It baffles me too, like middle class libertarians. They have to know they’re getting nothing, and the little they have is going to line the wealthy’s pockets. But they can play on their racism, xenophobia, misogyny, religion, or some combination of the above to keep them giving the stink eye to the person using an EBT card at the checkout line and not that the exec who laid off 20,000 people. It’s part of why I’m not religious because American Christianity has way, waaaaaaaaay to much to answer for in sheltering, stoking, and encouraging this attitude. 

The people I don’t understand are those in their target audience — those
who have nothing to gain from that downward-pointing finger of
accusation and that foolish nonsense about the “leeches at the bottom.”

But they do have something to gain.  Via the odd pairing of social conservatives and financial conservatives, the people at the bottom get the reward of having their Family Values forced onto everyone else, in exchange for looking the other way as the rich ruin everything for them.  But so long as those sluts and gays are getting properly punished, they are willing to miss out on a lot of financial stability.

A lot of them are also just plain stupid.  One large Quiverfull family brags that they don’t have health insurance and refuse to accept any government aid because they “don’t want to be a burden”, but they don’t worry about the kids getting sick because ERs can’t refuse to treat them.  For some reason they are just too oblivious to realize that their preferred candidates would take away that right to treatment.

What comes to mind is:

“Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”

One large Quiverfull family brags that they don’t have health insurance
and refuse to accept any government aid because they “don’t want to be a
burden”, but they don’t worry about the kids getting sick because ERs
can’t refuse to treat them.

That…

Wait.  Hold on.

That…

Do…do they know who pays for the ER visits, then?  I mean, are they aware of the fact that emergent care situations are significantly more expensive than simple preventive health visits or even major medical problems that are detected before they actually become emergencies?

And do they know who pays for ER visits when a bunch of dumbasses with seventeen thousand children keep showing up at the ER because that cough turned out to be pneumonia and now the kid might die and, oh, yeah, by the way the parents are broke and don’t have insurance?

This isn’t cognitive dissonance.  It’s probably not even willful ignorance.  It’s plain fuck-stupid.

 For what it’s worth, my thoughts on why the not-rich support the notion of hating the following is that in hard economic
times, people want someone to hate and blame. Personally, I’d have
expected more populist anger at the banks rather than the most
vulnerable, but I think that people in uncertain straits nevertheless
identifying 100% with management actually reflects (wait for it) a
strength of American culture.American culture is, at the end,
pretty highly aspirational. A whole lot of Americans identify with
management because they imagine that with grit and hard work they too
could rise to that level. (Lefties often discuss this aspirational
thinking in terms of false consciousness, but I think that that’s
exactly the wrong way to think about it).If you’ve grown up in
an environment that praises material success, even in bad times, you’re
going to wind up identifying more with those who have “made it,” even if
having made it was a matter of having had the good sense to choose
wealthy or well-to-do parents.

This, alas, is nothing new.  There’s a semi-famous-in-lefty-circles book in the UK called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.  Chunks of marginally readable socialist polemic dropped into the story of a bunch of hideously exploited house painters in Hastings at the turn of the last Century.  They are being robbed blind by the supporters of both available parties yet they still turn out to vote for them.  In their case it is as much due to lack of education as anything – not sure what the excuse is these days.

It may have to do with their audience not understanding what class they’re in.  When it comes to social conservatives, the attitude is very much “us” and “them”, and the two classes are completely opposite from each other, and completely homogenous within.  So when they see someone shouting about the evil gays and Muslims and liberated women, they say, “I agree with that.  And if he says that demonizing the poor would benefit him, then because he is in the ‘us’ group and therefore exactly like me in every way, that must mean that I am not poor and demonizing the poor would be good for me, too.”

It’s like a cargo cult.  If the disenfranchised go through the same motions as the rich and support all the policies the rich want, then that means eventually they’ll become rich, too.

By now it feels like more of the same, round umpty-one. I’ve been re-reading old Slacktivist posts and the same crap Fred rails against was in evidence a year, two years, etc. ago and all the same arguments against the premises of this hate-filled wall of resentment are in evidence here.

Sorry, sometimes it just feels like it’s impossible to change things.

If the folks in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in the US were to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, what would be left would still have a bottom fifth, just shifted over a little. Then they would feel the wrath of the top 4/5ths. And so on. And so on. The hate is being stoked in the very people who know they are next if they don’t offer up a sacrifice to the God Mammon right now.

@AndrewSshi:disqus, why is false consciousness the wrong term for this? It would seem to be the textbook example.

The people I don’t understand are those in their target audience — those who have nothing to gain from that downward-pointing finger of accusation and that foolish nonsense about the “leeches at the bottom.”

Here I’d have to disagree with you. The target audience does have something to gain: a feeling of superiority and an intrinsic tie to the “elite”. It’s the same principle that held together Southern society during slavery.

Beyond that, I think there’s an underlying feeling of desperation. If people hold the poor in contempt, they can’t possibly wind up as one of them.

I said it in a sociology class a long time ago and it still holds  true.  Everyone wants someone to kick.  If I’m poor but not poor enough to get help and taxes are increased to help someone who is poor enough to get help, they might not be poorer than me.  I won’t have someone to kick.

