Many progressives bemoan the fact that lower-income Americans often seem to vote against their self-interest.
Well, here’s some bad news and some good news.
First, the bad news.
Economic and psychological research indicates that a combination of hard-wired psychology and social pressure apparently leads to the following:
1. Those of us at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale tend to oppose help for those at the bottom of it
2. All of us tend to want to be better off than our peers, even if this causes us to lose out in real terms
3. 1 and 2 are likely exacerbated by fears of those different from ourselves
Now the good news.
A similar combination of factors seems to indicate that:
1. We have an instinct for cooperation
2. We feel a need to avoid completely unfair dealing with others
Here’s an outline of some of the backing research:
Again, first the bad news.
1. Those of us at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale tend to oppose help for those at the bottom of it.
This Economist piece describes a series of experiments that shed some light on why this happens.
In the experiments:
sums of money, separated by $1, and informed about the “income distribution” that resulted. They were then given another $2, which they could give either to the person directly above or below them in the distribution.
In keeping with the notion of “last-place aversion”, the people who were a spot away from the bottom were the most likely to give the money to the person above them: rewarding the “rich” but ensuring that someone remained poorer than themselves.
Why? There are probably many reasons, but at least one has to do with our preference for
relative vs. absolute advantage.
Which leads us to:
2. All of us tend to want to be better off than are peers, even if this causes us to lose out in real terms.
In their excellent book Connected, Christakis and Fowler discuss classic experiments that demonstrate that people tend to prefer earning $33 grand if their peers earn 30 to earning $35 grand if their peers earn 38. They attribute this to a deep seated need in all individuals to compete effectively within their own social networks for survival and reproduction; this need overrides any logical recognition of the benefits of earning more in absolute terms. (More on Christakis and Fowler in the good news, below).
On to:
3. 1 and 2 are likely exacerbated by fears of those different from ourselves.
Here's another excerpt from the Economist article:
...Broadly speaking, countries that are more ethnically or racially homogeneous are more comfortable with the state seeking to mitigate inequality by transferring some resources from richer to poorer people through the fiscal system. This may explain why Swedes complain less about high taxes than the inhabitants of a country of immigrants such as America. But it also suggests that even societies with a tradition of high taxes (such as those in Scandinavia) might find that their citizens would become less willing to finance generous welfare programmes were immigrants to make up a greater share of their populations. Immigration can also subtly alter the overall attitude towards such matters in another way. A 2008 study by economists at Harvard found evidence that immigrants’ attitudes towards taxation and redistribution were rooted in the places they had left.
Social divisions also play a role in determining who within a society prefers greater redistributive taxation. In America blacks—who are more likely to benefit from welfare programmes than richer whites—are much more favourably disposed towards redistribution through the fiscal system than white people are. A 2001 study looked at over 20 years of data from America’s General Social Survey and found that whereas 47% of blacks thought welfare spending was too low, only 16% of whites did. Only a quarter of blacks thought it was too high, compared with 55% of whites. In general (though not always), those who identify with a group that benefits from redistribution seem to want more of it.
So to sum up, we don't want to be at the bottom, we want more than our peers have, and differences in complexion exacerbate these tendencies.
The is illustrated by the fact that prominent conservative US opinion leaders no longer hesitate to be openly racist in promoting their agenda (see Hunter's Rush Limbaugh: Racist).
Limbaugh, who once joined others in condemning Trent Lott's gaffe supporting Strom Thurmond, now makes no attempt to appeal outside of the white demographic. Why? Combining fear of hitting the bottom with fear of those who look different is an extremely effective way to block economic progress.
Now for the good news.
In the later sections of Connected, Christakis and Fowler point out that our tendency to form social networks also leads to both cooperation and punishment of free riders (don’t worry: it’s the definition of a “free rider” that counts, not the existence of it. More below.)
They describe experiments in which pairs of individual were put in the following situation: person A would have one chance to decide how to divide $10 between the two and the division would happen only if person B accepted. If B refused, the deal was off, and each would get nothing.
