March 18, 2009
Unequal Democracy
Larry Bartels
Professor, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton
Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the 67th Year
President George Hansen called to order the 23th meeting of the 67th year of the Old Guard of Princeton, at 10:15 AM in the Carl Field Center. Approximately 90 members were present. President Hansen led the invocation. James Deneen read the minutes of the previous meeting of March 11th. James Walsh introduced his guest, Robert Geddes, former professor and Dean of Princeton University’s School of Architectureand now Professor Emeritus.
President Hansen reminded members that the next meeting, March 25th, marks the beginning of the spring session and will be held at the Friend’s Center, beginning at 10:15 AM. The speaker will be Philip Pettit, Professor of Politics and Human Values, Princeton University. His subject will be “How Scholarship Has Influenced Democracy in Spain.”
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker, Larry Bartels, the Donald E. Stokes Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and the Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton.
Drawing from his recently published book, Unequal Democracy, Professor Bartels addressed the political causes and consequences of economic inequality. His talk illustrated in detail that there is no “firewall” between political and economic factors in our society. They are, in fact, intertwined.
Primary among the political causes, Professor Bartels named the ideologies of political leaders, the policies of programs of particular administrations and the partisan loyalties of voters. Even well informed Republicans will support tax cuts that conflict with their more egalitarian and democratic loyalties if a Republican administration favors such cuts, whereas the more informed Democrats will be more likely than the less informed to oppose the same cuts. Republican and Democratic Senators are more divided by ideological differences than by their constituencies; the differences remain even between Republican and Democratic Senators from the same states who thus represent the same constituencies. While Senators from the two parties are very insensitive to working class views, but only moderately sensitive to the views of their middle class constituencies, they do differ markedly in their responsiveness to the views of their constituents with the highest incomes. In short, they are seeking support and fundraising!
The U.S. government offers far fewer protections against the dislocations and inequalities created by a global market place than do the governments of other developed nations.
Even within the U.S., however, there are marked differences between Democratic and Republican administrations. Democratic Senators will vote for increases in the minimum wage -not because they are more sensitive than Republicans to the views of their poorer constituents, but on the basis of their ideological and partisan commitments. That is why Democratic administrations are twice as effective as Republican administrations in adopting policies that improve the economic conditions of the middle class, and six times more effective than Republican administrations in adopting policies that benefit the working class, especially in times when labor unions were effective political actors in Washington.
Professor Bartels took a dim view of how well people of various socio-economic classes view their long-term interests. For instance, Democrats, especially in the first years of their administrations, have been adopting policies that increase output and employment, even at the risk of some inflation - policies that clearly improve the conditions of working and middle class people. Until recent administrations, the Republicans typically began their administrations by seeking to restrain deficits, interest rates, and inflation: policies that benefit the wealthier classes, and only as they approach election years do they provide the economic stimuli necessary to increase employment and wages sufficiently to attract support from voters in the working and middle classes, who typically forget their earlier economic conditions and vote primarily on the basis of their current economic experience. However, well-to-do voters support Republican governments whose tax policies may not always be in accordance with their democratic values.
Thus many American voters, even those who vote and become politically informed, are disenfranchised by their relatively low incomes. The impact of economic inequality on the American political process is relatively simple, but it is unmitigated, and over the last forty years the disparity in incomes of the highest and lowest income-groups has been steadily increasing, more so than in comparable industrial Western nations.
Professor Bartels stressed urgency for campaign reform, as well as the attendant difficulties. More is needed than piecemeal reforms in the way campaigns are financed. A new system is necessary. To begin with, the market economy itself is profoundly shaped by politics. Secondly, our class system is becoming more rigid over time and offers less upward mobility, now, than many European democracies. Having a voice in politics does not make a difference to the formation of policies; it is their income group that determines the extent to which politicians will listen to constituents’ views. Furthermore, the segregation of the rich from the poor in American society undermines any possibility for mutual awareness and sympathy to affect the attitudes of the rich toward policies that would primarily benefit the poor.
One of Professor Bartels’ charts indicated that not since the 1920’s have we seen such extreme differences in the share of income between the proportion that goes to the top tiers of American society and that which is received by the lower tiers. As in the 1930’s, he concluded, so now in the next decade, we may well see a corresponding decline in these vast disparities of income between the top and bottom tiers of the American people. Professor Bartels said that we would have to wait to see whether or not the usual differences between the parties persists now that the bubble of the last few years has burst.
