When there's no cost to them, Olympia's liberals stand strong
On gay marriage and other social issues, they are all in. And that's good. But what about paying for education, social services, investing in our future? Leave that to ... Bill Gates Sr.
In their ground-breaking 2010 book Winner Take All Politics, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson tell the story of the politics and policies of the 30-year period from 1977 to 2007 that led to vast income inequality between the rich and everyone else. Last fall the Occupy movement popularized that story, wrapping it in their 99 percent and 1 percent narrative.
But a little-noted subplot of Winner Take All Politics concerned the way political liberalism and liberals in America shifted, during these same years, to an agenda of “post-material issues.”
During the 30-year period when America morphed, in Hacker and Pierson’s terms, from “Broadistan” to “Richistan,” liberals shifted their focus from traditional bread-and-butter issues of labor, the working class, and wages to what Hacker and Pierson see as the post-material agenda. That agenda has been focused on things like environmental issues, gender equality, multicultural awareness, and gay rights. Nothing wrong with these concerns, but they don’t have much direct effect on growing jeopardy of the working and middle classes.
The many advocacy groups that proliferated in this era, comment Hacker and Pierson, “Almost never focused their attention on the economic issues that most powerfully affected the working and middle classes. The result was a boon for the post-materialist causes of the more affluent liberals, but it left traditional material causes with only a handful of energetic backers.”
I recalled Hacker and Pierson’s observations during this current legislative session in which non-material issues have captured our attention, despite the fact that material issues are very real and at least equally, if not more, urgent. The proverbial visitor from outer space could be forgiven for not suspecting that the Washington has made draconian cuts to the state’s budget.
Marriage equality for gays and lesbians has dominated the headlines. This is a significant issue and marriage equality is an important step. Not as significant but also worthy issues making the news out of Olympia: a coming referendum on the legalization of marajuana; death penalty legislation; and bills to outlaw plastic shopping bags.
The front page of the Feb. 2 Seattle Times provided an illustration. Five columns, the front page photo, and the banner headline were devoted to “Historic vote clears way for same-sex marriage.” The remaining 1/6th of the above-the-fold page featured a story about the decline of institutions of higher education in Washington, “University presidents lament cuts, brain drain.”
The story notes that in the past four years funding for state universities has been cut by 50 pecent. In my book, that’s a shocking statistic.
And here’s another shocking statistic. Last year state universities turned away 27,000 students who qualified for financial aid. This year that number is estimated to be 35,000.
“Washington is now known as a place to go headhunting” for out-of-state universities hiring new faculty, said Western Washington University President Bruce Shephard.
So we can look forward to a referendum on marajuana legalization and monitor bills to outlaw plastic shopping bags, while the state budget, and higher education, can expect further cuts from the Legislature and K- 12 education can expect no relief despite a court decision against the state for insufficient funding.
This seems a pretty fair illustration of Hacker and Pierson’s contention of the shift to a post-material agenda. We’re “can-do” on some things--post-material things — but we’re “cannot do” on those that have anything to do with money, taxes, or funding of our most important social institutions. Why is that?
I supppose for many the answer would be, “Duh, there’s a recession.” True enough. At the same time, the war on taxation and thus on public institutions like K-12 and higher education has been going on for far longer than this recession.
I can think of a handful of reasons for this “can-do,” “can’t-do” split.
One, we’ve become sentimental. We’re all for equal rights, equity, and progressivism just so long as it doesn’t actually cost us anything. Where I come from we used to call the folks that fit this profile “limousine liberals.” Another way to put this, is that the various bills and referenda emerging from Olympia this year don’t cost people of privilege anything. They can say, “here, here!” without feeling it in their pocketbook.
Second, it is a matter of leadership. Gov. Chris Gregoire came out strongly for marriage equality. Great. She came out only tepidly for a small sales tax increase. I don’t recall many elected or unelected leaders who went to the barricades two years ago on behalf of the effort to create an income tax for the wealthiest Washingtonians, except maybe Bill Gates Sr. We prefer our liberalism without a price tag.
Third, these days we don’t seem much disposed to “pay it forward,” or to invest in the future. The Broadistan generation, 1947 to 1977, was all about investing in public institutions like schools and universities and public infrastructure, like bridges and transportation, to build for the next and future generations. Today, that kind of capacity for sacrifice and long-term thinking on behalf of future generations has been lost.
I’m waiting for some political leaders, some liberal leaders in particular, in Washington to stand up and say, “At least sometimes, our liberal convictions ought to cost us something."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 4:42 a.m. Inappropriate
Surprised not to see this new study not referenced here: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2009/11/18/study-washington-state-has-usas-most-regressive-taxes/ which shows the Great Nearby as having the most regressive tax structure in the Union. In your face, Mississippi!
