Santorum’s Classless Society
“I’m not a class-warfare guy,” Santorum tells National Review Online in reaction to Pawlenty’s remarks. “That’s the Democrats’ gig. They like to divide and play the class card. We don’t have classes in America — I don’t even like the term ‘middle class.’ People are lower income or middle income, and the dynamism of this country is that you can rise, and sometimes fall, but you are not stuck in classes [bold mine-DL]. We should not get into that kind of rhetoric, or showing some sort of prejudice.” ~Robert Costa
This isn’t quite as detached from reality as Marco Rubio’s insistence that America is the only country in the world where social mobility exists, but it is wrong all the same. Santorum’s claim can be refuted just as easily as Rubio’s was when David Frum wrote:
The sad fact is that as best we can measure, present-day America offers less upward mobility than many other advanced countries, including Denmark, Germany, Canada and Australia.
I have no great confidence that Tim Pawlenty has better answers for how to increase upward mobility in America, and I am fairly sure that Pawlenty was merely engaging in the same kind of pseudo-economic populism that Huckabee deployed in the 2008 primaries, but it is simply untrue that there is no such thing as class in America or that one cannot be “stuck” in a class. To combat Pawlenty’s rather self-serving working-class identity politics, Santorum has chosen to take refuge in a fantasy world of the classless society. My guess is that Santorum’s remarks will be welcomed by many of the same people who are also cheering Angelo Codevilla’s manifesto for resentment, which advances the idea of a sharply bifurcated society in such stark language that it makes Jon Edwards’ “Two Americas” rhetoric seem mild and optimistic by comparison. Acknowledging that class exists and admitting that they are becoming more stratified rather than less does not mean that one needs to stoke resentment and conflict between classes, but if Republicans want to appeal to most Americans living in the country as it really exists they need to start recognizing how America has changed (in some part thanks to economic policies promoted by the GOP and other followers of neoliberalism).
Social and economic opportunity in America is significantly constrained by education, and the quality of education available to people from the lower and lower-middle classes tends to be worse, which generally works to reinforce that limited opportunity. This certainly doesn’t stop upward mobility all together, but it does make it much more difficult. Social and economic stratification is happening, reflected by growing income inequality, and it is being exacerbated by changes to the U.S. economy that are raising barriers to upward mobility and by the mass immigration of poorly educated, unskilled workers that are at risk of being trapped in a perpetual underclass. As Ross has discussed recently, the selection process at highly selective colleges and universities also tends to limit access for poor and working-class white students:
But what was striking, as Russell K. Nieli pointed out last week on the conservative Web site Minding the Campus, was which whites were most disadvantaged by the process: the downscale, the rural and the working-class.
In many respects, these ought to be constituencies whose interests Santorum would want to defend, since many of them also happen to be socially and culturally conservative, but he is so preoccupied with affirming America as a land without classes and brimming with boundless opportunity that he cannot move beyond the easy point-scoring against Pawlenty’s self-promotion to see this. These are constituencies that are poorly represented overall, they are scarcely represented at all by their Republican elected officials, and they respond favorably to conservatives who can appeal to both their social conservatism and their economic interests. They would be better-served if the politicians that claim to represent them followed Prof. Deneen’s advice in his recent TAC article:
The best way is to connect explicitly the massive inequalities fostered by the new meritocratic arrangements that Connecticut enjoys with the bleeding-heart claims of its own purported liberalism and thereby—like the prophets of old—call them to account.
Presumably, Santorum would be well-suited to making arguments linking family stability and education with social and economic opportunity, and he could return to some of the ideas about Catholic social obligation that made him an advocate for anti-poverty causes. Of course, that was before he started railing against “Islamic fascism” and became obsessed with the growing menace of Venezuela. It’s a shame that one of the few national Republicans who might have actually understood and appreciated the constructive arguments Patrick Deneen, Phillip Blond and our friends at Front Porch Republic have been making for stronger social obligations feels compelled to endorse such myths.
