The Federal Spending Paradox
“A study published in the American Politics Research journal and summarized in the Harvard Business Review reveals that conventional wisdom that places poor white Republicans in states that receive tax benefits against Democrats in states that pay higher taxes to benefit those in poverty “is not supported by evidence,” thus creating what the researchers referred to as a “federal spending paradox.”
“As one might have guessed from the racial undertones often present in public discussions on fiscal politics, greater racial resentment was associated with lower support for spending,” the report noted. “This remained true even when we accounted for other demographic and political characteristics, such as gender, race, age, education, income, party identification, ideology, and so on.”
“In fact,” it continued, “racial resentment was far more powerful in predicting opposition to federal spending than economic self-interest was — for example, it was four times stronger than income.”
Voters who object to federal spending have a racist motive: study
This corroborates with an excellent Vox article which explains the paradox with progressive economics: it makes white racists even more racist.
Lee and Roemer found that if racism played no role in determining whom Americans voted for, and people voted only on the basis of other cultural and economic preferences, the Democratic vote share between 1976 and 1992 would have increased dramatically. The average national income tax rate, they estimate, would be 11 to 18 points higher, as voters would be more willing to use taxes to finance a European-style welfare state.
“Voter racism,” they conclude, “pushes both parties in the United States significantly to the right on economic issues.”
No easy answers: why left-wing economics is not the answer to right-wing populism
This isn’t a Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican issue — while Trump and the GOP strongly appeal to white racial identity and racial resentment, a statistical floor of white racial resentment exists across the entire political spectrum.
Racial attitudes of Presidential candidates supporters
This statistical floor of 20-30% corresponds with the Pareto Principle, therefore these folks are most likely the people in the Democratic Party who have consciously or subconsciously an affinity for Centrist / Blue Dog corporatist policies and occasionally swing-vote Republican like a good Reagan Democrat. They’re the base that gives the Democratic Party its rightward lean.
So, if Democrats are primarily seen among a significant number of Americans as the party that gives welfare to blacks, amnesity to illegals, marriage to gays, refugee status to Muslims — especially after they believe the myth that Obama and Hillary created ISIS — any progressive messaging and marketing will fall on deaf ears due to the Horn Effect, which renders reception of Democratic Party economic messaging at a very superficial level.
To much of America, Democrat progressive economic messaging will forever sound like “We Democrats want to give minorities welfare, reparations, affirmative action and higher status over straight white males.” because Democrats are perceived as the ‘Other’ Party. Whites turn on the television only to have their implicit association biases confirmed every time they watch a Democratic convention.
If you don’t know what implicit bias is, watch this YouTube video of the infamous Doll Test.
The Federal Spending Paradox.
It’s why we’re reluctant to spend at here home, because we’re afraid the ‘other’ might benefit, yet over-eager to spend overseas because we must bomb ‘others’ to ‘keep Amurica safe’.
So how do we solve this puzzle? How do we wash off the stigma of being the ‘Other’ Party?
Good Luck.
