For those of you who think that public opinion trends in an ever-more-liberal direction and that all that needs to happen is for some old, white people to die, you might want to look at the trend in public opinion on abortion over the last 40 years as determined by the Gallup organization. You may struggle to find more acceptance of abortion in that graph but what it actually shows is that any change is just noise—within the margin of error.
If anything, I think the United States is likely to become less socially and economically liberal over time. One of my favorite posts of mine is on the effect of immigrants on American political thought. Their beliefs are the one thing that immigrants are certain to bring with them when they arrive here. For the last generation or so the immigrants we’ve been importing haven’t been European social democrats. They’ve been Third World social conservatives. The demographics of Latin America and the Caribbean suggests either that future immigration to the United States will be much slower than it has been for the last three or four decades or that it will come from sub-Saharan Africa. Over time I think we’re likely to become less like Sweden and more like Mexico than the other way around.
Now it may well be true that over very long periods the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice. I doubt that I’ll live to see it.
But it’s second generation (and third) whose attitudes need to be taken into account, too:
43% is still a lot higher than Americans, generally.
However, let’s accept the assumption: that Mexican-Americans acculturate. Why is it that they’ll acculturate to the political positions held in Boston, New York, or San Francisco rather than those held in Houston or Dallas?
I can think of one possible reason: The (correctly) perceived antipathy of the base of the GOP (= for all intents, the GOP) to Hispanics. As long as socially conservative policies/attitudes are retailed as having their home in the GOP, and the GOP is perceived as a bastion of racially-based hostility, the objects of that hostility will reject the party and with it the postilions.
@sam, surveys of latinos in California at least show their primary source of antipathy towards the GOP is the belief that they are the party of the rich, and I think that was before or independent of Romney.
The End of the GOP? Latinos Overwhelmingly Prefer Democrats
BTW, I live in New Mexico, the state with the largest Hispanic population as a percentage of the total population, almost 50%. And you can believe me when I tell you that the feelings of my Hispanic neighbors towards the GOP have very little to do a perception that the GOP is the party of the rich. It has far more to do with the policies and rhetoric of the the GOP in the nuthouse to our immediate West. Outlawing Hispanic studies courses in high school is more telling for my neighbors than Mitt’s adventures in offshoring his money.
I guess I didn’t articulate the point I was trying to make in comments above very well. Will Mexican-Americans change or will they change the Democratic Party? I think that history strongly suggests it will be some of both.
This the California survey I mentioned:
“A March 2011 poll by Moore Information asked California’s Latino voters why they had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. The two top reasons were that the party favored only the rich and that Republicans were selfish and out for themselves; Republican positions on immigration law were cited less often.”
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_california-demographics.html
And, yeah Dave wasn’t necessarily talking about party politics. For example, here in Illinois, conservative Republicans and African-American Democrats got together to pass a school prayer requirement. People don’t have to change parties.
Abortion is a useless metric since there exist real reasons — however much I disagree — for opposing abortion. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation are all nonsense conflicts and not comparable in my opinion with abortion.
On an issue like gay marriage you’d get a very different graph. And I think there’s essentially zero chance of the country suddenly becoming more conservative on that issue.
Look, the American people overwhelmingly believe in some redistribution of income from rich to poor. They overwhelmingly support medicare and social security. They increasingly support gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, and on those two issues in particular the age break is obvious. Sooner or later the last person who opposes gay marriage will be dead. Younger people are less hung up on race as well. So on a whole host of issues the young break from the old and there is in my opinion no chance of a reversal as they age.
The thing is that “liberal” and “conservative” are moving targets. It’s now conservative to want to invade pretty much any country that irritates us. And it’s “liberal” to shrug at domestic security measures and bail out big banks. The terms are almost meaningless if you’re looking for a thru-line from 20 or 30 years ago.
@michael, I sort of think you are right about gay marriage, its just a matter of time unless perhaps if the courts mess it up. I recall wringing a concession out of a gay activists at OTB a few years ago to the effect that marriage was not the battle of choice. The more important issues would probably start with anti-employment discrimination, then perhaps adoption rights, and I suspect many would go with hate crime legislation next (though I favored more limited hate crime approaches than most). Is the ball being moved forward on any of these, or have activists decided that the courts are their only hope?