8 Responses to “Santorum’s Classless Society”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“the mass immigration of poorly educated, unskilled workers that are at risk of being trapped in a perpetual underclass”
Let me go out on a limb. If I had to pick the single greatest thing about America, it would be its centuries-long tradition of being able to take poorly educated, unskilled workers and enable their children to be middle class. That is what is no longer happening and this is due to both the deficiencies of our social and educational systems and the increased knowledge and skill needed to get a middle class job and keep it. My point is that immigration of poorly educated, unskilled workers is not in and of itself a significant cause of increasing stratification.
To raise even more of a ruckus, I also want to see some support for the contention that there is a “mass immigration of poorly educated, unskilled workers”. Is that the reality? Or another conservative delusion?
“My guess is that Santorum’s remarks will be welcomed by many of the same people who are also cheering Angelo Codevilla’s manifesto for resentment, which advances the idea of a sharply bifurcated society in such stark language that it makes Jon Edwards’ “Two Americas” rhetoric seem mild and optimistic by comparison.”
Codevilla’s essay is overdone as will be any attempt to reduce something complex into two sharply defined categories. Plus his alleged Straussianism seeps through at times. (The ruling class is anti-egalitarian and the country class is egalitarian? What?) But that said, there is much truth in his characterizations of the ruling class. Just read the Heilbrunn article. It oozes contempt for us flyover country rubes.
I suspect that most of those who make up the country class, unless they are heavily invested in a certain type of bootstrap Republicanism ideology, will find Santorum’s affirmations to be meaningless drivel.
As for Douthat’s column, I’ll let this post speak for itself.
I really want to discuss Prof. Deneen’s article. First, the quote, the all-too-often-pithy-last-sentence-of-an-essay, doesn’t make much sense unless you’ve read the article. But even after reading, it’s hard to understand and even harder to agree with.
The whole essay takes Thomas Frank’s Kansas contrivance and flips it for Connecticut: “Highly educated and affluent voters whose parents or grandparents were stalwarts of the GOP now seemingly vote against their own economic interests by favoring Democratic candidates.” Besides the obvious post-Civil War and Civil Rights era dynamic of regions switching between red and blue, and accepting the gross generalization about Connecticut voters, are limousine liberals really voting against their economic interests?
My quick answer is no. A few extra percentage points on the top income tax rate – or even taxing capital gains as regular income – is not going to significantly harm rich lefties. And if the increased revenue goes to things like infrastructure, education, and health care, their lives will likely be better.
But Deneen ignores the big picture, instead focusing on welfare. Oh boy, here we go again. First he cites a demonizing of the meritocracy (rich liberals), who are “defined by rootlessness, cosmopolitanism, a thin sense of obligation, and diminishing reservoirs of patriotism.” (doesn’t anybody remember those first two descriptors mean something rather specific? or is this intentional?) This source also praises the former aristocracy for its “reciprocal obligation.” Ugh.
Then Florida-Putnam social science is over-interpreted, although I’d be interested in knowing what are “the economic benefits of loose ties.” Finally, Deneen’s own words:
“Inclined toward individualism and a devotion to personal expression and development, and committed especially to success in their careers, members of the meritocracy rely not on each other for assistance and support, but rather expect the government to fill in the abandoned civic sphere. Thus their decision to support liberal politicians is a classic case of recognizing opportunity costs: rather than generating their own social capital, which would detract from their careers and their lifestyle experimentation, they are willing to use relatively ample economic resources to get someone else to do the job.”
Anybody here agree with this? Then White Guilt (meritocratic version), the Junior League and noblesse oblige. Double ugh. To top this, he says Kansans “inchoately recognize that expanding government is a desideratum of the Creative Class.” Well, maybe. But they sure as hell don’t recognize that as meaningful.
The core argument Deneen makes is limousine liberals are rightly guilty about their meritocratic success, but not ashamed of giving money (through taxes) to help alleviate the less fortunate. His solution? (as if this needs a solution) The Kansans should call them on it:
“And even as citizens of Red States enjoy substantial federal largesse, they are at least surrounded by enough residual social capital to recognize that there is a better way. Theirs is a deep resentment born not of status envy but of a disgust that arises from allowing the irresponsible to buy off their bad consciences.”