Well, Rupaul, I should note that, in general, I don’t buy the notion of false consciousness because it assumes that people’s only interests are material.  The kind of pop-What’s-the-Matter-with-Kansas rhetoric of false consciousness is even worse because it’s incredibly, incredibly patronizing:  “If only the rubes knew what was in their interest, they’d obviously quit believing in capitalism and  become social democrats.”  I actually know a few libertarians from Oklahoma and while they may be wrong wrong wrong, I also have far too much respect for them to assume that they simply don’t know their own interests.

But why is that the case?  Just using myself as an example, I don’t feel the need to kick someone who is beneath me.  If I am stressed, afraid, insecure, then yes, I am more likely to get angry at someone around me.  But venting that anger generally doesn’t make me feel better or superior to anyone else; it’s just harder to control (and I tend to be embarrassed at having lost it).  And even then, I make very concious efforts not to vent my frustrations at my daughter, who is young, vulnerable and not reponsible for the stuff pissing me off.

So I Just. Don’t. Get. It.

I think it’s precisely because the people willing to do the kicking do feel stressed or afraid and they see an easy outlet for that stress and fear, egged on by politicians who either just want quickie votes, or who are cynically exploiting such a divide and conquer strategy for their own ends.

EDIT to add: The most predominant group doing the kicking seem to be people who are living on the edge of disaster (one paycheck away from some bad losses) and imagine that if they could see less tax off their paycheck everything would be sunshine and roses.

Neutrino, I guess I’m asking why so many people are willing to do the kicking.  I have plenty of my own faults as well as a temper, and my family and I have had plenty of financial stresses in the last few years.  But I don’t feel this need to take it out on others.  And yet so many people do.  Why?

@Daughter, ever hear of Stanley Milgram?

Daughter, without knowing a single thing about you I can make two predictions: one, you have lashed out in frustration and anger at someone who had nothing to do with the actual cause of your problems. Two, you didn’t think of yourself as actually doing this. In that moment, you absolutely believed that the target of your ire really did have it coming. You believed you were justified. Having done it did nothing to change your opinion of yourself as someone who doesn’t take things out on others, because you had no awareness you were doing so.

I’m not saying we’re all just as bad as the class warfare enlistees of the right-wing, but this is a “none are righteous” situation. It’s human nature to be able to see the mind-boggling gaps in other people’s logic, the obvious hypocrisy of their actions, etc., but to see nothing but justification for one’s own.

And it’s that need for justification that the right has learned to play upon like experts. You don’t corrupt someone by tempting them into something they don’t want to do. You do it by finding something they’d like to do but shouldn’t and adjust their perception until it becomes the right thing to do.

Alexandra, I understand what you’re saying, which is why I acknowledged that I have gotten angry at people when frustrated about other things in my life.  But I realize it, and try to apologize when it happens, and don’t make it an ongoing facet of my life, politics and outlook.  And I try very hard not to take it out on people I know are more vulnerable than I am (e.g., children).

Sharon, I have.  So is it due to being in an environment where an authority figure and/or peer group reinforces these (human, but not inevitable) attitudes?

I think that’s part of it, the big, strong, wealthy men and women say it’s the poor’s fault I have no health insurance, and because I want to be big, and strong, and wealthy too I will hate the poor like they say. It’s ugly, tribal thinking, and coupled with long standing racism can spell the end of healthy democracies. 

if they could see less tax off their paycheck everything would be sunshine and roses.

It’s like a real life Left Behind scenario. Taxes go down, and the immediate effect is your take-home pay goes up. All the deferred, larger-scale ramifications are either handwaved away or never even considered.

They made bad identity investments.  Everyone has some aspects to themselves which they consider central to their identity, and one of those things is a belief in a particular political or economic system.  A person can “invest” a great deal of themselves in identifying with such a position.  The problem is, what if that system is demonstrated to be malfunctioning?  That, despite the supporter’s hopes, just does not work as well as they thought it did? 

Sure, the rational thing to do would be to re-examine one’s position, try to take the new information into account, and to adjust one’s outlook accordingly.  But when a great deal of who a person considers themself to be is included in that outlook, they would mean giving up a large part of themselves too.  Changing that would mean that they were no longer the same person.  For many people, that is just not a place that they are prepared to go, they like who they are, and an implication that they should change, even if that implication is internal, is seen as an attack. 

So people lash out.  They counter-attack.  They try to rationalize away the problem with their outlook instead of adjusting it.  If what they support did not work, they believe that then there must be some agency that is keeping their supported system from working.  In the case of unregulated market supporters, that would usually be those on government assistance, and the government which provides it.  “The market is freer now than it was before, so why am I still struggling to get by?  It must be the fault of those lazy welfare queens!  Yeah, the free market could never fail, so that must be it.”

And the worst part is, they fantasize that their taxes are being sucked away by all those goshdarned “bums”.

“to keep them giving the stink eye to the person using an EBT…”

Arizona had a move on to make their EBT cards dayglo orange so they could be better identified in the checkout line. What they can be used for can be handled in software — this had no purpose beyond spite.

Just to add a source so people don’t think I’m exxagerating, here is a link to an interview with the family.  It’s from the Daily Mail which has some problems, but they were also on a mainstream show (I think Dateline) and said the same thing.  Here’s the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029627/Gil–Kelly-Bates-Couple-18-children-reveal-theyre-praying-more.html

Some highlights:

According to the programme, which airs
tonight, Gil and Kelly Bates are intent on seeking medical care to help
them even the score to 10 girls and 10 boys.’We both came to the conclusion that we
just want to trust God with how many children we have. We never really
thought we’d have 18. We thought we’d have maybe one or two – maybe
three,’ says Gil.

