The Cash Ceiling

Why Only the Rich Run for Office--and What We Can Do about It

Nicholas Carnes

• Editorial: Princeton University Press
• Año: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780691184203
• Categoría: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Categoría: Campagne ed elezioni politiche

Why working-class Americans almost never become politicians, what that means for democracy, and what reformers can do about it Why are Americans governed by the rich? Millionaires make up only three percent of the public but control all three branches of the federal government. How did this happen? What stops lower-income and working-class Americans from becoming politicians? The first book to answer these urgent questions, The Cash Ceiling provides a compelling and comprehensive account of why so few working-class people hold office—and what reformers can do about it.Using extensive data on candidates, politicians, party leaders, and voters, Nicholas Carnes debunks popular misconceptions (like the idea that workers are unelectable or unqualified to govern), identifies the factors that keep lower-class Americans off the ballot and out of political institutions, and evaluates a variety of reform proposals.In the United States, Carnes shows, elections have a built-in "cash ceiling, " a series of structural barriers that make it almost impossible for the working-class to run for public office. Elections take a serious toll on candidates, many working-class Americans simply can't shoulder the practical burdens, and civic and political leaders often pass them over in favor of white-collar candidates. But these obstacles aren't inevitable. Pilot programs to recruit, train, and support working-class candidates have the potential to increase the economic diversity of our governing institutions and ultimately amplify the voices of ordinary citizens.Who runs for office goes to the heart of whether we will have a democracy that is representative or not. The Cash Ceiling shows that the best hope for combating the oversized political influence of the rich might simply be to help more working-class Americans become politicians.

1

GOVERNMENT BY THE PRIVILEGED

In 2014, something historically unprecedented almost happened in the state of Maine. Representative Mike Michaud—who had been a factory worker when he was first elected to public office—announced that he was retiring from the House of Representatives to run for governor. Soon after, a state senator named Troy Jackson launched a campaign to fill Michaud’s House seat. Jackson seemed like a natural choice: like Michaud, he was a Democrat, he had served in the state legislature, and he was endorsed by many of the state’s major progressive organizations. Jackson was even a blue-collar worker: when the state legislature wasn’t in session, he worked full-time as a logger upstate.

And that’s what would have made the election historic. If Jackson had won, he would have become the first blue-collar worker in American history to succeed another former blue-collar worker in the same congressional seat. From 1789 to the present day, seats in the House of Representatives have changed hands more than fourteen thousand times. Former lawyers have taken over for other former lawyers. Former business owners have succeeded other former business owners. But two former blue-collar workers have never served in the same U.S. House seat back-to-back.

Despite Troy Jackson’s best efforts, however, that record still stood after the 2014 election. In early May of that year, a Wall Street-backed interest group began making aggressive independent expenditures against Jackson, and in June he lost the Democratic primary. When voters in Maine’s second district went to the polls in November, their choices for the U.S. House were a university administrator and a businessman. They didn’t have the option to send someone from the working class to Congress.

And, chances are, neither did you.

Working-class Americans—people employed in manual labor, service industry, or clerical jobs¹—almost never go on to hold political office in the United States. If millionaires formed their own political party, that party would make up about 3 percent of the general public, but it would have unified majority control of all three branches of the federal government. The Millionaires Party would be the majority party in the House of Representatives and would have a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. It would have a majority on the Supreme Court. It would have a record-setting majority in the president’s cabinet. And it would have a commander in chief in the White House—not just a millionaire but a full-fledged billionaire.

If, on the other hand, working-class Americans formed their own party, that party would have made up more than half of the country since at least the start of the twentieth century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before getting involved in politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress.²

This economic gulf between politicians and the people they represent—what I call government by the privileged or white-collar government—has serious consequences for our democratic process. Like ordinary Americans, politicians from different classes tend to have different views, especially on economic issues. Former workers in office tend to be more pro-worker in how they think and act, former business owners tend to be more pro-business, and so on. These differences—coupled with the fact that working-class people almost never go on to hold public office—ultimately have dramatic consequences for public policy. Social safety net programs are stingier, business regulations are flimsier, tax policies are more regressive, and protections for workers are weaker than they would be if more lawmakers came from lower-income and working-class backgrounds.³ Government by the rich is often government for the rich, and government for the rich is often bad for everyone else.

