According to Pierson, how has the increasing concentration of wealth impacted U.S. political elections since 1970?
Week 13 Day 1 Discussion Question 5
May 4, 2018 | 2 Comments
Class, Culture, Representation
May 4, 2018 | 2 Comments
According to Pierson, how has the increasing concentration of wealth impacted U.S. political elections since 1970?
April 29, 2019 at 10:55 am
In the article, Pierson describes many ways in which the increasing concentration of wealth has impacted political elections. One of main ways is regard to campaign spending, “The top 0.01 per cent of campaign contributors accounted for 10–15 percent of donations to federal campaigns in the early 1980s; by 2012 that figure was 40 per cent, and it would likely be much higher if indirect ‘dark money’ contributions were included.” Clearly, wealth is significantly playing a role in elections. Many of the elites at the top lean towards the extremes, so by contributing large sums of money to a campaign, they will be able to have some influence within the White House. One example that Pierson gives of this is “The ‘Koch network’ of multi-millionaires and billionaires has devoted unprecedented resources to building a virtual shadow party. That network is dedicated, above all, to extremely conservative economic policies.” This is just one example of how wealth can play a significant role within the political system.
When it came time to select people for high-level positions, Trump selected many people who were very wealthy such as Steven Mnuchin, Linda McMahon, and Betsy DeVos. This represents how those with money can gain significant power and be put in these high level positions and sometimes they may even be highly unqualified for the position, as well. Lastly, Trump’s policymaking has only added to the notion of wealth impacting elections and the presidency. Trump has “pursued, or supported, an agenda that is extremely friendly to large corporations, wealthy families, and well-positioned rent-seekers.” This stands in stark contrast to the fact that Trump wanted to pursue a budget that was “devastating to the same rural and moderate-income communities that helped him win office.” The rhetoric that Trump used during the campaign to appeal to the common voter is completely different than the policymaking that has gone on during his time as President.
April 29, 2019 at 8:44 am
In his article, Pierson describes the “out-sized influence of the wealthy” which exists within American populism and U.S. political rhetoric and elections (since 1970). The increasing concentration of wealth directly plays into the appeal to different policies— which plays an obviously huge role in the outcome and narrative of political elections and the followers of politicians. Pierson writes about Trump’s appeal: “On the big economic issues of axes, spending and regulation— ones that have animated conservative elites for a generation— he has pursued, or supported, an agenda that is extremely friendly to large corporations, wealthy families, and well-positioned rent-seekers. His budgetary policies will, if enacted, be devastating to the same rural and moderate-income communities that helped him win office (S107). I think this is extremely important when thinking of the impact of wealth, because, when thinking of class, wealth plays a role into many other aspects of social class. Social class and demographic play a huge role in the different followings of political leaders for different reasons, and the general education of “the wealthy” relative to moderate-income communities who may have voted for Trump because they wanted extreme change, is vital in thinking about who actually knows what may be the outcome of the actual policies, rather than just similar viewpoints. Like Pierson says, Trump himself was an outsider— when we were discussing the most unhappy social class across the country as white, low-income Americans, these people may have felt like outsiders as well. This has a huge impact on American elections, because these outsiders 1. will feel like Trump may be a voice if they believe he is an outsider as well, and 2. want extreme change, because they have felt forgotten, so will vote for an “extreme.” The general concentration of wealth has only worsened this instance, because as the wealthy are only getting wealthier (like we discussed, 1% of Americans having 40% of the nation’s wealth) more and more people are dropping below the poverty line, more and more people are feeling forgotten and unhappy, and thus more people, as time has gone on, will vote for the extreme— whatever that may be. And as we saw in the most recent election, this is what it may be.