I just can’t even wrap my head around this cognitive dissonance.

And, despite wanting more children, the Bates do not have health insurance for their last ten children. ‘When there’s a medical emergency, we just go to the doctor and America’s
been the greatest health care in the world,’ said Gil.’When you walk in the
emergency room, I don’t care what your status of living, they give you
the best care possible.’

And yet they are paying for hormone therapy to have more children.

Just to add a source so people don’t think I’m exxagerating, here is a link to an interview with the family.  It’s from the Daily Mail which has some problems, but they were also on a mainstream show (I think Dateline) and said the same thing.  Here’s the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029627/Gil–Kelly-Bates-Couple-18-children-reveal-theyre-praying-more.html

Some highlights:

According to the programme, which airs
tonight, Gil and Kelly Bates are intent on seeking medical care to help
them even the score to 10 girls and 10 boys.’We both came to the conclusion that we
just want to trust God with how many children we have. We never really
thought we’d have 18. We thought we’d have maybe one or two – maybe
three,’ says Gil.

I just can’t even wrap my head around this cognitive dissonance.

And, despite wanting more children, the Bates do not have health insurance for their last ten children. ‘When there’s a medical emergency, we just go to the doctor and America’s
been the greatest health care in the world,’ said Gil.’When you walk in the
emergency room, I don’t care what your status of living, they give you
the best care possible.’

And yet they are paying for hormone therapy to have more children.

Jesusalmighty on a bicycle. (O_O)

A 4000 square foot house? A $3700+ a month food budget? How on God’s green earth do they make that kind of money?

I just don’t even. D:

 It baffles me too, like middle class libertarians. They have to know they’re getting nothing, and the little they have is going to line the wealthy’s pockets. 

I don’t think that this is true. IME middle class libertarians think that if The Man would just stop interfering with the free market that they’d score big. Because they’re just that much smarter or harder working than other people. I know that sounds ridiculous, but they I’m pretty sure they genuinely believe that it’s true. 

Over at TNC’s blog there has been some good discussion about historical views and they way we have trouble wrapping our head around the fact that people really, truly believed those things and yet they did. The discussion was specifically about the Cornerstone Speech. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

 But not
to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow
me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution
has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our
peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper
status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate
cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his
forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union
would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a
realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon
which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas
entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the
formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the
African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in
principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew
not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that
day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the
institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not
incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the
institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly
urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the
common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally
wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This
was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon
it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth
that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination
to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow
in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various
departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear
me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally
admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still
clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who
still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly
denominate fanatics. 

Someone suggested that Southerners didn’t actually believe these things, they were simply papering over the cognitive dissonance they experienced as the result of participating in and benefiting from an obvious evil. That’s not true. Plenty of people actually believed it.

People haven’t changed in any substantial way in 150 years. Some people still believe things that are, to the rest of us, manifestly untrue. 

 It baffles me too, like middle class libertarians. They have to know they’re getting nothing, and the little they have is going to line the wealthy’s pockets. 

I don’t think that this is true. IME middle class libertarians think that if The Man would just stop interfering with the free market that they’d score big. Because they’re just that much smarter or harder working than other people. I know that sounds ridiculous, but they I’m pretty sure they genuinely believe that it’s true. 

Over at TNC’s blog there has been some good discussion about historical views and they way we have trouble wrapping our head around the fact that people really, truly believed those things and yet they did. The discussion was specifically about the Cornerstone Speech. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

 But not
to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow
me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution
has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our
peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper
status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate
cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his
forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union
would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a
realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon
which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas
entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the
formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the
African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in
principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew
not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that
day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the
institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not
incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the
institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly
urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the
common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally
wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This
was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon
it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth
that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination
to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow
in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various
departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear
me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally
admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still
clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who
still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly
denominate fanatics. 

Someone suggested that Southerners didn’t actually believe these things, they were simply papering over the cognitive dissonance they experienced as the result of participating in and benefiting from an obvious evil. That’s not true. Plenty of people actually believed it.

People haven’t changed in any substantial way in 150 years. Some people still believe things that are, to the rest of us, manifestly untrue. 

Um, it’s still lack of education. It’s not a coincidence that as education levels rise, people’s political views generally shift towards the Left.  Nor is it a coincidence that the last forty years has seen a relentless and ruthless effort by the GOP to destroy public education in this country. Ignorant peasants don’t cause nearly as many problems for their betters as educated free-thinkers do.

To explain what’s in it for the target audience.  It’s a couple different factors.

Firstly, the target audience wants to believe that they’re the smart and hardworking ones.  They want to think that they’re being robbed by taxes and that anybody who gains anything is a theif.  That way, they get a world where they are better and where it’s actually the moral thing to do to tell someone down and out “fuck you”.

Sencody, and I think this has a lot to do with it, “if you can’t be with the one you hate, hate the one you’re with.”  The rich have a lot of protection in the form of money, power, and connection.  The CEOs of a subprime mortgage lender might not be around for your splean to vent upon.  But, the single mother using foodstamps to suppliment her job in her effort to feed her two kids, she’s right there for you to shout at for leeching from our society by, you know, eating.