Respectfully submitted,
Juliana McIntyre Fenn
President Hansen reminded members that the next meeting, March 25th, marks the beginning of the spring session and will be held at the Friend’s Center, beginning at 10:15 AM. The speaker will be Philip Pettit, Professor of Politics and Human Values, Princeton University. His subject will be “How Scholarship Has Influenced Democracy in Spain.”
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker, Larry Bartels, the Donald E. Stokes Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and the Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton.
Drawing from his recently published book, Unequal Democracy, Professor Bartels addressed the political causes and consequences of economic inequality. His talk illustrated in detail that there is no “firewall” between political and economic factors in our society. They are, in fact, intertwined.
Primary among the political causes, Professor Bartels named the ideologies of political leaders, the policies of programs of particular administrations and the partisan loyalties of voters. Even well informed Republicans will support tax cuts that conflict with their more egalitarian and democratic loyalties if a Republican administration favors such cuts, whereas the more informed Democrats will be more likely than the less informed to oppose the same cuts. Republican and Democratic Senators are more divided by ideological differences than by their constituencies; the differences remain even between Republican and Democratic Senators from the same states who thus represent the same constituencies. While Senators from the two parties are very insensitive to working class views, but only moderately sensitive to the views of their middle class constituencies, they do differ markedly in their responsiveness to the views of their constituents with the highest incomes. In short, they are seeking support and fundraising!
The U.S. government offers far fewer protections against the dislocations and inequalities created by a global market place than do the governments of other developed nations.
Even within the U.S., however, there are marked differences between Democratic and Republican administrations. Democratic Senators will vote for increases in the minimum wage -not because they are more sensitive than Republicans to the views of their poorer constituents, but on the basis of their ideological and partisan commitments. That is why Democratic administrations are twice as effective as Republican administrations in adopting policies that improve the economic conditions of the middle class, and six times more effective than Republican administrations in adopting policies that benefit the working class, especially in times when labor unions were effective political actors in Washington.
Professor Bartels took a dim view of how well people of various socio-economic classes view their long-term interests. For instance, Democrats, especially in the first years of their administrations, have been adopting policies that increase output and employment, even at the risk of some inflation - policies that clearly improve the conditions of working and middle class people. Until recent administrations, the Republicans typically began their administrations by seeking to restrain deficits, interest rates, and inflation: policies that benefit the wealthier classes, and only as they approach election years do they provide the economic stimuli necessary to increase employment and wages sufficiently to attract support from voters in the working and middle classes, who typically forget their earlier economic conditions and vote primarily on the basis of their current economic experience. However, well-to-do voters support Republican governments whose tax policies may not always be in accordance with their democratic values.
Thus many American voters, even those who vote and become politically informed, are disenfranchised by their relatively low incomes. The impact of economic inequality on the American political process is relatively simple, but it is unmitigated, and over the last forty years the disparity in incomes of the highest and lowest income-groups has been steadily increasing, more so than in comparable industrial Western nations.
Professor Bartels stressed urgency for campaign reform, as well as the attendant difficulties. More is needed than piecemeal reforms in the way campaigns are financed. A new system is necessary. To begin with, the market economy itself is profoundly shaped by politics. Secondly, our class system is becoming more rigid over time and offers less upward mobility, now, than many European democracies. Having a voice in politics does not make a difference to the formation of policies; it is their income group that determines the extent to which politicians will listen to constituents’ views. Furthermore, the segregation of the rich from the poor in American society undermines any possibility for mutual awareness and sympathy to affect the attitudes of the rich toward policies that would primarily benefit the poor.
One of Professor Bartels’ charts indicated that not since the 1920’s have we seen such extreme differences in the share of income between the proportion that goes to the top tiers of American society and that which is received by the lower tiers. As in the 1930’s, he concluded, so now in the next decade, we may well see a corresponding decline in these vast disparities of income between the top and bottom tiers of the American people. Professor Bartels said that we would have to wait to see whether or not the usual differences between the parties persists now that the bubble of the last few years has burst.
Respectfully submitted,
Juliana McIntyre Fenn