Then why isn’t that what’s happening? What’s actually happening is redistribution from one group of rich people to a different group of rich people. Or, in some cases, to the same group of rich people. Also, redistribution from young people to old people.
What they say is that it’s on behalf of the poor. But, somehow, the poor never seem to benefit as much as the direct recipients do.
What I think you’re actually saying is that people believe the bill of goods they’ve been sold, that they believe the press releases. The job of snake oil salesmen is to sell snake oil.
Dave:
Well, the American people believe lots of things are being done that aren’t necessarily done, or not done well. We do have food stamps and welfare and medicaid, all of which involve well-off people paying various bills for poor people.
Speaking of shifting liberal/conservatism I opposed McGovern’s call for a guaranteed minimum income back in 1972. I don’t recall if he stuck with that, but I remember at the time thinking it was a step too far. Now I’m not so sure. Would we save money and accomplish more if we just said that every American citizen (individual or family) gets X amount per year? Doesn’t Alaska still have a deal where the state distributes money from resource licenses to residents? Would it be better just to do it without all the programs and politicians in the way? Here’s your 2 grand this month, see you next month. We could eliminate welfare, medicare, minimum wage, school loans…
I wonder on a personal level because I’m hoping at some point to be able to set up a trust for my kids, and I’m thinking along those lines. A monthly payout that would be some percentage of the poverty rate, which would ensure they never lacked too much, but would also leave incentives in place if they want a better life.
Always assuming that I don’t manage to die broke, which is not a safe assumption, at least not yet.
Michael,
Personally I think abortion is a special case since it’s about the fundamental question of when “life” begins and all that entails. People tend to land somewhere in the middle, but it’s not something where it’s easy to draw any kind of line.
Gay marriage is a simple issue by comparison – merely the question of whether to extend government benefits to what is, essentially, a contractual relationship (from a legal standpoint). But there will continue to be differences because not everyone understands marriage similarly. For most religious people, for example, marriage is much more than a legal contract – it is a sacrament, a bond between two people and the divine. That’s not something that can be legislated. There are, for example, a substantially larger number of people who support legal “marriage” by another name – civil unions or what have you – than legal “marriage.” And I think the reason for that is that “marriage,” for many Americans, is more than legal recognition.
Anyway, I think the idea of “legal” marriage is here to stay and more and more social conservatives see the writing on the wall daily. I don’t think that will happen with abortion.
Since when have we ever imported European social democrats?
@michael reynolds
… to set up a trust for my kids …
I do not begrudge your children anything, but this is amusing or infuriating. The money going into the trust fund will not be taxed until it is withdrawn, and this may not be at the same tax rate. This money will be shielded from taxes. Furthermore, it helps to shield the money from inheritance and estate taxes.
You may not do it, but this is one way the 1% are able to get out of paying “their fair share”. This is not a personal attack. I am happy that you are able to lower your tax burden, but this is an example of liberals saying one thing and doing another.
Tasty:
Well, I would have paid on it when I made it. This isn’t stock dividend money or whatever, this is me writing and selling books. So it would all be regular income. My kids would then presumably pay income taxes when this money became their income.
But you should understand that when I say “trust” I have pretty close to no idea what I’m talking about. So I could be wrong. This is in the category of “stuff I turn over to lawyers and such.”
@michael reynolds
I am not trying to get into your personal business, but the irony was too much. My point is about rich liberals who cry for more taxes, and it may not apply to you. Furthermore, I have no problem with anybody’s wealth – liberal or conservative.
Most (all) rich people use tax lawyers and accountants to do their taxes, and the purpose is to minimize one’s taxes. Trust funds are one way to shield income. It is available to all, but for most people, they do not make enough money to use it. Unless one demands the tax lawyer and accountants maximize the tax payment, ignorance is no defense.
The tax code is full of these types of exemptions/deductions, and they are mostly used by the rich.
I think michael is talking about a testamentary trust, so that when he (and his wife) dies, his remaining assets (or at least the ones identified) are liquidated into an account, placed under the control of a trustee with directions to make regular payments to his remaining kids. He’s not escaping taxation, michael would have paid income taxes when he earned the money. It might be a means of escaping/avoiding estate taxes, and I have no idea about the tax consequences for the kids, and really have no idea how people can plan such things when the laws change all the time. My advise would be to always keep an eye on trustee’s fees.
Anyway, one of my brother’s friends was the beneficiary of such a trust (maybe technically called a spendthrift trust), but he received monthly payments on the condition that he graduated from college and kept a full time job. He choose to be a bartender. To each his own I suppose, but I wonder what his deceased Aunt would have thought.
The tax code is full of these types of exemptions/deductions, and they are mostly used by the rich.
Amen, Tasty. Liberal entertainers, business people, sport giants etc., all have access to the best of the best tax magicians….and, they use them to the fullest. It does not buffer their own accountability that they may not know what potions these hired people are conjuring up on their behalf, either. I’ve mentioned these two biggies before, Google executives and Warren Buffett, both of whom are public liberal spokes people indulging in twisting the tax code and/or hiding assets abroad, in order to personally escape paying their full amount of taxes.
It has also been noted that a large chunk of government employees are also remiss in paying their ‘fair’ share in income taxes as well. Basically, hypocrisy abounds in these vocal social progressive circles, whereas, they helpfully call for others to be taxed to fund the poor, while they scurry around, hiding their own acorns elsewhere and out of the purview of the government tax man.
PD,
Interesting info on trusts. I hadn’t heard those terms before, associated with setting up a trust. Ah, there are so many technicalities in business and life!
PD:
Bartending isn’t a bad life if you can stand people and like late nights. (I’m one for two on that.)
I have this fantasy where I retire to run a food truck in a major city, London, New York, maybe Paris. Boeuf Bourguignon and good French bread. Or it could be fresh-cooked donuts on a boardwalk somewhere. I’d stay mildly baked all day long and never tell anyone what I’d been previously.
“Amen, Tasty. Liberal entertainers, business people, sport giants etc., all have access to the best of the best tax magicians….and, they use them to the fullest.”
This always cracks me up. Conservatives defend the rights of everyone to “keep their money” and avoid taxes, except for when it comes to people whom they perceive to be rich liberals. They cry hypocrisy, while having no shortage of it on their own side, having created mountains of debt, creating an intrusive govt, etc.
Back to taxes, everyone will avoid what they can legally avoid. No one wants others to free ride on their efforts. Change the tax rules for everyone if you want to avoid this. Dont allow for rule changes that benefit only the wealthy. Think seriously about dividend and capital gains rates and whether they should be lower than income tax rates. Who benefits from eliminating the estate tax, and who loses.
Steve
@michael, like I said, to each his own. It seems like bartending was the choice because he saw it as the least he needed to do to check off the boxes for the inheritance. Its interestingly risk-adverse, though depending on how it was set up, the trust might rule out creative endeavors like full-time writing or entrepreneurship for want of regular income.
I wouldn’t mind working at one of the local historic sites if my current jig collapsed, but I am starting to think many of the people are volunteers who’ve retired from government jobs.
@steve
“Stop me before I _____ again”
You are an adult, and you are expected to be responsible. Outlawing everything you do because you cannot stop yourself from doing it is not the solution – drugs, soda, sodomy, adultery, gamble, or fill in you vice of choice. “This is different” is the usual response. The anti-drug crowd
When the cries for increased taxes were being heard, tax breaks were not the problem, or so, the “tax me till it hurts” crowd assured us. I also do not recall hearing cries to tax all income equally, and I would expect the same crowd to fight a wealth tax.
Trust funds are one of a multitude of ways people with money shield their money, and raising the tax rate on zero is meaningless. Among the other tax breaks: solar panels, electric vehicles, vehicles over 4,000 pounds, alpaca farms, other farming breaks (on non-farming property), and many more.
Let me at the tax code, and you will hear howls from all directions.