Harold's Left:

There is an important trend happening in American politics. Paul Krugman, noted progressive economist and thinker, explains in his wonderful book Conscience of a Liberal that part of the reason that America has not been nearly as progressive in initiatives like health care and corporate regulation as Western Europe and Japan is because America has a fixation with race that has hindered this growth. It's an interesting proposition. Krugman basically says that the reason whites in the Mid West, Appalachia, and the Deep South have continued to vote against candidates who support policies to help poor and working class Americans is because many people have been convinced by the right-wing communication machine that supporting working class rights is supporting minority advancement.

A classic example of this was in the early 1980's when President Ronald Reagan illustrated the blame for the cause of what he called the "welfare state'. He said that there was essentially some over-weight, under-educated black woman in Chicago who was popping out kids and living off you (you of course means the blue-collar white). He called this notion the "Welfare Queen". Since then, and perhaps before that, there has been this intrinsic part of conservative politics that plays on the fears of some whites that if they support social programs they are underhandedly supporting minorities and more importantly; they are supporting lazy folks who do not deserve their tax dollars.

If you are a Republican strategist, it is a brilliant policy, and perhaps a necessary one. A policy that is at the underbelly of some of the dissent against health care reform. So I have been asking myself: Why are Americans willing to pay over 800 trillion dollars for an illegitimate war in Iraq, but yet willing to listen to the nickel-and-diming of the Right on health care reform? Now, an important caveat is that when I say "willing to pay" regarding Iraq, I don't say that because Americans were supportive of the war, I say that because you almost never heard politicians nickel-and-diming it's appropriation. So, based on that here are a couple of important things to think about: One is that much of the criticism one would hear on health care reform from the average person is that "I don't want to pay to help someone else". This notion poses an interesting quandary. Why is it that folks are willing to spend bundles of money to help folks in far corners of the world with their tax dollars and the lives of their sons and daughters, but are not willing to help fellow Americans. Many, including Krugman and myself, would argue that there has been a consistent and effective attempt in the U.S. to link social help to helping the lazy "welfare queen". Secondly, history shows that money has been used as a way to traditionally support the nixing of social progress. Many who attempted to look unbiased in the 1800's argued that the American economy was too tied to slavery and would fail without it. Many argued that opening public places to blacks in the South would drive away the very white customers who made them successful and would end up costing the American economy money. And when MLK day was argued in the Senate the bigots used the loss of an American workday as a justification for not honoring his contribution.

In the present we see a growing trend of whites moving away from progressive politics. As many of us discussed this summer, the Republican party has used the election of a black president and his promotion of social programs as an interesting way to make the racial divide a growing part of our political future.

Share this: |Digg | Twitter | Technorati | Del.icio.us | StumbleUpon | Facebook |  Edit Post