A 4000 square foot house? A $3700+ a month food budget? How on God’s green earth do they make that kind of money?

They mostly do it with donations.  The infamous Duggars and another family built the additions to their house, and they receive a lot of donations.

I have also heard that they “borrow” money from a teenage son, but I’m too lazy to track down that source right now so take it with a grain of salt.

Everyone wants to see themselves and be seen as others as good.  Everyone wants to feel and be seen by others as strong.  Everyone wants to be safe and avoid random calamity.  The trick to movement conservatism is to convince people that they can have all of these desires fulfilled and  that they will never contradict. 

‘American society is inherently just and good, and the free market is the physical manifestation of that goodness. And you too can be unquestionably good as long as you adhere to the mythic American way of God fearing American manhood.  Do this while declaring your love for America as often and overtly as you can and only an envious fool would ever deny your goodness.’  You may be assured that, as long as you follow the True American Way, no terrible harm will come to you. Since we are, after all, unquestionably just, you may be assured that here in our blessed land there is no such thing as bad luck.  Let there be no doubt that those who are poor or suffering some other misfortune must have done something or another to bring it upon themselves just quint harder and you’ll find it. And let there be no doubt that even those rare cases of undeserved suffering that do exist come only ever in the form of criminals, terrorists, foreigners; so that even cases of true injustice at least give you the opportunity to display how strong you are through your manful eagerness to fight and punish evil.  For you are not merely unquestionably good but a brave knight in the defense of good.’ 

Do…do they know who pays for the ER visits, then?

They do.  At least where I live, you’re stuck with the bill, regardless of your financial situation.  Though being unemployed might delay it.*  I imagine it’s the same most places.

Though, if they can afford hormone therapy for more children, I don’t think that’s a problem for them.

*I recently got contacted by a collection agency over an ER visit I made when I was unemployed a few years back.  The hospital (apparently) decided not to bill me while I was unemployed and send me to collections years later instead.  Nice.

So, bananacat, they’re basically leeches who live off hard-working Americans… but since their leeching doesn’t come from tax dollars, it’s all good?

/snark

So, bananacat, they’re basically leeches who live off hard-working
Americans… but since their leeching doesn’t come from tax dollars,
it’s all good?

/snark 

No, the donations come directly from God himself.  The people involved are just conduits.  Why to government can’t also be a conduit is beyond me.  But they will attribute all of the good things to God blessing them and not the to generous people who donated.

Banancat, I found the article you mentioned: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-family-20-relies-thrift-teamwork-make-ends/story?id=14364190

It mentions that their 19 y.o. son Lawson’s lawn-mowing business, “makes enough money to provide a rolling no-interest line of credit to his parents and siblings. Gil and Kelly reject debt of all kinds: no mortgage, car loan or credit cards. Lawson is their only creditor.”

Banancat, I found the article you mentioned: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-family-20-relies-thrift-teamwork-make-ends/story?id=14364190

It mentions that their 19 y.o. son Lawson’s lawn-mowing business, “makes enough money to provide a rolling no-interest line of credit to his parents and siblings. Gil and Kelly reject debt of all kinds: no mortgage, car loan or credit cards. Lawson is their only creditor.”

How is Lawson supposed to start his own life and family when he’s carrying his parents family on his back? Does Lawson not get to have his own life until enough of his siblings (i.e. his parents’ children) have gone out to work that the folks can finally support their own choices?

How can they brag about being debt-free when they are in debt to their son?  It’s like they don’t even know what words mean.

And the fact is, they DO live off the government.  They take every tax credit available to them, which I assume includes the EITC.  So that means they are probably among… wait for it… those leeches among the 50% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes!

 It baffles me too, like middle class libertarians. They have to know they’re getting nothing, and the little they have is going to line the wealthy’s pockets. 

I had a whole long response to this that seems to have disappeared into the black hole of moderation. 

Short version—-I don’t think this is true. IME middle class libertarians don’t know that they’re getting nothing. They believe that if The Government stopped messing with the free market and taking their hard earned money at the point of a gun to give to losers they would inevitably rise and prosper. Because they are just that much smarter or more useful than Those People and/or work that much harder and a truly free market would reward them. 

To us this seems clearly untrue. So obviously untrue that it’s tough to accept that anyone actually believes it. And yet, they do. 

One of the commenters at TNC’s blog expressed this idea better than I am. Check out the 3rd comment on this post, by k___bee. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/08/that-older-and-real-terror/244113/

Another possible explanation for the resentment is the Just World fallacy, though I’m sure it’s been brought up somewhere before on this blog. I think it’s easier to believe the Just World fallacy when times are bad because that’s when you’re likely to feel selfish and you need to justify certain actions, such as paying less taxes. Per the Just World fallacy, the poor are less deserving of your tax money than rich people, so that’s who you resent.

I think there are many reasons why the working poor buy into the line they are being sold. One is the same reason the ‘snake oil salesman’ is such an iconic figure.  Another is a hold over from our Calvinist forbears, being poor is a sign that you lack the state of grace.  To put it plainly the poor are poor because God has selected them not to be saved.  I know I’m not saying this doctrine well, but it was taught to me in ‘tent meetings’ in my youth.

