I Love Cynics!

Wedge issues, voter myopia, corrupt politicians? What are the causes of increasing economic disparity in the United States? In his book, Unequal Democracy, Larry Bartels examines the history of increasing economic inequality since the end of World War II.

Economic disparity is at its highest point since the 20’s with the top 1% income earners holding nearly a quarter of total earnings. The top 5% hold nearly half of total income. While income of the top earners have increased, there hasn’t been a corresponding increase for the nations lowest workers. Raises in the national minimum wage haven’t kept pace with inflation, and now have less purchasing power than they did in the 60s. How did we arrive at this situation?

Bartels points to studies that have shown that the poor have consistently fared better under Democratic leadership. Despite this, many have voted against their best interests, voting for Republican leadership and for tax cuts that benefit only the richest citizens.

Why? Are voters being enticed by so called wedge issues such as gay marriage and abortion? While these are certainly hot-button issues, Bartels shows that studies indicate that these issues barely make a dent in voters’ political leadership choices. As much as we hear about them in the media, no matter how much radio talk show hosts like to shout about them, there is no statistically significant indication that they play a role in voter choices.

Essentially, only one thing does; election year economic trends. Voters, as a whole, have short memories. It’s only the here and now that affects their voting choices. Is the economy humming along? The incumbent will likely be reelected, or someone from their party will. Voters punish incumbents whose policies lead to poor election year economies.

And how does that play out? Whether by coincidence or planning, Republicans have historically had poor beginning of term economic trends, ending their term, in the election year, with positive growth. Democrats, on the other hand, jump in expanding the economy in their first years in office, with a slump in the election year, thus getting punished at the polls. Myopic voters reward Republicans and punish Democrats.

Even more intriguingly, even if, under Republican administrations, growth is largely one-sided, expanding the livelihoods of the richest 5% at the expense of the poor, they are rewarded at the polls. Most voters, it turns out, have unreasonable expectations of their futures.

Bartels shows this extraordinarily well with the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax, which only affects the richest of Americans, is an overwhelmingly unpopular tax across the board from the rich to the poor. By repealing the estate tax, or raising the bar of who falls under it, the government loses money. Either new taxes elsewhere will have to be created or services will have to be cut. The most likely places will be in areas that affect the poor.

The support among poor voters for the repeal of the estate tax shows two things. First, we often vote or hold ideals that go against our best interest. Second, we often have unrealistic expectations of future earnings. Someone who waits tables for a living is unlikely to ever have to worry about estate taxes. Yet, they are likely to be among the many who would support repealing them.

This book should be a wake up call for Democratic leadership. Historically, Democrats have lagged behind in election year economic growth. Studies showing that election year economics are about the only thing on the minds of voters should prompt the party to concentrate on improving the economy throughout their terms.

The book was published prior to Obama’s 2008 win. It will be interesting to see if Bartels’ general ideas and predictions continue to prove true.

Some technical aspects of the book should be noted. This is a book rich in statistical detail. I found myself refreshing my memory on definitions and statistical equations often. If you’ve never taken a course on statistics, you may find much of the book difficult to read. Bartels helps you out a lot, though, with extraordinarily thorough footnotes.

On a personal level, the book was somewhat depressing. It suggests that no amount of voter education proves helpful. That people are more likely to vote along partisan lines, rewarding Republicans for election year economic growth, regardless of what the previous years had brought.

In one portion of the book, there is an in depth discussion of how the poor have absolutely no statistical bearing on politicians’ choices. None. And it doesn’t matter if the politician is Republican or Democrat. The wishes of the richest constituents will always hold a larger sway on their choices.

What I’ve mentioned here in this review only begins to touch on the topics in this book. It’s a fascinating read. While depressing, it’s extremely educational and will make you want to help bring about the promised change of the new administration.