Why, then, do we have a white-collar government in the first place? Journalists and scholars have always had hunches about what keeps working-class Americans out of office—money, ambition, free time, qualifications, and so on—but to date there’s been almost no actual research on why the United States is governed by the privileged or what reformers might do about it.

This book tries to change that.

BY THE RICH, FOR THE RICH

On January 19, 2012, there was an unusual demonstration in the Moroccan Parliament. Protestors had lined up outside with signs, as groups often did on the first day of the legislative session. But this time, the demonstration had also recruited allies inside the building. When the prime minister took the podium and began his inaugural address, a dozen sitting members of Parliament—including some from his own party—jumped to their feet and hoisted banners denouncing one of his government’s first decisions.

Their complaint? Just before the session started, the prime minister had gutted the number of women in public office.⁴

In Morocco, one of the first responsibilities of a newly elected prime minister is to appoint roughly thirty people to fill cabinet-level positions in the national government. Morocco has long been a leader in women’s representation in the Arab world,⁵ and the previous government’s cabinet had included seven women, a record for the country. When Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane took office in 2012, however, he announced that his cabinet would include just one female minister, Bassima Hakkaoui, who would head the Department of Women, Family, and Social Development. The news sent shock waves through the Moroccan political community. On the first day of the new legislative session, protestors both outside and inside Parliament hoisted signs reading, “Women 1, Men 30. Is that really fair?”

At bottom, concerns about the demographic backgrounds of politicians are rooted in a principle that is probably familiar to anyone who has participated in some form of group decision making, namely, that having a seat at the table matters. When people get together to make important choices—whether it’s a government cabinet or a corporate board or a faculty hiring committee—who gets included can often powerfully affect the outcome. When a person or a social group is left out, their views and needs are often left out, too. Legislators in the Moroccan Parliament staged a protest because being included in important decision-making bodies is worth raising hell over sometimes, especially when it comes to politics.

Inclusion in political offices is so important that scholars have developed an entire subfield devoted to studying the numerical or descriptive representation⁶ of social groups in governing institutions. Some of this research has focused on the causes of descriptive representation, that is, on the factors that influence how many people from a given social group go on to hold important positions in government. Other studies have focused on the effects of descriptive representation, in particular on how a social group’s presence in a political institution influences the group’s substantive representation, the extent to which the group’s interests are advanced in that institution.⁷

In principle, descriptive and substantive representation don’t have to go hand in hand. It’s at least possible that a male-dominated cabinet might still protect the interests of women or that an all-white legislature might promote the well-being of racial and ethnic minorities. In practice, however, it often matters who has a seat at the table in government. Although politicians are usually constrained by external pressures (from constituents, party leaders, interest groups, donors, and so on),⁸ they often have some leeway when they make decisions. Voters, party leaders, and interest groups often have conflicting demands that leave lawmakers without clear guidance. Constituents are chronically inattentive to what policymakers do; much of the actual work involved in lawmaking happens behind the scenes, where citizens have little oversight; and lawmakers are adept at crafting legislation so that blame is difficult to trace to specific politicians. Incumbent reelection rates are high, and most officeholders feel secure enough in their positions to risk angering constituents, party leaders, or interest groups, at least some of the time.⁹ In those instances, their choices often reflect their own views and opinions, which in turn tend to reflect their own lives and experiences—including the social groups they come from.

Politicians from different racial groups, for instance, tend to make different choices on race-related issues, even after controlling for other things that might influence their decisions, like the parties they belong to or the views of their constituents. Likewise, even after accounting for other factors, male and female politicians tend to make different choices on women’s issues (members of the Moroccan Parliament were right to protest!); veterans and nonveterans tend to make different choices on defense issues; and religious people, parents of schoolchildren, and smokers tend to make different choices on religious issues, educational issues, and smoking issues.¹⁰ Who wins and who loses in politics depends on many factors—who votes, who lobbies, who funds campaigns, and so on. But it also depends to a large extent on who governs.

