Nate is, and I don't say this very often, right. The way I put it is that Ds are incapable of believing that R voters actually believe different things than Ds do.
That said, is it really fair to say the people you describe are against welfare? Your explanation about predistribution makes sense of their preferences, but I'd suggest a second: Welfare that they feel gets distributed in the "wrong way." I.e. entitlements that kick in based on things like income, and so are available to anyone.
Put another way, I have no doubt what Reagan's "welfare queen" looked like.
They basically feel entitled to so much more than welfare. Welfare is for "them." You have to rearrange the entire world for "us."
I think this analysis really collapsed the bottom few rungs of the ladder, so to speak. There are non-college people/families who show up at school and don't get in trouble, avoid substance abuse, stay out of trouble generally and are usually employed and there are people and families that fail in at least one of those areas, and it is really important to top of the bottom half folks that they are better than bottom of the bottom half folks. The people who generally have their shit together are also much much more likely to vote than the people who deal with truancy officers are. I think that most the "lift all boats" policies will have the exact same problem as welfare for that reason. It's status anxiety more than material need.
College alts-fairly likely, so long as it doesn't flood the college alts with less well off (in a wholistic sense) people and devalue the alts in the same way college ed has been. Culturally shitting on college is probably a winner, but the more likely to vote are also more likely to have a certificate of some sort or know a guy that can get you into sales or set up with an apprenticeship.
Jobs is more complicated. Shitting on the jobless-1000% Hitting full employment so that service is shittier and more expensive and they have to start working with the kind of people that miss shifts or come in high? No.
To over generalize, they basically have signs that say "In this house we believe jobs, jobs, jobs" and mean it in the same way as the professional class libs do their version. We're all just punching above and throwing shit below ourselves. I also suspect the urban and rural working class have different dynamics, and I only am familiar with the former.
Thank you for pointing out this distinction. In a way, this is a fight between the working class and the poor over public resources and the "top half" is just a spectator. Or if not just watching, either ineffectively trying to help or otherwise cynically using one of them to bolster political power.
Like you, I'm skeptical of "lift all boats" policies too, even with something as "neutral" as UBI, the old resentments would still creep in. As long as we're infected with "prosperity gospel"-like beliefs of who is deserving and who is not, things will not change. No amount of outreach to the top-of-the-bottom-half will help either, at least as long as it doesn't confront that disease.
It's very "no catch. Only throw." That's true of everyone to an extent. There is also the issue of how blatantly bad policies get passed to make a point that is done to please this demo in the same way it's done for professional class. Like the Medicaid work requirements are projected to cost more in additional bureaucracy than they save by getting people off Medicaid, but it's status confirming and psychologically pleasing for the working class vs the poor.
I continue to believe that expanding the options for national service opportunities is an underrated way to reach working class voters where they are. Military service is, and is rightly regarded as, an honorable way to better oneself and serve others, but it isn't a good fit for most people and we need more alternatives.
Some of those are going to be female coded, like child care work, but even within the male coded space there should be plenty of room for CCC type "build and maintain stuff out in nature" programs, for example. If you are going to have anything close to a job guarantee you need to create appropriate jobs that have real social value.
It's an interesting paper, but it definitely doesn't show what you're claiming. We know that the biggest welfare programs are very popular in the US. One way Democrats should moderate to help win back these voters is to focus on protecting and expanding these programs (this has been David Shor's point for years now).
There are definitely some welfare programs that the non-educated don't like though, and lots of paternalistic views on the poor.
Nate is, and I don't say this very often, right. The way I put it is that Ds are incapable of believing that R voters actually believe different things than Ds do.
That said, is it really fair to say the people you describe are against welfare? Your explanation about predistribution makes sense of their preferences, but I'd suggest a second: Welfare that they feel gets distributed in the "wrong way." I.e. entitlements that kick in based on things like income, and so are available to anyone.
Put another way, I have no doubt what Reagan's "welfare queen" looked like.
They basically feel entitled to so much more than welfare. Welfare is for "them." You have to rearrange the entire world for "us."
I think this analysis really collapsed the bottom few rungs of the ladder, so to speak. There are non-college people/families who show up at school and don't get in trouble, avoid substance abuse, stay out of trouble generally and are usually employed and there are people and families that fail in at least one of those areas, and it is really important to top of the bottom half folks that they are better than bottom of the bottom half folks. The people who generally have their shit together are also much much more likely to vote than the people who deal with truancy officers are. I think that most the "lift all boats" policies will have the exact same problem as welfare for that reason. It's status anxiety more than material need.
Don't you think the top of the bottom half are both more likely to vote and also prefer college alts and jobs to public assistance programs?
More likely to vote? 100%
College alts-fairly likely, so long as it doesn't flood the college alts with less well off (in a wholistic sense) people and devalue the alts in the same way college ed has been. Culturally shitting on college is probably a winner, but the more likely to vote are also more likely to have a certificate of some sort or know a guy that can get you into sales or set up with an apprenticeship.
Jobs is more complicated. Shitting on the jobless-1000% Hitting full employment so that service is shittier and more expensive and they have to start working with the kind of people that miss shifts or come in high? No.
To over generalize, they basically have signs that say "In this house we believe jobs, jobs, jobs" and mean it in the same way as the professional class libs do their version. We're all just punching above and throwing shit below ourselves. I also suspect the urban and rural working class have different dynamics, and I only am familiar with the former.
Thank you for pointing out this distinction. In a way, this is a fight between the working class and the poor over public resources and the "top half" is just a spectator. Or if not just watching, either ineffectively trying to help or otherwise cynically using one of them to bolster political power.
Like you, I'm skeptical of "lift all boats" policies too, even with something as "neutral" as UBI, the old resentments would still creep in. As long as we're infected with "prosperity gospel"-like beliefs of who is deserving and who is not, things will not change. No amount of outreach to the top-of-the-bottom-half will help either, at least as long as it doesn't confront that disease.
I agree about status. Same for tariffs. Cheap toasters and more then 5 dolls blurs the distinction they care about.
It's very "no catch. Only throw." That's true of everyone to an extent. There is also the issue of how blatantly bad policies get passed to make a point that is done to please this demo in the same way it's done for professional class. Like the Medicaid work requirements are projected to cost more in additional bureaucracy than they save by getting people off Medicaid, but it's status confirming and psychologically pleasing for the working class vs the poor.
I continue to believe that expanding the options for national service opportunities is an underrated way to reach working class voters where they are. Military service is, and is rightly regarded as, an honorable way to better oneself and serve others, but it isn't a good fit for most people and we need more alternatives.
Some of those are going to be female coded, like child care work, but even within the male coded space there should be plenty of room for CCC type "build and maintain stuff out in nature" programs, for example. If you are going to have anything close to a job guarantee you need to create appropriate jobs that have real social value.
It's an interesting paper, but it definitely doesn't show what you're claiming. We know that the biggest welfare programs are very popular in the US. One way Democrats should moderate to help win back these voters is to focus on protecting and expanding these programs (this has been David Shor's point for years now).
There are definitely some welfare programs that the non-educated don't like though, and lots of paternalistic views on the poor.