As we begin our third installment on Civics, for those who are unaware, we discussed the three levels of government (civic 101) and campaigning vs. legislating (civics 102) in prior installments. To catch up with the lessons, check them out.
Picking up where we left off, and digging deeper on the substance of civics and politics, here, we delve into why achieving change is so difficult, particularly for constituencies that are poor, working-class, Black and Latino — even when elected leadership is Democratic or Black and Democratic. While entire academic journal articles and books have been dedicated to the politics that impact each of the aforementioned constituencies, I’m going to try my best to be comprehensive yet concise to help make sense of things. Again, these posts are intended to provide a rudimentary conveyance on matters of civics and politics, where certainly, greater detail and specificity can be gathered to develop an even greater understanding on these topics.
There’s a few things to keep in mind about politics, priorities and legislation that all work in concert simultaneously to either elicit change, or far more often than not, keep things substantively the same.
ONE: We can start by recognizing that in American government and politics, morality, decency, equity, and fairness have nothing to do with legislation, and as we learned in Civics 102, the wishes of common folk, have very little to do with the actions politicians pursue. That’s big. Case in point, in Florida, a law was passed granting the right for “scared” drivers to drive their cars through protests and run over protesters in the process. People with the least amount of money, and thus without adequate legal representation, are far more likely to get the death penalty than people from affluent backgrounds who have committed similar crimes. Police are granted “qualified immunity” that allows them to brutalize people, and escape legal accountability and keep their jobs. The list of immoral and predatory laws could span volumes. Suffice it to say however, “justice” and “legal” are not synonomous.
TWO: Lobbyists/Big Donors and the messaging they purchase, largely determine who wins elections and, by extension, what those politicians do once in office — not voters! Lobbyists and Big Donors, who are already well positioned financially in our fundamentally unfair political and social system, do not want to see substantive change come about UNLESS the change is in their monetary favor. Take Trump’s tax cuts (for the wealthiest Americans) for instance… And so we should expect enormous ad-buys and lobbying dedicated to bending legislation to the will of the institutions and individuals with the most money, not the individuals needing the most help. And we should also expect those lobbying efforts to be wildly successful in business’ and the wealthy’s favor.
THREE: To the limited extent people “matter” in legislating, some people “matter” more than others — and it ain’t the poor or the working-class, regardless of their race. Citizens who are lower on the economic scale, typically, are far less likely to donate to campaigns for obvious reasons, and are less likely to vote for a variety of reasons. As such, poor and working class people are far more likely to be ignored legislatively, where it matters most, compared to on the campaign trail, where it doesn’t matter substantively at all. (Remember there is a chasmic difference between campaigning and legislating.)
FOUR: The policies that are helpful to the poor and working-class all come with a “cost” in taxpayer dollars, which promptly get pushed back against by the wealthy, corporations and their interest groups, as well as even the middle-class because the poor and working class are framed as “lazy, takers, and undeserving.” Centuries of Social Darwinist and Culture of Poverty tropes are still repeated profusely by politicians, media pundits, and other influential figures pathologizing poorer folk for their economic situation, that they, presumably brought on themselves by simply not being willing to work hard enough or sufficiently discipline themselves. Needless to say, such tropes are ridiculous — and myopic.
FIVE: The poor and working-class have very few, if any, champions in elected office or in political messaging. Therefore, there is little visibility toward matters impacting the poor and working class that influence public perception or legislation in their favor. On the other hand, there is enormous representation on behalf of the wealthy and the lionized “middle class.” Essentially, our nation’s politics are oriented to ignore the plights and realities of those struggling which assures the economic and living conditions of those at the economic margins, will not change in any meaningful way through legislation.
SIX: Economic inequality is a must for our capitalist American economy to function. The largest corporations in America, Walmart and McDonald’s for instance, maximize their profit margins by paying people the least they possibly can. Further, such corporations such as Walmart, McDonald’s, Starbucks etc., at every turn, resist their workers forming unions that would enable them to collectively bargain over wages and working conditions. Why? Because a stronger workforce erodes corporate power and corporate profits. Thus workers must be kept poor and desperate in order for the the very few to increase their financial gains. It should be no surprise the most vocal antagonists AGAINST stimulus checks, free universal healthcare, raises to minimum wage, and loan forgiveness are corporations and the wealthy. The less desperate workers are, the less desperate the poor are, the more options they have — and the poor and working poor having options, is bad for wealthiest in the American economy — who are also the largest donors of political campaigns, and lobbyists of legislators.
SEVEN: Economic fairness has never been a goal of corporations or the wealthy, nor has it been a goal in government since the early 1970s. The number one goal of corporations is to maximize profit and keep as much profit as possible. Corporations (and the wealthy) do not, and will resist at every turn, legislation that threatens to raise their taxes. Corporations and the wealthy will threaten lawmakers with moving out of state (and out of the country), in efforts to avoid paying their fair share to fund the functions of government and the services it provides. Corporations are so blatantly singularly focused on maximizing profit that many of the largest corporations have taken to using prison labor as sub-minimum wages, and child labor to avoid paying adults a liveable and fair wage. And in that the wealthy and corporations drive legislation, the poor and working poor are left disregarded — all but assuring they will remain in their economic station.
Having referenced the above, it is worth exploring why achieving change for the poor and working class is so difficult and it involves all of what’s been covered thus far. With respect to the three levels of government, we must recognize that much of the programs that folks of lower-income rely on and need are funded at the federal and state levels — very little is funded through city government. With that reality, we can remove mayors and city council in urban areas, most likely democrats, from culpability in this regard. Social safety net programs like Head Start, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare (TANF) are funded through and by federal and state budgets (tax dollars). What is extremely important to recognize is that the collection of legislators in both federal and state government are generally far wealthier, more conservative, and whiter than the bulk of poor and working class people in urban areas. Urban areas are filled with persons of color, a higher concentration of whom are oflower income, but do not have the kind of representation in the halls of the US Congress or in individual statehouses that reflects the economic urgency of urban residents. To be sure, rural and suburban poverty are growing rapidly, but the level of financial desperation is not as readily visible as that found within cities.
Also it bears noting the economic relief so desperately needed by some of our fellow citizens, does not benefit corporations or the wealthy monetarily, which means there’s little appetite for corporations or the wealthy to expend political capital lobbying on behalf of the poor. Increasing SNAP benefits or Head Start availability, for instance, doesn’t enrich a corporate CEO or transfer more money in the pockets of the rich thereby motivating them to engage and champion such causes. And with the apparent absence of moneyed influence to push and cajole politicians to act in the best interest of those who are struggling, outside a politician’s individual push for decency for decency’s sake alone, such efforts are essentially non-starters — outside of talk on the campaign trail.
In sum, it is hard to achieve economic change for folks who need it most because our system of government prioritizes the desires of the moneyed and corporations above the needs of people. That is the reality — and in many ways both political parties are guilty of this charge, but Republicans are unabashedly worse in even attempting to meet the needs of the poor and working-class; but they are astonishingly effective at convincing their poor voters that “lazy Black folks” and Latino immigrants are the cause for their own difficult economic condition.
In the next installment, we’ll explore why achieving change for Black and Latino folk is so difficult — even with Black Democratic leadership. Stick around…