And one group that almost never governs is the working class. Figure 1.1 plots the most recent and detailed data available on the percentage of working-class people in the U.S. labor force (the first bar, which was computed using data from a 2013 Census Bureau survey) and in every level and branch of government for which people keep records on the occupational backgrounds of politicians.¹¹ Even after deindustrialization and the information revolution, people with working-class jobs—which I define as manual labor, service industry, and clerical jobs—still make up a majority of the labor force. But people who work primarily in these kinds of jobs make up less than 10 percent of the average city council and less than 3 percent of the average state legislature. The average member of Congress spent less than 2 percent of his or her adult life doing the kinds of jobs most Americans go to every day. None of America’s governors were blue-collar workers when they got into politics (in Maine, Michaud lost in the 2014 general election), no one on the Supreme Court came from a working-class job, and at least since World War II no one from the working class has gotten into politics and gone on to become president. In most levels and branches of government in the United States, workers are as sharply underrepresented as women were in the “30 to 1” Moroccan cabinet.

FIGURE 1.1. The Shortage of Politicians from the Working Class

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013; International City/County Management Association 2001; National Conference of State Legislatures 2015; Schwarz 2014; Carnes 2011. The figure is based on data on the primary occupations of employed citizens, city council members, and state legislators; the proportion of prior occupations that were working-class jobs for members of Congress; and the most recent nonpolitical occupations of governors, Supreme Court justices, and presidents. For additional information, see note 11.

This phenomenon is a remarkably durable feature of American politics. The left panel of Figure 1.2 plots the numerical representation of working-class people in Congress and state legislatures between 1961 and 2011. For comparison, the right panel plots data on the descriptive representation of women, another important and historically underrepresented group that makes up about 50 percent of the country. For at least the last half century, the representation of working-class people in Congress has been hovering around 2 percent; far from being a recent phenomenon, government by the privileged appears to be a rare historical constant in the United States. And it probably won’t be going anywhere any time soon: as the dotted line in Figure 1.2 illustrates, the number of workers in state legislatures (which tend to foreshadow changes in federal offices) has actually fallen slightly—from 5 percent to 3 percent—over the last half century. These trends stand in sharp contrast to the fortunes of other historically underrepresented groups like women and racial or ethnic minorities, who have made steady progress in American political institutions over the last few decades, first at the state and local levels, then increasingly in federal offices. We’ve been governed by the economically privileged for generations, and that doesn’t seem to be changing, even during a period of progress for other social groups that overlap substantially with the working class (compared to professionals, workers are more likely to be female and non-white).¹² To borrow a British expression, our government is getting less male and less pale, but it isn’t getting less stale.

FIGURE 1.2. Representation Is Improving for Some Groups, but Not the Working Class

Source: ICPSR and McKibbin 1997; Carnes 2011; National Conference of State Legislatures 2015; Desilver 2015; Center for American Women and Politics 2012.

Of course, there have always been people who have argued that government by the privileged is inevitable (for instance, because voters prefer affluent candidates) or that government by the rich is necessary because the rich are better qualified. To date, however, there has never been any solid research to back these claims. (I’ll return to these points in more detail in chapter 2.)

The other major argument offered in support of government by the privileged is that it doesn’t matter what class of people governs. In The Federalist #35, Alexander Hamilton argued that workers in the United States would come to see business owners as “their natural patron[s] and friend[s]; and [workers] are aware, that however great the confidence they may justly feel in their own good sense, their interests can be more effectually promoted by the merchant than by themselves.”¹³ The idea has been with us ever since: every election cycle, candidates from privileged backgrounds tell voters that they want what’s best for the country as a whole, that a rising tide lifts all boats, that the business of the nation is business, and so on. We all want economic prosperity, the argument goes, so what’s the harm in letting affluent people call the shots?

On this point, there is actually a great deal of research, and unfortunately it’s all squarely at odds with the rosy notion that a politician’s social class doesn’t matter. For one, Americans from different classes usually don’t have harmonious views about the government’s role in economic affairs. Pollsters have known for decades that public opinion is often sharply divided by class, especially on economic issues.¹⁴ When it comes to things like the minimum wage, taxes, business regulations, unemployment, unions, the social safety net, and so on, working-class Americans tend to be more progressive or pro-worker, and more affluent Americans tend to want the government to play a smaller role in economic affairs.¹⁵ There are exceptions, of course—blue-collar workers who vote Republican and rich professionals who care deeply about progressive economic ...