They get something.  They get to feel that they are better than someone else.

The antipathy of those on lower incomes to redistribution is not about aspiration. It’s about last-place aversion.

Nobody wants to be at the bottom. Those just above the bottom will fight tooth and nail any redistribution that would bring those currently at the bottom up to their level, thus making them part of the bottom.

Whereas those who are in the middle, for whom raising the standard of the those at the bottom will still leave them with a comfortable margin between them and the (newly-raised) bottom, are all in favour of such redistribution.

It’s a thing: http://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/lpa_draft_3june2011.pdf

I’m surprised that ethnicity hasn’t yet been mentioned in this thread. For a century, last-place aversion practically defined the mentality of non-wealthy whites in much of the nation, and it’s probably still a major factor in the phenomenon that Fred describes. Politicians and commentators have become skilled in talking about ethnicity by not talking about it. So when any of them bash the “poor,” I start listening for the dog whistles.

The wealthy and powerful have declared open war on the poor and the weak.  Not all of the poor and weak, they assure us – but we never can seem to nail down exactly whom is exempt.  One thing is for sure, though – they intend to be brutal.  They’ve let us know they will give no quarter and show no mercy.  They are going to obliterate their enemies, but first they are going to make them suffer – horribly.  And they can do this, because they’re rich and powerful and their enemies are weak and poor.  So if you’re poor, it’s absolutely essential that you make it on to the “exempt” list, no matter what it takes.  They never explain exactly what the criteria are for being on that list, but offerring any kind of opposition to the powerful or their war on your fellow poor people is definitely right out.

People want to believe that everyone gets what they deserve, because otherwise they’d feel like they had no control over what happens to them, and that is terrifying and demoralizing and can even lead to bad health. This is what goes on in victim-blaming: you find out something bad happened to someone else, you feel fear, and then you need to find something that the victim did wrong so you don’t have to feel afraid that it will happen to you. If (as a couple of people already said, I think) you are profiting from that bad thing, the belief that everyone gets what they deserve will take away your guilt about doing it (or letting it happen).

So when any of them bash the “poor,” I start listening for the dog whistles.

Having grown up poor in a poor area where the large majority of the poor were white: sometimes people just hate the poor because they’re the poor. It’s not always a cover for pure racism.

As depressing as this is, the frequency with which this attack is now being mounted makes me (the littlest bit) optimistic. They see poll after incontrovertible poll calling for an increase in taxes so they lash out with, “Oh yeah? Higher taxes? Here’s an idea!” At least they are being forced to acknowledge the need for taxes, even if they are still trying to wave shiny, jangly, resentful keys in front of our eyes instead of responding like adults.

See also the hilariously hypocritical opposition to extending lowered payroll taxes because they were supposed to be temporary.

Hand in hand with this breed of resentment there is the uninformed half-optimistic view of capitalism that prevails among the middle classes.  The notion not that some people can overcome whatever odds, whatever hurdles and become a success – but rather that Everyone can do so.  Capitalism in many essential ways is a race- a competition – the thing about competitions – most people lose a race and just one wins.  Not everyone can have vast financial success and the sooner the mainstream realizes this – the sooner they’ll start to make rational decisions. 

Why hate on the poor?  Because of the sneaking feeling that you’re one of them.  Why hate the rich?  Because you finally accept you’re never going to be one of them. 

Arizona had a move on to make their EBT cards dayglo orange so they
could be better identified in the checkout line. What they can be used
for can be handled in software — this had no purpose beyond spite.

Oh, lord.  Why didn’t they just tattoo a giant “P” on the foreheads of people below a certain income level, already?

Arizona had a move on to make their EBT cards dayglo orange so they
could be better identified in the checkout line. What they can be used
for can be handled in software — this had no purpose beyond spite.

Oh, lord.  Why didn’t they just tattoo a giant “P” on the foreheads of people below a certain income level, already?

“but these poor bastards get nothing but the bitter taste of perpetual, impotent, misdirected resentment.”

Let’s remember that most of them aren’t poor. If you look at the demographics of tea partiers, they are doing better than average in this recession so it’s not surprising that they’re willing to give more and more power to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

Sure, there are poor people who have misdirected resentment but they aren’t the ones controlling an entire political party and working in the primary organizations in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — those folks are middle and upper middle class. And they are convinced that the ravings of Ayn Rand (Queen of the sociopaths) are true and that hard working real Americans like themselves should not have to support leeches who are unwilling to work. Never mind that those “leeches” quite often have the same skin color they do and believe in Jesus Christ as they claim to do.

Poor is the new gay in 2012 which was the new black in 2004. Poor is the group du jour to demonize to galvanize the resentful to vote republican in the next election.

“The wealthy and powerful have declared open war on the poor and the weak. Not all of the poor and weak, they assure us – but we never can seem to nail down exactly whom is exempt.”

Why the Deserving Poor of course! Who will turn out to be  anyone whose story of being denied benefits is embarassing when repeated in the press.

In the UK I am still seeing headlines about how Unfair it is that we are still paying Civil Servants. And that Civil Servants still get pay deals that the government honours. And that Civil Servants are wicked because they still have unions. I used to be a lowly Civil Servant and the resentment has spread to those who still have a little of what used to be regarded as basic for everyone before the Reagan/Thatcher years.