And just before the last sentence, “Kansas needs to stop allowing Connecticut to pay a middleman to assuage its guilt.” What?
NS –
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acs-10.pdf
Check out the table on page 3, “Characteristics of the Civilian Labor Force in the United States by Nativity and
Citizenship Status: 2007″.
Over 60% of foreign-born, non-citizen workers are between the ages of 25 and 44; almost 40% have no high school diploma, and 74% have less than a college degree. It’s fair to call this set of people “poorly educated”, and to presume that, given their age, they’re not going to advance.
If you’re concerned about foreign-born naturalized citizens as well, then the numbers seem to be a lot better. To quote from the report, “Citizenship among the foreign born
correlates with educational attainment.”
http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/publications/YrBk09Na.shtm
Homeland Security has a bunch of data, but I’m not sure if it can be pieced together to form anything meaningful about how many TOTAL foreign-born workers, both citizen & not, have come to the country.
Some fuzzy numbers:
http://www.cis.org/noncitizen_voting_primer.html#34
From Center for Immigration Studies:
“The March 2007 Current Population Survey, conducted by the Census Bureau, reported that there were about 20.2 million adult non-citizens in the country, about half of whom are believed (based on other research) to be illegal immigrants.”
If you believe that number, then you can use that as a basis for comparison. I’m sure if you look around, there’s a way to find out what the number was in 2000 or 1995, and whether this constitutes a major increase in the number of non-citizens in the country.
Thanks, DD. Figure 1 from the Census says a lot to me. The percent of foreign born in the labor force has varied from 5% to 20%, we’re on the upswing in 2007 at 16%, but the recession will almost certainly cause that to be a high point for a while. That’s real general, context providing, but still important. There were 24 million foreign born workers, from illegal immigrants recently over the southern border to 60 year old doctors from Pakistan whose family fled the partition.
If you’re a data miner, what I would really like to see is even a rough estimate of the number of immigrants coming through the southern border, legally or not, each year. (a reasonable proxy for uneducated, unskilled immigrants) Versus the number of citizens entering the work force each year.
[...] has a good analysis of the stupidity of Rick Santorum’s latest pitch, which celebrates the upward mobility of Americans with a bunch of feel-good, rah-rah, false [...]
@ n. shooter…glad you did most of the heavy lifting on debunking that dennen piece….falls apart pretty quick if you disagree with the definition of “social capital” he uses….also, voting for the party whose tax policy you agree with can’t really be “voting against your own interests”…the thing about that last sentence you cite…i suspect the “meritocracy” funds safety nets they desire thru local taxes…sales tax, property tax, sin tax…etc…kansas isn’t paying for those mechanisms….besides ks is a net gain state with federal tax allocations while ct is a net loss state
Found this from the New Yorker:
“[Illegal immigrant apprehensions] are sharply down, according to the Border Patrol—by more than sixty per cent since 2000, to 550,000 apprehensions last year, the lowest figure in 35 years. Illegal immigration, although hard to measure, has clearly been declining. The southern border, far from being “unsecured,” is in better shape than it has been for years—better managed and less porous. It has been the beneficiary of security-budget increases since September 11th, which have helped slow the pace of illegal entries, if not as dramatically as the economic crash did. Violent crime, though rising in Mexico, has fallen this side of the border: in Southwestern border counties it has dropped more than 30% in the past two decades. It’s down in Senator McCain’s Arizona. According to F.B.I. statistics, the four safest big cities in the United States—San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso, and Austin—are all in border states.”
“[A]nti-immigrant backlashes don’t always track closely with actual immigration. They track with unemployment, popular anxiety, and a fear of displacement by strangers. They depend on woeful narratives of national decline, of which there is lately no shortage. Scaremongering works. Even as illegal immigration is falling, recent CBS/Times polls show that the number of respondents who consider immigration a “very serious problem” is rising—from 54% in 2006 to 65% this May.”