a way to build a replacement for the white shadow safety net that eases conditions for all. If we could deliver credible access to justice, opportunity, and advancement for everyone with the talent and determination to compete, white fears about the decline of their privileges might ease.

... Genuine pluralism requires more than eliminating bigotry. Pluralism depends on delivering a fundamentally just economic and political system in which those bigotries lose their practical relevance.

Thought-provoking reading from a sensible Republican. On top of our previous conversations, this makes me really reflect. Policies that help the destitute are not a bad thing--as long as they are not perceived as policies that hurt others (and we aren't talking hurting the very rich).  As we discussed last time, fairness has a proportionality component.  Most of us are happy to help others as long as that does not materially hurt us.  If it's a zero-sum game, then logically I'm not going to vote to hurt myself.  And mixed with the toxic brew of racial identity, and current corporatist oligarchy, it is very much a zero-sum game for most people.

Go read his whole essay, and  see what you think.

Our previous discussions here.

Why people vote the way they do (2)

An interesting view of why American conservative voters apparently vote against their own economic interests.   According to this writer, it's because their other values supersede the economic.  (My emphasis)

But are voters really voting against their self-interest when they vote for candidates who share their values? Loyalty, respect for authority and some degree of sanctification create a more binding social order that places some limits on individualism and egoism. As marriage rates plummet, and globalization and rising diversity erodes the sense of common heritage within each nation, a lot of voters in many western nations find themselves hungering for conservative moral cuisine.

....The left typically thinks of equality as being central to fairness, and leftists are extremely sensitive about gross inequalities of outcome – particularly when they correspond along racial or ethnic lines. But the broader meaning of fairness is really proportionality – are people getting rewarded in proportion to the work they put into a common project? Equality of outcomes is only seen as fair by most people in the special case in which everyone has made equal contributions. The conservative media (such as the Daily Mail, or Fox News in the US) is much more sensitive to the presence of slackers and benefit cheats. They are very effective at stirring up outrage at the government for condoning cheating.

...

In sum, the left has a tendency to place caring for the weak, sick and vulnerable above all other moral concerns. It is admirable and necessary that some political party stands up for victims of injustice, racism or bad luck. But in focusing so much on the needy, the left often fails to address – and sometimes violates – other moral needs, hopes and concerns. When working-class people vote conservative, as most do in the US, they are not voting against their self-interest; they are voting for their moral interest. They are voting for the party that serves to them a more satisfying moral cuisine. The left in the UK and USA should think hard about their recipe for success in the 21st century.

Our previous discussion on this topic here (read the comments).  More on this tomorrow, with another view.

More maps: social mobility (Updated)

We've talked a lot about the characteristics of the nation, particularly in the South that controls much of our discourse. We've looked at a lot of maps.

Here's a map from a New Yorker article showing that the South is particularly lacking social mobility.

In these low mobility areas, it isn’t just black residents who tend to get stuck. Whites, too, exhibit low levels of social mobility. In states like Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina, poor white children tend to grow up into poor white adults. Secondly, regardless of race, the level of income inequality itself seems to play an important role in determining levels of social mobility. In places where income is divided very unequally, and poorer groups get only a small slice of the pie, very few people manage to start at the bottom and end up at the top. 

But they still vote against their (economic) interests.

Update  8thday has some excellent remarks in the comments below, chastising me for a certain elitism.  (Go read!)   To which I plead guilty.  But I still think it's irrational to vote consistently against one's own economic interests.