“The wealthy and powerful have declared open war on the poor and the weak. Not all of the poor and weak, they assure us – but we never can seem to nail down exactly whom is exempt.”

Why the Deserving Poor of course! Who will turn out to be  anyone whose story of being denied benefits is embarassing when repeated in the press.

In the UK I am still seeing headlines about how Unfair it is that we are still paying Civil Servants. And that Civil Servants still get pay deals that the government honours. And that Civil Servants are wicked because they still have unions. I used to be a lowly Civil Servant and the resentment has spread to those who still have a little of what used to be regarded as basic for everyone before the Reagan/Thatcher years.

As I understand it, you live in Australia. The ethnic and racial composition of Australia is different from the USA, where in that country being poor is something whites don’t do, in the coded subtext of American poor-bashing.

Privilege. Say it with me. Privilege.

That is the core of what is tapped in any politics of resentment.

On the confusion that often arises as to why many people would vote for a party that damages their interests – the question has to asked … ‘what interests’ – because people are not just one-dimensional. If you are poor, that does not conclude the whole of how you identify.

Someone can be poor and have white privilege. Or they can have heterosexual privilege. Or, any number of different classes of privilege.

The question then becomes identifying what aspect of identity matters most to someone. From there, it seems likely that, surely a threat to the privilege a person clings to will matter more than the  privilege someone else has. That is, a person strongly against gays infringing on marriage will be motivated by that far more than they would be by someone else being more wealthy than they are.

If you lack a privilege, you can still aspire to attain it. However, if you have a privilege and are invested in it, stongly attached to maintaining it – well,  then someone else can aspire to it .. and a privilege clung to doesn’t like to be shared.

If you examine the politics of resentment – actual cases of it in play – you can see this dynamic in action. The saddest part is many politicians don’t believe in the fears they are stoking … they’re just using them for their own political gratification.

Privilege. Say it with me. Privilege.

That is the core of what is tapped in any politics of resentment.

On the confusion that often arises as to why many people would vote for a party that damages their interests – the question has to asked … ‘what interests’ – because people are not just one-dimensional. If you are poor, that does not conclude the whole of how you identify.

Someone can be poor and have white privilege. Or they can have heterosexual privilege. Or, any number of different classes of privilege.

The question then becomes identifying what aspect of identity matters most to someone. From there, it seems likely that, surely a threat to the privilege a person clings to will matter more than the  privilege someone else has. That is, a person strongly against gays infringing on marriage will be motivated by that far more than they would be by someone else being more wealthy than they are.

If you lack a privilege, you can still aspire to attain it. However, if you have a privilege and are invested in it, stongly attached to maintaining it – well,  then someone else can aspire to it .. and a privilege clung to doesn’t like to be shared.

If you examine the politics of resentment – actual cases of it in play – you can see this dynamic in action. The saddest part is many politicians don’t believe in the fears they are stoking … they’re just using them for their own political gratification.

depizan: ER visits are still subsidized even if they try to bill you and even if you pay it. The costs of that service are spread out to other patients and insurance. It’s kind of a loss leader.

There might be an element of outright fear to it. People are fed an image of the greedy, grasping poor person, who doesn’t go away when you give them a dime, but rather clings to your shirt sleeves, begs using every sob story in the book…and then slits your purse and steals your car for good measure.

Fox News is perpetuating this notion that if you give said greedy unwashed masses so much of a sliver of charity, this will only galvanize the ungrateful wretches into stealing everything you have. I can imagine, for people who despite not being technically “poor” don’t have all that much to spare, this could be a frightening notion.

It’s a combination of fear of having everything you have taken away from you, and the fear of being suckered.

I think those areas are where you start hearing nasty terms like “trailer trash” – as if to indicate, “We like white people, just not those white people.” Yeesh.

When I read the article about the payroll tax thing in the newspaper on the way home from work, it was really hard for me not to start yelling on the Metro.

OK,  my comments keep getting lost.  I posted in response to Tonio about a post that appeared yesterday on Balloon Juice called,”The depravity of the poor.”  The post described an article that cited a study that indicates that poor people are less likely to attend church than wealthier  people.  The article then laments the “depravity” of the poor, with lost of dog whistles about “those people.”

Some Balloon Juice commenters noted the insidious racism of the article.  Because the study the article cites? Is about church attendance among whites.  Because the “poor don’t go to church” thesis doesn’t hold true for non-whites.   So the article was using a study only about whites to label poor people of color as “depraved.”

That article — or rather an article that quotes an article that quotes an article — has been making the rounds of the blogosphere today.  The original article is just as jaw-dropping as the quotes from it.  It really reads like something out of the Onion.

Worse, most of the comments seem to agree with him.

 It wasn’t this was it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2011/08/22/our-depraved-poor/

Because that made me rage.

Hospitals can also take the loss and write it off in taxes, so even if nobody coughs up, they get subsidized.