State voters turn down an income tax on millionaires, overturn a tax on fizzy sugar water and Seattle voters overturn a quarter tax on plastic bags. Ad hoc measures tend to get shot down when presented in a piecemeal fashion. The best solution would be a grass roots organization formed for the express purpose of true tax reform statewide with a progressive basis. Then popular support would have to be built though an educational campaign of at least a year's duration before going to the voters. SInce the Democrats are more a brand than a party, it's difficult to see such an initiative coming from them as a party platform plank, although a fair and comprehensive reform just might be popular enough to campaign on. Hard to tell in this environment if such a thing is possible, let alone popular. Certainly the reason such a thing isn't happening already is because there's little indication that voters will reward those who take the trouble to step forth with such ideas. But ten years ago when I saw a movie advocating gay marriage rights I thought "not in my my lifetime". Happy to be wrong, and the victory was only because of persistent advocates who wouldn't take no for an answer. A discipline which the Right Wing in this land has adopted to their gain and the country's loss.
Or maybe there's a young left wing Tim Eyeman out there with the chops to write a comprehensive reform, file it as an initiative, and somehow sell it to the voters. One can dream. Not going to hold my breath on that method, though.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 7:37 a.m. Inappropriate
If only the tens of millions of liberal, poor people would pay even one dollar of federal income tax...if food stamps, EBT cards, welfare, subsidized health insurance, etc. would be eliminated....and sacred cows such as mortgage interest could be abolished and everything was flat tax based....then we ALL could concentrate on the social wedge issues such as 'guns, God, and gays'.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 8:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Legalizing marijuana will bring down its price and stabilize quality and supply. One of the medical benefits of smoking pot is that it dulls the pain of poverty.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 8:56 a.m. Inappropriate
Something hypocritical/self-serving/disgusting about the President of a tax-exempt organization arguing for tax increases.
Maybe we should revise the "non-profit" portion of our tax code, Tony. That might solve the problems you cite.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 10:01 a.m. Inappropriate
I am not surprised at medical marijuana getting more headline than U of W funding. My reasons
1. Media hyping of an issue. Marijuana and gay marraiage is / are the big whoopedy do this week.
2. Our society seems to be driven by the minorities and their needs
3. The majority be damned
4. Education - ahhhh what do we need that for?
Appears we have our priorities all backwards.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 10:13 a.m. Inappropriate
We are in a time of transition , still trying to look forward while the foundations which have propped up this grest State are truly failing . If it were just about taxing Washingtonians then other states with other taxing structures would not be failing also .
To somehow forego other aspects of a social agenda and claim high ground is far too simplistic . I am inspired , as I see local taxing districts step up to the plate , I think we are aleady reacting to the cuts in education , fire & safety , health safety nets ... , locally .
I'm not holding my breath for top down solututions from my Federal or State governments . Welcome to Greece .
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 1 p.m. Inappropriate
NickBob is wishing for a "left wing Tim Eyeman"? That's an oxymoron (and a misspelling); Eyman's hatred of government is, like Grover Norquist's desire to "drown it in the bathtub", fear-based reactionary politics. "Left wing" is by definition the opposite of reactionary, and is hopefully fact, not fear based.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 2:04 p.m. Inappropriate
@louploup- Perhaps my point is poorly put. It's not his politics that are wanted, quite the reverse, it's I-man's technique of writing the law as he thinks it should be, putting that proposed law to the public to gather signatures to put that proposal on the ballot, and then passing the initiative. The process works as well for progressives as for reactionaries, the process was instituted by progressives in the first place. But if you can fool enough of the people at the right time, the process works both ways.
A little history:from the wiki: "...reforms aimed at breaking the concentrated, some would say monopoly, power of certain corporations and trusts. Many Progressives felt that state legislatures were part of this problem and that they were essentially "in the pocket" of certain wealthy interests"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States
In the Citizens United era, those corporations have to buy votes retail via media campaigns in addition to legislators. But it's a cost of business which will be borne by taxpayers or customers or both, so the bottom line won't cry.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 5:51 p.m. Inappropriate
One thing the legislature has right—both progressive and regressive initiative writers need to come up with whole solutions, funding source included. Problem is, with the feds setting the example for "unfunded mandates," very few of those who take matters into their own hands have been willing to handicap themselves with integrity.
Posted Tue, Feb 7, 7:33 p.m. Inappropriate
This article is BS.
Worker Privacy would have cost the state exactly $0 and the Governor, senate majority leader, and speaker went our of their way (after telling organized labor they would support that common sense legislation) to kill the bill.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.