Why Do Wealthy People Vote Democratic?
That's the question Daniel Gross asks in this column at Slate. He points out that "those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46" and suggests repeatedly that these folks were voting against their economic self interest. After noting that Greenwich, Connecticut voted for a Democrat for the first time since 1964, he writes:
Look around, Dan. The stock market is currently at a lower level than it was when Bush took office eight years ago. The economy is in a frightening downward spiral. All of the major investment banks--the places were many of these Greenwich residents work--are now gone, either bankrupt, bought out, or transformed. The financial industry is hemorrhaging jobs. Hedge funds by the hundreds are about to implode. The domestic auto industry is bankrupt. Retailers are having one of their worst years ever. The list goes on.
Paying a lower tax rate is great, but I suspect that for many wealthy people, plummeting investments, questionable job security, and dwindling year end bonuses are part of the equation too. It would be perfectly rational for a wealthy person to conclude that it's in his economic self-interest to put an end to Republican rule in Washington. If I remember correctly, the wealthy made out okay during the Clinton years.
There are a lot of economically savvy people out there who realize that the Republican party has been a bad steward of the economy, that the party's ideological aversion to even the most sensible regulation has left the entire economy vulnerable and its obsession with tax cuts has left the country in a bad fiscal mess. Even those who are doing great in this economy (e.g. bankruptcy lawyers), need somewhere to invest their money, and no one wins if the federal government goes hopelessly into debt.
Moreover, no matter how wealthy you are, it's simply not possible to unteather yourself from the fortunes of the country as a whole. When unemployment skyrockets, so does crime. When the country gets bogged down in needless wars, your tax money is wasted and your investments are threatened.
And all of this assumes a purely economic analysis of self-interest. It's also perfectly rational to vote against a party that takes pride in know-nothingism and mocks the educated classes as "elites" who don't reside in the "real America." It's perfectly rational to vote against a party that uses xenophobia, race-baiting, and anti-gay policies as wedge issues to win elections. It's perfectly rational to vote against a party that led the country into an unnecessary and costly war and has pursued a reckless and ineffective foreign policy. It's rational to vote against a party that has sullied America's reputation in the world, that has championed torture and illegal surveillance and shown little if any respect for the constitution. It's rational to vote against a party that has been unprecedentedly corrupt and has consistently placed the interests of business lobbyists ahead of the public good. And it's perfectly rational to vote against a party that has shown disdain for science and ignored all warnings about the dangers of climate change.
It would be entirely reasonable to place any of these concerns above your personal interest in avoiding a modest tax increase. Indeed, many voters--myself included--are cognisant of the fact that past tax cuts have been reckless and unfairly skewed toward the wealthy, and we realize that additional revenue has to come from somewhere.
I suspect if you polled those who make over $250,000 and asked them why they voted for Obama, most would say that they were voting in their self-interest, both economically and otherwise.
There's something deeper going on when a town that is home to corporate CEOs, professional athletes, hedge-fund managers, and private-equity barons, the people who gained the most financially under the Bush years and who would seem to have the most to lose financially under an Obama administration, flips into the Democratic column. Somewhere in the back country, in a 14,000-square-foot writer's garret, an erstwhile hedge-fund manager is dictating a book proposal to his assistant, a former senior editor at Fortune who just took a buyout, that explains why many of the wealthy choose to vote for a Democrat, in plain violation of their economic self-interest. Working title: What's the Matter With Greenwich?This entire analysis strikes me as incredibly obtuse. Yes, Obama promised to return marginal income tax rates on those making over $250,000 to what they were under the Clinton administration. But that doesn't mean that it's in these folks economic self-interest to vote for McCain. There's much more to the equation than marginal income tax rates.
Look around, Dan. The stock market is currently at a lower level than it was when Bush took office eight years ago. The economy is in a frightening downward spiral. All of the major investment banks--the places were many of these Greenwich residents work--are now gone, either bankrupt, bought out, or transformed. The financial industry is hemorrhaging jobs. Hedge funds by the hundreds are about to implode. The domestic auto industry is bankrupt. Retailers are having one of their worst years ever. The list goes on.
Paying a lower tax rate is great, but I suspect that for many wealthy people, plummeting investments, questionable job security, and dwindling year end bonuses are part of the equation too. It would be perfectly rational for a wealthy person to conclude that it's in his economic self-interest to put an end to Republican rule in Washington. If I remember correctly, the wealthy made out okay during the Clinton years.
There are a lot of economically savvy people out there who realize that the Republican party has been a bad steward of the economy, that the party's ideological aversion to even the most sensible regulation has left the entire economy vulnerable and its obsession with tax cuts has left the country in a bad fiscal mess. Even those who are doing great in this economy (e.g. bankruptcy lawyers), need somewhere to invest their money, and no one wins if the federal government goes hopelessly into debt.
Moreover, no matter how wealthy you are, it's simply not possible to unteather yourself from the fortunes of the country as a whole. When unemployment skyrockets, so does crime. When the country gets bogged down in needless wars, your tax money is wasted and your investments are threatened.