How is Lawson supposed to start his own life and family when he’s carrying his parents family on his back? Does Lawson not get to have his own life until enough of his siblings (i.e. his parents’ children) have gone out to work that the folks can finally support their own choices? That perspective makes sense within a post-Enlightenment, individualist worldview, where the default assumption is that adulthood means leaving the parental nest, being self-supporting, and establishing not just a separate household but eventually a separate family (the new adult, spouse(s), kids, very close friends and pets.)In that model, you have the family you grew up in, and the family you build and choose. It’s that building and choosing that can be the most wonderful and joyous part of, as you put it, having your own life.In the frame of reference of the Quiverfull world, though — as in a huge number of traditional cultures where the extended family is strong — your question is almost incomprehensible. Of course his parents’ family is his family. So’s his sister’s family. So’s his uncle’s, and his cousin’s. That’s what family means there — a permanent interconnection of obligation, duty, and authority. This is a worldview where going off to college is suspect and moving out of town is an act of deep betrayal. For a grown son to go off and “have his own life” is questionable in itself; usng that desire as a justification for not contributing to the family finances would be unconscionable. Banancat asks, “How can they brag about being debt-free when they are in debt to their son?” It’s the family that’s debt-free. Their son’s in their family, under their authority, caught in the web of obligation and duty. What’s his is theirs.

How is Lawson supposed to start his own life and family when he’s carrying his parents family on his back? Does Lawson not get to have his own life until enough of his siblings (i.e. his parents’ children) have gone out to work that the folks can finally support their own choices? That perspective makes sense within a post-Enlightenment, individualist worldview, where the default assumption is that adulthood means leaving the parental nest, being self-supporting, and establishing not just a separate household but eventually a separate family (the new adult, spouse(s), kids, very close friends and pets.)In that model, you have the family you grew up in, and the family you build and choose. It’s that building and choosing that can be the most wonderful and joyous part of, as you put it, having your own life.In the frame of reference of the Quiverfull world, though — as in a huge number of traditional cultures where the extended family is strong — your question is almost incomprehensible. Of course his parents’ family is his family. So’s his sister’s family. So’s his uncle’s, and his cousin’s. That’s what family means there — a permanent interconnection of obligation, duty, and authority. This is a worldview where going off to college is suspect and moving out of town is an act of deep betrayal. For a grown son to go off and “have his own life” is questionable in itself; usng that desire as a justification for not contributing to the family finances would be unconscionable. Banancat asks, “How can they brag about being debt-free when they are in debt to their son?” It’s the family that’s debt-free. Their son’s in their family, under their authority, caught in the web of obligation and duty. What’s his is theirs.

How is Lawson supposed to start his own life and family when he’s carrying his parents family on his back? Does Lawson not get to have his own life until enough of his siblings (i.e. his parents’ children) have gone out to work that the folks can finally support their own choices? That perspective makes sense within a post-Enlightenment, individualist worldview, where the default assumption is that adulthood means leaving the parental nest, being self-supporting, and establishing not just a separate household but eventually a separate family (the new adult, spouse(s), kids, very close friends and pets.)In that model, you have the family you grew up in, and the family you build and choose. It’s that building and choosing that can be the most wonderful and joyous part of, as you put it, having your own life.In the frame of reference of the Quiverfull world, though — as in a huge number of traditional cultures where the extended family is strong — your question is almost incomprehensible. Of course his parents’ family is his family. So’s his sister’s family. So’s his uncle’s, and his cousin’s. That’s what family means there — a permanent interconnection of obligation, duty, and authority. This is a worldview where going off to college is suspect and moving out of town is an act of deep betrayal. For a grown son to go off and “have his own life” is questionable in itself; usng that desire as a justification for not contributing to the family finances would be unconscionable. Banancat asks, “How can they brag about being debt-free when they are in debt to their son?” It’s the family that’s debt-free. Their son’s in their family, under their authority, caught in the web of obligation and duty. What’s his is theirs.

I have to disagree with you here.  When Josh Duggar got married, his parents made a giant deal about “leave and cleave” and claimed that he was completely independent of them.  Of course it’s all a steaming pile of lies, but in QF, they do like to pretend that their children are financially independent once they grow up.

I have to disagree with you here.  When Josh Duggar got married, his parents made a giant deal about “leave and cleave” and claimed that he was completely independent of them.  Of course it’s all a steaming pile of lies, but in QF, they do like to pretend that their children are financially independent once they grow up.

I have to disagree with you here.  When Josh Duggar got married, his parents made a giant deal about “leave and cleave” and claimed that he was completely independent of them.  Of course it’s all a steaming pile of lies, but in QF, they do like to pretend that their children are financially independent once they grow up.

oops. I hate Disqus.

I stand corrected.
And it absolutely makes sense that wingnuts would refuse to give any financial support to a healthy, young, able-bodied adult. Even one they gave birth to. Moocher.
The Duggars give me the heebie-jeebies, so I’m grateful that somebody else is watching them so I don’t have to. Do you know if Josh was contributing financially to the family before he married?
Were they losing income by letting him go, or were they saving money on the grocery bill? I’m cynical enough to think that makes a difference.

Josh Duggar comes across as lazy and spoiled, and his nickname is Smuggar for a reason.  I can’t be too hard on him because his horrible joke of an education really failed him.  But he was definitely not contributing financially to the household before he left.

However, for all their “leave and cleave” bragging, his parents are still supporting him.  He lives in a house owned by his grandma, and if he pays rent at all, it’s massively discounted.  His father gave him a used car lot and may still own the title for the property.  Josh generally waltzes into work around 10 a.m., although to be fair, I doubt many people are buying used cars at 8 a.m.  He is known for being consistently late for everything though.

