TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
02.11.2008
McCain, Redistribution, and "Welfare"

Ross Douthat scratches his head wondering why the McCain campaign is "pinning their hopes on a working-class backlash against the progressive income tax" in Pennsylvania. Ross thinks the answer is incompetence. Maybe he's right, and the McCain campaign is unaware of, say, polls showing that Americans favor Obama's tax hike on the rigch or years of evidence showing that Americans by overwhelming margins believe that wealth should be distributed more evenly.

But the more likely possibility seems to be that the McCain campaign is not monumentally stupid, and is trying to play on fears that Obama will take money from whites and give it to blacks. Hence McCain's claims that Obama plans on "taking from one group of Americans and giving to another," that Obama would turn the IRS into "a giant welfare agency," and his television ads repeatedly flashing the word "welfare" to describe Obama's plans.

Certainly, Pennsylvanians seem to see McCain's argument here as something other than an attack on the principle of progressivity in taxation. The Boston Globe reports:

Still, there remains a deep distrust of big government programs here, and strong skepticism about Obama. A number of voters feared he would transfer wealth from the middle class to help people "who don't work" or who don't deserve it. ...

McCain's focus on casting Obama as the wealth "redistributor in chief" is hard to miss around here these days. In coffee shops and convenience stores, Republican radio ads repeatedly warn that "congressional liberals" want to raise taxes and increase spending by $1 trillion. "They call it taxing the rich; we call it out of touch with our values," the narrator says.

Chris Borick, a political science professor and director of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion in Allentown, said his tracking polls for the Morning Call newspaper of Allentown suggest that so far, McCain's argument is not working - voters believe McCain would help the rich while Obama would help the middle class.

The concept of wealth redistribution is as unpopular here as it is in most of America, Borick said, and the notion may play on racist fears of black welfare recipients siphoning money from working-class whites - fears that have special resonance since Obama is black.

Note that both the Gallup poll I cited and Borick say that "wealth redistribution" is historically unpopular. That's exactly because the phrase plays on fears of taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor, especially minorities. When the idea is phrased in terms of takign from the rich and giving to the middle class -- which happens to be exactly what Obama is proposing -- then it becomes extremely popular. McCain's line of attack here only makes sense as an attempt to misportray Obama's tax plan as redistribution from middle- and working-class whites. Again, maybe McCain is just doing something completely stupid, but that wouldn't be my bet.

McCain has been accused of playing upon racism many times where the accusation is a stretch. (Though conservatives are overly sensitive here, as what often happens is that one blogger or columnist makes an accusation that does not gain any broader traction among liberals or Democrats.) But this case seems pretty blatant, and in this instance, Ross's habit of taking Republican campaigns on topics like crime and welfare purely at face value is not serving him well.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:11 PM with 14 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

JEFF FREY said:

I think the tie to welfare is not exactly race-based, but definitely plays on the stereotype of the black welfare mother popping out kids to get a bigger welfare check. But we have not heard about that stereotype since the mid-1990s, with the big welfare reform. So I think McCain's argument would have gotten more traction 15 years ago, perhaps another sign that he is behind the times.

His argument is also undermined by the fact that Obama is actually proposing a tax cut for the people who are most susceptible to that sort of argument. So Mr. Redistributer-in-chief is actually proposing to take less of their money in taxes, which makes the argument a lot less scary.

November 2, 2008 11:46 PM

JEFF FREY said:

I think the tie to welfare is not exactly race-based, but definitely plays on the stereotype of the black welfare mother popping out kids to get a bigger welfare check. But we have not heard about that stereotype since the mid-1990s, with the big welfare reform. So I think McCain's argument would have gotten more traction 15 years ago, perhaps another sign that he is behind the times.

His argument is also undermined by the fact that Obama is actually proposing a tax cut for the people who are most susceptible to that sort of argument. So Mr. Redistributer-in-chief is actually proposing to take less of their money in taxes, which makes the argument a lot less scary.

November 3, 2008 1:26 AM

psantillana said:

JEFF, the tie to welfare is totally race based, it always is, and regardless of whether it works with enough people, or whether it's undermined by the actual truth, that's what this is. Have you listened to Joe the Plumber? Find and watch, if you can stand to, his interview with Diane Sawyer. He makes no sense at all. This is not about logic. This is about resentment of black people. It's their fault.

November 3, 2008 2:55 AM

harriscrl3 said:

McCain is banking on RACISM to win. Not his ideas not his vision not his policies RACISM. From the COuntry first Guy doesnt it make you tingly all over. Well if he manages to pull this out I know one thing this country will continue to DECLINE and you know what it would DESERVE to.

Carol

November 3, 2008 7:13 AM

icarusr said:

This is called cognitive dissonance on the part of Douthat: all the information that comes in that points to one direction, and one direction only, is dismissed, in favour of an explanation that kinda half makes sense.  Yes, McCain is incompetent and Schmidt has proven to have a tin ear, but having said that, they also know Republican dirty tricks and slimy campaigning - and they have been running it from day.  

