OpenLeft: Racial Divisions vs. Public Social Spending

[marmar]

Racial Divisions vs. Public Social Spending
by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:00


This is a follow-up to my diary yesterday, "Obama Quandary Comes Into Sharper Focus: Part Two, Economic Substance", in which I faulted Michael Lind for misperceiving the role of race in the story of New Deal liberalism. But I originally began pulling it together several months ago. I was too slow to catch the window I was original aiming for, and now a new window has opened for it. A follow-up diary will look at the related phenomena of how attitudes towards blacks influence attitudes towards social spending.

In his diary "The Public Option and The Grand Arc Of American Politics", Chris presented data showing US social spending is roughly comparable to most other advanced industrial nations, but that a good chunk of ours is private, rather than public. He went on to write:

It is not a coincidence that United States public sector social spending stalled at around the same time that the modern conservative coalition came together under Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 (we are still living under this coalition even now, but forty years of demographic changes have made the Nixon coalition a national minority). While we wanted more social services, we eschewed increasing our public sector social spending over the last 30-35 years because we didn't want that social spending to go to everyone. More specifically, the majority of the country wanted more social services, but the white majority didn't want to pay for social services for racial and ethnic minorities. As such, we continued to increase social spending, but we did so in the private sector, where people had to pay on their own, rather than in the public sector, where people collectively paid for each other.

Although a bit over-simplified--since another factor was our WWII-vintage system of health-care, retirement and other fringe benefits in the industrial sector, the point Chris makes here is an important one, which deserves to be backed up with additional information about the extent to which racial & ethinc divisions undercut social solidarity & thus, support for an inclusive welfare state. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.openleft.com/diary/13466/racial-divisions-vs-public-social-spending

[hfojvt]

1. that's interesting but they may have missed two factors

One is weak unions and second is anti-communism. I learned from an early age that the Commies were our enemies. Thus, to be a socialist or a communist, or even too far to the left (far enough to become a 'fellow traveller') is not just a minority position, it is borderline treason.

Second, with weak unions and low wages a generous welfare state competes with the minimum wage. As the real value of the minimum wage dropped in the 1970s then a generous welfare state looks like an insult to the working class. If the difference between welfare and work is only $200 a month, then working people become a little bit jealous of other people they know who have almost the same income, but don't have to work at a disgusting job.

[hfojvt]

2. kick for information n/t