Classic economic theory would suggest that, were both individuals acting rationally, person A would offer B one penny (the least possible) ad B would accept (since B would still be better off than before the offer).
This didn't happen often. The As usually offered significantly more than one penny, seemingly knowing that the Bs would never accept a lower offer. Further, in a variation in which person B had to accept person A's decision no matter what, significant numbers of As still offered more than the minimum. These results seem to indicate an instinct for fairness and or/an expectation of retribution for unfairness and/or and or/an expectation of reciprocity (a powerful social influence tool identified and studied by Robert Cialdini, see my post on the Politics of Persuasion for more details).
Again, the authors attribute this to a human participation in social networks. However, this is cooperative behavior, which they theorize may be due to evolutionary forces that lead to survival through group action.
So we have both competitive and cooperative instincts. The problem with deep seated instincts, however, is that they evolved to help us survive as plains creatures hundred of thousands of years ago, and our environment has changed so rapidly that our instincts haven’t yet caught up.
Some of the competitive instincts can hurt us as individuals and as an entire society. They can also be exploited by the ruthless. Bad news.
But the cooperative instincts can save us. Good news.
So let’s re-sum up these sets of instincts and see what has been done, and what can be done, with them.
The bad news:
1. Those of us at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale tend to oppose help for those at the bottom of it.
2. All of us tend to want to be better off than our peers, even if this causes us to lose out in real terms
3. 1 and 2 are likely exacerbated by fears of those different from ourselves.
What comes out of this? When you add the fact that the simple meme Group A is hurting Group B (pointed out by Douglas Hofstaderin Metamagica Themas), you get a message formula:
(They) (are screwing you) (by helping free riders). They will make (you) (worse off than some other).
How does the right wing use this formula? Like this:
(Socialist Obamanites) (are giving your money away) (to lazy bums). Soon you won’t be any better than (insert racial minority here).
This is effective. It appeals to deep-seated fears and it spreads like wildfire. But it is the content of the formula that is the real problem, not the formula itself. And the right has no monopoly on the formula.
What if we take into account the good news that
1. We have an instinct for cooperation
2. We feel a need to avoid completely unfair dealing with others
And then both modify the formula and change the content?
Here’s a suggestion:
First, appeal to the cooperative instinct by emphasizing we/us rather than you.
(They) (are screwing us) (by helping free riders). (We must act) or (we’ll ) (be worse off than some other).
Second, change the content to reflect the real problem.
(Corrupt politicians) are (giving away our jobs) (to help tax cheats). (We must act) or (we’ll be worse off than the Third World).
This is emotionally appealing as well as true.
Remember, it’s not enough to be right; you have to be convincing. A convincing lie beats an unconvincing truth, but a convincing truth beats everything.
Recommended reading/listening/viewing for radicals:
The incomparable Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Online preview here
connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives By Nicholas A. Christakis; James H. Fowler
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. by Robert Cialdini. This is the single most valuable book I have read on how to persuade and how to avoid being persuaded.
Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, by George Lakoff. See also: Cognitive Policy Wonks and The Progressive Strategy Handbook Project
Frank Luntz: everything he’s written. He's a conservative message master, and you have to know the enemy. Remember the great scene in Patton, when the victorious general shouted: “Rommel! You magnificent son of a bitch! I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits, By Jason Salzman
The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections, By Catherine Shaw
How To Win A Local Election,by Lawrence Grey
The
Opposition Research Handbook: Guide to Political Investigations
Guerrilla Marketing
Chomsky.Info Many of Noam Chomsky’s insightful and frightening analyses
Robert Newman’s History of Oil Thanks to
GreyHawk for recommending this.
*
To see how the combined direct costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars affects you see the National Priorities Project's costofwar.com and select your state and city.
*
Build Infrastructure: Volunteer! List of State and Local Democratic Parties
Cross-posted here at www.writingintheraw.com