And all of this assumes a purely economic analysis of self-interest. It's also perfectly rational to vote against a party that takes pride in know-nothingism and mocks the educated classes as "elites" who don't reside in the "real America." It's perfectly rational to vote against a party that uses xenophobia, race-baiting, and anti-gay policies as wedge issues to win elections. It's perfectly rational to vote against a party that led the country into an unnecessary and costly war and has pursued a reckless and ineffective foreign policy. It's rational to vote against a party that has sullied America's reputation in the world, that has championed torture and illegal surveillance and shown little if any respect for the constitution. It's rational to vote against a party that has been unprecedentedly corrupt and has consistently placed the interests of business lobbyists ahead of the public good. And it's perfectly rational to vote against a party that has shown disdain for science and ignored all warnings about the dangers of climate change.
It would be entirely reasonable to place any of these concerns above your personal interest in avoiding a modest tax increase. Indeed, many voters--myself included--are cognisant of the fact that past tax cuts have been reckless and unfairly skewed toward the wealthy, and we realize that additional revenue has to come from somewhere.
I suspect if you polled those who make over $250,000 and asked them why they voted for Obama, most would say that they were voting in their self-interest, both economically and otherwise.
posted by A.L. at 4:17 PM
13 Comments:
Look at California. There was big government support for colleges and that was a major factor in getting Silicon Valley going. Lots of money was made in tech. Selfish interests, even for the rich, can mean supporting high-tax/high-service governments.
We have a good friend who's a hedge fund manager, and he was supporting Obama enthusiastically. He was even cheering the San Francisco proposal to name the sewage treatment plant after Bush.
There's more to life and finances than the tax rate. My friend's business is hurting now, and his clients are hurting - a direct result of Bush and his tax policies.
Exactly. Obama's policies may not serve the best interests of the rich in the short term, but in the long run, they do.
They help the economy and the population at large, which means more consumers to buy the products produced by the businesses owned by the rich.
I think it's worth pointing out that a functioning middle class with money to spend might buy consumer products, cars, take vacations, and invest for their retirement, all of which generates profit for business owned by wealthy people, raises stock prices, generates commissions for brokers, etc. It's not just their investments that count, it's their corporate revenues. A good economy with strong middle-class involvement is good for everybody, and that's a top Obama priority.
I'm convinced the anti-intellectual bias demonstrated by the choice of Sarah Palin and the elevation of a dope from Ohio to the level of campaign strategist was finally, finally!, all just a little too much for the "smart" republicans, many of whom happen to be rich. Spare some change we can believe in? ;p
I call the Democratic Party the "we" party, and I call the Republican Party the "me" party.
Dems have a pr problem of being labeled as "bleeding heart liberals". I take this to me that we care about too many groups, and are soft on "self-reliance", the Republican excuse for most social problems. Thats the WE part.
The Republicans: What do they offer but lower taxes, and bills and laws that benefit Specific groups, and not the country as a whole. That's the WE part.
So, the reason that most people who make over 250k voted for Obama is because some people care more about we, than just me! They love their country and hopefully realize that we are all in this muck together.
Education, roads/infrastructure, national defense. These are some of the things our taxes pay for. Often times, rich people make more use of them than non-rich people, so it's in their best interest to keep them functioning. Really, there's no big mystery here.
Nothing better for the economy than a healthy middle-class with money to spend.
Republicans operate in a scorched earth manner. Take what you can get, screw everyone else. That mentality will always lead to collapse in the long-term.
Exactly right. I just saw a guy on CNN who was asked that question--some real rich fella. He said, "What, do you think I'm stupid? Yeah, I'm gonna get taxed more. But my investments are down 47% these last two months. Forty-seven percent! My company is damn near bankrupt. Spare me this crap about taxes. Taxes aren't the only money I have."
Most rich Republicans would not hire Sarah Palin to be a secretary in their law firms or I banks.
They might say "she's a pistol" if a reporter asks them. But they will not vote for her.
I have had a similar discussion regarding why the rich should pay 'more' in taxes than lower income people. The rich benefit the most from a stable society and a prosperous economy. Their opportunity to increase their wealth is still much higher than people with lower incomes in that environment. Their other costs for security, insurance, etc. are likely to increase even more quickly than their taxes in an unstable society. Besides, most people do have a conscience and some concept of fairness and do not want to live in a country where there are large numbers of poor and homeless and where the infrastructure is falling apart.
luke: no one here in SF wanted that. glad it failed miserably. more important things on the ballot than putting GWB on an SF map
boy, i'm almost convinced that this ever-expanding debt and government intrusiveness is what the american dream is all about. taking my money to pay for someone who isn't willing to work as hard as i have to is downright offensive and goes against the empowering spirit available to us all who fight to overcome obstacles instead of fixating on them is the gift of our founding fathers. period. any spin to that founding principle is purely selfish just as wanting to be rewarded for my hard work. wake up. you're being "had" for votes, because that's all politicians want, because they already have the bank account to satisfy them for life. (and i voted for obama, who campaigned saying one thing and is doing something else--he lost my vote.)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home