But the Duggars are Evangalists first, and they have a lifestyle to sell.  They want others to believe that if you just have as many kids as possible, if you just give up tv, if you just stop wearing pants (for women), if you just homeschool, if you just follow this very long list of rules, it’s a perfect formula that will produce perfect children who will never go through teenage rebellion and will turn into hard-working adults who will be able to have only one income and still support a family that increases in size almost every year.

I actually don’t begrudge all the help Josh is getting.  I just wish they wouldn’t all be so smug and holier-than-thou about it.  Lying is a sin except when it helps you to lure people in.

The Bateses are a very different story though.  They aren’t nearly rich enough to give all their sons and sons-in-laws their own houses and businesses.  They still subscribe to the QF rule of “leave and cleave”, but they’ll have to actually do it out of necessity.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the sons continued to give money to the parents though.

Josh Duggar comes across as lazy and spoiled, and his nickname is Smuggar for a reason.  I can’t be too hard on him because his horrible joke of an education really failed him.  But he was definitely not contributing financially to the household before he left.

However, for all their “leave and cleave” bragging, his parents are still supporting him.  He lives in a house owned by his grandma, and if he pays rent at all, it’s massively discounted.  His father gave him a used car lot and may still own the title for the property.  Josh generally waltzes into work around 10 a.m., although to be fair, I doubt many people are buying used cars at 8 a.m.  He is known for being consistently late for everything though.

But the Duggars are Evangalists first, and they have a lifestyle to sell.  They want others to believe that if you just have as many kids as possible, if you just give up tv, if you just stop wearing pants (for women), if you just homeschool, if you just follow this very long list of rules, it’s a perfect formula that will produce perfect children who will never go through teenage rebellion and will turn into hard-working adults who will be able to have only one income and still support a family that increases in size almost every year.

I actually don’t begrudge all the help Josh is getting.  I just wish they wouldn’t all be so smug and holier-than-thou about it.  Lying is a sin except when it helps you to lure people in.

The Bateses are a very different story though.  They aren’t nearly rich enough to give all their sons and sons-in-laws their own houses and businesses.  They still subscribe to the QF rule of “leave and cleave”, but they’ll have to actually do it out of necessity.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the sons continued to give money to the parents though.

 I actually don’t begrudge all the help Josh is getting. 

I don’t begrudge it all that much either. The education they provided him was a total joke. The functional reality is that they raised him to be stupid. After leaving him so ill-equipped to deal with the real world I figure hooking him up is the least they can do since they’re able. Of course, from here on out the boy needs to be responsible for himself and smarten up. 

Yeah, like that’s going to happen. 

  I just wish they wouldn’t all be so smug and holier-than-thou about it.  Lying is a sin except when it helps you to lure people in. 

Or when it’;s the only way for you to live with yourself and the choices you’ve made and the way you’ve totally f’ed up you (very large number of) children. 

Heartfout, I think so. I read the Balloon Juice post that quotes from it, but the quotes sound familiar.

As I understand it, you live in Australia. The ethnic and racial composition of Australia is different from the USA, where in that country being poor is something whites don’t do, in the coded subtext of American poor-bashing.

Yeah, I do and it is* and I get that, which is why I haven’t said anything about this before. But for quite a while now there have been discussions here about class issues which have many commonalities with my experience. And (it seems to me anyway) that every time Tonio says something along the lines of “I think this is really fundamentally about race, not class”. Which says to me that all the crap that’s been loaded on my family for decades is not real, because it’s definitely not about race in our case, nor are we likely to have been caught in the crossfire of a conflict about race. It’s been really bothering me–increasingly so, and maybe more than it should. But there you go.

*We definitely have race issues, but they’re different–at least in part because Aboriginal people make up only 2.5% of the population, and in many areas much less than that. In my experience, race-based resentment in Australia is out in the open, not couched in terms of something else.

 Yes, the ER has to treat the EMERGENCY; it doesn’t have to provide ongoing, continuing treatment for the health problem. It won’t give you a prescription for 30 days worth of a diabetic drug, just that day’s doses. ERs do not do cancer treatment — the pain you’re in right now, this minute, yes; the continuing chemo you need, no.

So the quiverfull family is headed by an ignorant, willfully stupid fool; and they do not love their children.

I doubt there is such a thing as “pure racism.” What I’m describing is not a cover for racism but a mentality of resentment, where the line between the poor and non-whites becomes blurred to one degree or another in their minds. Frequently they insist on a distinction between poor people who “work hard” and those who are “welfare bums.”

Adding to Woodsider’s comment that ER treat the EMERGENCY; my wife works for an agency that help the homeless get shelter and care.  One of the saddest story she brought home from work was of the only local hospital, a “for profit” business. One of her persons she had gotten an apartment for was having complications from diabetes and went to the ER.  They gave him minimum they were required to for someone without insurance or means; a check of vitial signs and then pushed him out without any treatment.  To ensure he didn’t come back for a while, they payed a cab to drive him ~ 4 miles home.  He died in the cab.

There was some speculation the other day that it was the “I don’t want to be last” phenomenon. There was a study (sorry, I’ve lost the link, but it was in the last week) which seemed to indicate that people just up from the very bottom oppose policy that would make them better off but ALSO help those below them, particularly if those below them might catch up.

Having someone even worse off than you means you haven’t “lost” the great American game of capitalism, in which wealth is how you keep score.