In the 2008 presidential campaign, senator Edwards used to talk constantly about two Americas, one that was well off and one that was struggling. His campaign flopped, but that does not mean his analysis was wrong. In truth, though, Edwards' analysis of the country was incomplete; there are a lot more than just two Americas. Here are the main three groups:
1. There's the America of the well off, well educated people who run companies, teach at universities, and live very comfortable lives.
2. There's the America of the people with high school or some college education who struggle each day to earn enough to keep themselves and their families fed, clothed, housed and happy. It's not that these people are starving; rather, it's that for them things have been getting tougher, not easier. When jobs are lost to overseas competition, it's these people who get hit. When prices for health insurance rise, it's these people who get hit, the ones who earn too much to get subsidized but who earn too little to pay for the increase easily.
3. There's the America of people who are and have been poor, the people who rely on the government and government help to survive each day.
The strange thing about these three groups is that the wealthy, highly educated and the very poor support Hillary Clinton, while those in the middle who are struggling support Trump. The margins for each candidate in these three communities are quite large; they are not split evenly. How can it be that the candidate of the rich (Hillary) is also the candidate of the poor? It seems to come down to different perceptions group by group. The wealthy and well educated are not feeling the squeeze right now. The Obama years have been good for them; nearly all the increase in wealth across America under Obama has gone to the richest ten percent of the population. These people understand that Hillary will continue Obama's policies and that those policies will continue to enrich them. Also, because they are in good shape, they worry about the tone of things that the candidates might say rather than considering the content; it's a luxury that comes with affluence. The people in the middle who are being squeezed would like very much to regain a share of the growth of the US economy. Obama's policies have lost this group jobs, income and a chance for a better future. They don't want those policies to continue, so they opt for Trump. The last group, the poor, select Hillary because they accept her statements of concern for them (even if she has no record of ever doing anything to help them.) This is a group that has been conditioned to expect the Democrat to care for them, and they continue to vote for Democrats as a result.
The reality is that with Hillary, we will have the wealthy running things for their own benefit with just enough being done to make it seem that they care about the poor.
1. There's the America of the well off, well educated people who run companies, teach at universities, and live very comfortable lives.
2. There's the America of the people with high school or some college education who struggle each day to earn enough to keep themselves and their families fed, clothed, housed and happy. It's not that these people are starving; rather, it's that for them things have been getting tougher, not easier. When jobs are lost to overseas competition, it's these people who get hit. When prices for health insurance rise, it's these people who get hit, the ones who earn too much to get subsidized but who earn too little to pay for the increase easily.
3. There's the America of people who are and have been poor, the people who rely on the government and government help to survive each day.
The strange thing about these three groups is that the wealthy, highly educated and the very poor support Hillary Clinton, while those in the middle who are struggling support Trump. The margins for each candidate in these three communities are quite large; they are not split evenly. How can it be that the candidate of the rich (Hillary) is also the candidate of the poor? It seems to come down to different perceptions group by group. The wealthy and well educated are not feeling the squeeze right now. The Obama years have been good for them; nearly all the increase in wealth across America under Obama has gone to the richest ten percent of the population. These people understand that Hillary will continue Obama's policies and that those policies will continue to enrich them. Also, because they are in good shape, they worry about the tone of things that the candidates might say rather than considering the content; it's a luxury that comes with affluence. The people in the middle who are being squeezed would like very much to regain a share of the growth of the US economy. Obama's policies have lost this group jobs, income and a chance for a better future. They don't want those policies to continue, so they opt for Trump. The last group, the poor, select Hillary because they accept her statements of concern for them (even if she has no record of ever doing anything to help them.) This is a group that has been conditioned to expect the Democrat to care for them, and they continue to vote for Democrats as a result.
The reality is that with Hillary, we will have the wealthy running things for their own benefit with just enough being done to make it seem that they care about the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment