In a piece at The Nation David Bromwich looks at the scorecard and proclaims the Democratic Party the party of the rich:
Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,00 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress. The above numbers incidentally come from the Internal Revenue Service, via Bloomberg, and are likely to be more reliable than if they came from Project Veritas via theblaze.com.
We have known for some time that the dark money of Charles Koch is answered by the conspicuous money of Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, George Soros, Bill Gates, and a swelling chorus of others, none of whom “identify Republican.†Yet it has been comforting, in a way, to continue believing that real wealth resides with the old enemy: Big Oil and Big Tobacco and the rest. They were the ultimate source of the power that distorted American society and politics.
The income of their voters aside, Democrats enjoy the active, constant, all-but-avowed support of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, all three of the old television networks, CNN, NPR, and the online mainstream of Slate, Salon, and HuffPost. Any sentient reader can easily add a dozen more outlets. But along with the benefits of this mutual understanding comes a liability. The warm handshake with a friendly media establishment can grow so familiar that you get out of the habit of seeing what it looks like when you strut your stuff in public. And no longer seeing what it looks like, you stop asking what it might look like to people not already on your side.
His ultimate point is, if you think Democrats will be speaking frankly about wealth and privilege any time soon, fuggedaboutit. I would see it a bit differently. Given the federal government’s increasing power, it’s not surprising that the rich would flock to the party of government. The birds of prey always gather where the corpses are.
I wish Mr. Bromwich had delved into Democratic support among professionals—I suspect the situation is even more lopsided and that’s equally easy to explain. People who depend heavily on rent-seeking for their livelihoods should be expected to support expanding the reach of government.
I would submit that this isn’t a new phenomenon. Why do you think Ted Kennedy sat in the Senate for 47 years? Cynics (like me) think it expressly for the purpose of preventing a wealth tax in the United States of the sort being adopted in Western Europe at the time.
“I would see it a bit differently. Given the federal government’s increasing power, it’s not surprising that the rich would flock to the party of government. The birds of prey always gather where the corpses are.”
A central point I’ve made for years. Looking down their noses and describing people as deplorables or “clinging to their guns and religion” were not throw away lines. These people think they are superior and should run things. By force if necessary. And let’s not even get started on academics and media.
Interestingly, in my world, big time bankers and the like tend Democrat. Guess who doesn’t, in spades. Small business owners. Probably 90%+ Trump types.
It was a big shock to me to learn that Koch is the only wealthy person donating to the GOP. How did that happen? How did the Democrats get all of the wealthy? (Would it be unseemly to point out that in 2018 Bezos dominated more to Republicans than Democrats?)
Also a big shock to me that Republicans dont claim to be the ones who think they should run things. I routinely hear how Republicans are intellectually and morally superior so “these people” applies to a lot of you on the right.
Anyway, Drew is right. Need to get off the computer and go kill a couple dozen Republicans so I can be sure we win the next election. Gotta use that force stuff.
Steve
Ted Kennedy’s long tenure in the Senate was due to the delusions of the Massachusetts electorate. My mother (RIP) for example. I remember a family backyard picnic in Methuen one summer, where my mother waxed ecstatic on about how she loved Teddy. Earlier in the day she had a rant against every single policy Teddy supported. She never made the connection. Her brain rejected any contemplation of the connection.
In the end, she and 6 million other Baystaters got the policies they hated, because they voted for them unawares.
Just how much Democrat support is unaware people.
bob sykes:
We’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about the mechanism; I’m talking about the purpose. Ted Kennedy could have been a permanent playboy, collecting from the family trust fund. His job was to ensure that trust fund wasn’t taxed away.