The health care debate has exposed the ideological tension in Barack Obama’s political coalition between moderates and liberals. But it has also offered hints of how another, less obvious divide built into the Democratic majority could wreak havoc on the administration during the years to come.
In 2008, the Democratic Party blossomed into a successful alliance of the upscale and the downscale--wealthy and needy marching hand in hand, sharing animosity to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The extent to which Democrats are relying on the far extremes of the income spectrum is striking. Democrats have generally performed well among low-income voters in the past, but now, the phenomenon has become more pronounced. Voters from households making less than $30,000 backed Obama by 31 points last November. That margin was 13 points higher than Jimmy Carter’s advantage over Gerald Ford with poor voters in 1976--and 21 points better than Walter Mondale’s advantage among the same demographic in 1984.
Democratic gains among the rich have been even more dramatic and, given the party’s history, surprising. Carter in 1976 and Mondale in 1984 were crushed by the wealthiest voters. Obama, by contrast, actually carried those making $200,000 or more by 6 points. True, these very affluent voters make up only 6 percent of the electorate, but Obama fared well in other upper-income categories too. Among non-Southern white voters--that is, voters living in states a Democrat must carry or have a shot at carrying to win an election--Obama claimed a majority of those making $80,000 or more. And this group makes up over 30 percent of the electorate outside the South.
Obama needed this strong showing at opposite ends of the income spectrum because he was far weaker in the middle. The two previous Democratic victors, Carter and Bill Clinton, won moderate-income voters--Carter in 1976 by 5.7 points and Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by an average of 6.5 points. Obama merely split these voters with John McCain.
If the president’s top priority were foreign affairs, the sharp class dichotomy in his coalition might not be so significant. But his agenda has clear class implications: universal health care aimed at helping the uninsured; stimulus spending heavily oriented toward the unemployed; and a financial bailout that aided Wall Street while enraging lower-income voters. And so, while the rich-poor alliance was enough to get Obama to the White House, there is reason to wonder how long--or how well--a coalition divided so sharply along economic lines can survive the process of governing.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (2)
Just to put the clash between the liberals and the moderates in the Democratic party in perspective lets not leave out the thing the "moderate" Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly share in common:
Here are the top 5 campaign contributor profiles of the Finance Committee members noted in the NYT article today [on the public option collapse] who voted against both public option proposals:
Democrats:
Blanche Lincoln:
Lawyers/Law Firms $868,538 Health Professionals $760,112 Crop Production & Basic Processing $594,727 Securities & Investment $562,390 INSURANCE $504,383
Max Baucus:
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,603,523 Securities & Investment $1,478,035 INSURANCE $1,196,463 Health Profe ... view full comment
Just to put the clash between the liberals and the moderates in the Democratic party in perspective lets not leave out the thing the "moderate" Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly share in common:
Here are the top 5 campaign contributor profiles of the Finance Committee members noted in the NYT article today [on the public option collapse] who voted against both public option proposals:
Democrats:
Blanche Lincoln:
Lawyers/Law Firms $868,538 Health Professionals $760,112 Crop Production & Basic Processing $594,727 Securities & Investment $562,390 INSURANCE $504,383
Max Baucus:
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,603,523 Securities & Investment $1,478,035 INSURANCE $1,196,463 Health Professionals $1,039,276 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $756,205
Tom Carper:
Lawyers/Law Firms $736,716 INSURANCE $467,944 Commercial Banks $456,712 Securities & Investment $372,617 Finance/Credit Companies $332,982
Republicans:
Orren Hatch:
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $1,325,124 Lawyers/Law Firms $1,221,121 INSURANCE $672,557 Securities & Investment $643,195 Health Professionals $542,244
Charles Grassley:
INSURANCE $948,024 Health Professionals $927,839 Lawyers/Law Firms $580,743 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $503,080 Lobbyists $493,521
Tom Ensign:
Casinos/Gambling $1,330,585 Health Professionals $984,936 Real Estate $774,623 INSURANCE $629,466 Leadership PACs $594,519
george:
So, how much of this reflects a genuine debate about a "principled" relationship between government and health care?
Some, sure. But not the card on top of the stacked deck.
Edsall:
If the president’s top priority were foreign affairs, the sharp class dichotomy in his coalition might not be so significant. But his agenda has clear class implications: universal health care aimed at helping the uninsured; stimulus spending heavily oriented toward the unemployed; and a financial bailout that aided Wall Street while enraging lower-income voters.
george:
Are we to believe that with respect to both foreign and economic policy [domestic and global] there is not a ruling class consensus about where the line is [by and large] to be drawn?
Yes, there are obvious political and tactical conflicts. But strategic....never.
After all, what about that $17,500,000,000,000 Obama/Democratic Congress bailout to Wall Street?
Nomi Prins and Christopher Hayes at Nation magazine:
....when the government became Wall Street's bank, it wasn't just $700 billion of TARP money that flew north to Wall Street. TARP was but a small fraction (roughly 4 percent) of the full $17.5 trillion bailout and subsidization of the financial sector.
george:
What is the fiscal stimulus plan next to that?
On the other hand, as long as left liberals continue to be as bathetically ineffectual in organizing a grass roots campaign against the Obama sellout then, as with the insurance industry absent the public option, what incentive does Obama have to change anything? What is the alternative for the "enraged" voters----going back to the Repblicans? Once again the rich and the powerful are comfortably enscounced in the catbird seat in Washington. And a few us were not at all surprised [let alone shocked] by the Obama "cave-in" to Wall Street.
Or, as Edsall notes, throwing the dart right in the bullseye:
During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and PACs associated with the securities and investment industry gave $88.6 million to Democrats and $67.5 million to the party of big business. The single biggest recipient of these donations was the president, whose campaign raked in $14.8 million. The influence of this faction seemed discernible in Obama’s handling of the Wall Street crisis.
george:
And, again, they are no less deeply embedded in the health care industry's pocket as well.
But rather than, as Edsall does, focus on "class division" within the Democratic party as the most important factor undoing progressive legislation, it is the overarching class unity between Wall Street, Congress and the White House [both Democrats and Republicans] that is still by far the more pervasive factor in derailing the "public option"---regarding any big-ticket "reforms".
I just don't see it as a "problem" for the Democrats so much as a solution for Wall Street. Only when Obama faces that strong grass roots surge from the left is there likely to be any real change. And as long as that is not forthcoming [and it appears nowhere on the horizon] Wall Street knows full well that a Demcratic loss is just another Republican gain. And I'm sure they are quaking in their boots at the prospect of that.
george walton
d/a/julian
Correction:
Tom Carper voted against the first PO proposal, but voted for the second.
The Democrat who joined Lincoln and Baucus in voting against both was Kent Conrad:
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,039,407
INSURANCE $838,787
Health Professionals $626,932
Securities & Investment $603,324
Crop Production & Basic Processing $430,707
sorry about that.
g.
Correction:
Tom Carper voted against the first PO proposal, but voted for the second.
The Democrat who joined Lincoln and Baucus in voting against both was Kent Conrad:
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,039,407
INSURANCE $838,787
Health Professionals $626,932
Securities & Investment $603,324
Crop Production & Basic Processing $430,707
sorry about that.
g.