Simply put, "tax and spend liberal" isn't working any more; so you need a new bogeyman.  And JEFF, you're right that we have not heard about "welfare queen" since the 90s, but then it was not an issue: Bubba defanged it, and in 2000 the economy was too good for anyone to notice.  But in the midst of an economic crisis, the McCain campaign is no better than the campaign Reagan ran on this score.

November 3, 2008 7:45 AM

lsernoff said:

Racism?  Let's go back to that 2001 interview of Obama's.  He talked about wealth re-distribution in the context of the civil rights movement, noting that any such redistribution would have to come from legislative action, not judicial action.  Whom do you think he had in mind?  The white middle class?

Wealth re-distribution is a legitimate topic for consideration by voters.  Obama raised the issue, through his formal tax proposals, and through the quip that gave Joe the plumber his fifteen minutes of fame.  To brand any push-back as inherently racist is to deny the right to respond at all.

That said, I note for the umpteenth and last time on this site, that much of the hooplah has been about whether or not to raise the top income tax rate four points back to 39%.  Not exactly the stuff of revolution or reaction.   Adding a supplemental FICA tax solely on high earners to finance a higher earned income credit for low earners is another story.  My prediction: it will never happen.  Why?  Because it actually goes to re-distribution, not just progressivity, and alters a program which nearly all Americans want left as-is.  

November 3, 2008 9:15 AM

The Plank said:

Don't Worry, Obama's Got This , By Noam Scheiber Why McCain's Last Stand Indulges White Voters'

November 3, 2008 10:26 AM

JEFF FREY said:

I agree that there has always been a strong racial undercurrent to any discussion of welfare, and that the demonization of welfare recipients is based on racial appeals. But I won't go so far as to say that criticizing welfare is all about race. Either way, it is an argument that worked 20 years ago and will not work today.

(Sorry for the double posting above -- I got an error page the first time).

November 3, 2008 10:53 AM

Rhubarbs said:

The truth about McCain and redistribution: McCain wants to impose $1,000 in higher taxes on the average American family in order to finance $150,000 in tax cuts for John McCain's family. McCain is for wealth redistribution -- out of your pockets and mine and into his own bank account, like some petty African dictator.

Country club first!

November 3, 2008 11:09 AM

witman said:

I'm siding with lsernoff on this one.  Chait offers nothing to support his accusation.   If you're going to accuse someone of something as serious as racism, you better come with something other than that the person used the word "welfare" to describe someone else's self-described policy of income redistribution.

"But this case seems pretty blatant..."   Yes,I'm sure it does to someone who is "over sensitive."  

November 3, 2008 11:15 AM

ironyroad said:

It seems that the whole debate about redistribution would be a lot better if Republicans admitted that governments tax and redistribute all the time, including taxing to provide goods and services that the private sector can't or won't.  The question then becomes, what is a fair equation for taxation and redistribution.  There's a big difference between a concept of redistribution that imagines your money being taken and "given" to other people and one that imagines your money being taken and used for, say infrastructural improvements or any of the other things government does in order that a society function at all (education, environment, law enforcement, scientific research, defense etc).  Part of the reason the conservative argument often sounds so shrill and off-target is that they don't seem to understand that we have to pay for stuff that we all use (e.g. the interstate) and that only works if the people who get more pony up a bit more.

November 3, 2008 11:41 AM

satyendra said:

Like it or not McCain has harped on Obama's "spread the wealth" remark with some success.  Which makes me wonder if it effectively constitutes a mini-gaffe for Obama.  He could have omitted that phrase altogether from his 3rd debate, he had already adequately explained his tax program.  He overexplained.

The other day I saw his exchange with Joe Plumber.  I thought Obama was too complicated for Joe Plumber.  It was nice of him to sit Joe Plumber down for five minutes or so of his time, however, I think he lost Joe in the process.  When Joe claimed his plumbing business could have made $250K a year, Obama should have immediately asked if that was gross receipts or revenue.  Given that it appears to be gross receipts, Obama should have simply reassured the Joe that he wouldn't have to pay new taxes, would get a tax cut, etc.

On another thread someone posted an astute comment that when you're in sales, it turns prospects off when you go negative on competitors' products, even if true.  Another sales maxim is to Keep It Simple Stupid.  Don't overexplain like Obama.

November 3, 2008 11:50 AM

kevincollins said:

I think he should've told 'ol Joe that he probably would need to get a frigging plumber's license and pay his back taxes before trying to start a supposed quarter-million business.

November 3, 2008 3:33 PM

satyendra said:

Kevin, you raise a good point, not in terms of Obama winning a vote, of course, but I'd imagine that you would have to be licensed to run a business, even if in OH you don't have to have a license to be a residential plumbing employee.  And of course clear up your back taxes.

I don't understand why OH wouldn't require a license for residential plumbing.  We got a new toilet last year.  If the plumber failed to install it properly, and sewage leaked to the apt. below, who's responsible?

I was originally reluctant to talk to much about Joe Plumber, because I thought he was thrust into the spotlight.  Now that he seeks it, it's clear he's a moron.

November 3, 2008 3:44 PM