Election victories and the framework of social class

Social class is not an issue often discussed in immigrant nations such as the United States or Australia. Both countries are built on notions that they are different to the “Old World” of Britain with its rigid class system and limited social mobility.

While upward mobility and aspiration are themes heavily repeated in election campaigns, social class is rarely spoken of. It is doomed to have Marxist associations - and no political party wants that anymore.

In Australia, Mark Latham was repeatedly, and disparagingly, referred to by his rivals as a “class warrior” and his brand of politics as “class warfare”. Just the hint Latham might be involved in anything to do with “the classes”, and not just those in schools, was designed to discredit him.

But the wrecking of the Left by conservative victories in both countries was very much related to social class. The successful framing of class as a product of culture and not economics was the key to the Republican victory in the US and the Liberal Party triumph in Australia, albeit less so.

According to the “Republican world view”, there is a left wing “elite” who make our movies, teach at our universities, write in our newspapers and make our court judgements. Evidently they are not representative of the population at large and they do not pay heed to people’s values or traditions. Consequently we should all be very angry with them for conspiring to rule our lives.

This theme is articulated in an Australian context most clearly by the prominent monarchist and ex-head of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor David Flint. In his book, The Twilight Of The Elites, he estimates the “elite” number approximately 10 per cent of the population,  as evidenced by the numbers who voted for the progressive minor parties in the 2001 election.

This is reiterated by the Fairfax columnist Gerard Henderson who notes:

The message of the Australian and US elections is that a majority of voters are not over-impressed by the self-important declarations of academics, actors, musicians and the like.

In this conservative narrative, the “establishment” is portrayed as the cultural powerbrokers who try to rule our thoughts. Intellect or sophistication is caricatured as something to be derided. A whole range of global symbols fall under the “elite” conspiracy, notably the United Nations.

It is convenient that economics does not picture in this model, for it does not hurt the core “big-business constituency” of the Right.

The contradictions of this argument are clear. The mass culture that is derided is in turn a product of the market institutions that are held in the highest esteem.

On the flip-side, the failure to present the economic context of class has left the centre parties in ruins.

John Kerry ran what the Washington Post called the “biography based campaign” in which he relied heavily on the period he served in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, Bush’s first term saw the worst corporate scandals in American history and a net loss in jobs. Enron suffered the biggest collapse and was one of the companies closest to the Republican Party.

The tax cut already implemented by Bush will result in a huge redistribution of wealth to the richest households, to the tune of $330 billion dollars in ten years. Kerry failed to capitalise on such monumental benefits to the “economic elite”.

In Australia, inequality has skyrocketed in the past five years with enormous asset price growth combined with ridiculous executive pay-packets. This relative increase in poverty - noting the poor have not got poorer absolutely - was not pressed by Latham. Instead, the ALP leader actually planned to reduce welfare to some of the poorest households in a bid to get them back to work. If Latham was a class warrior, this was a case of friendly fire.

The decline in union membership in both the US and Australia is a big part of the confusion over what constitutes “class”. Surveys by the ACTU suggest union members are far more aware of their economic interest, and as a result, more likely to vote in their economic interest. The same is true in the US, where union membership has declined by about 20 per cent over the past 20 years.

The US Bureau of Labour Statistics estimated in 2003, union members earned 26 per cent more than similar workers who were not members of a union.

With the steady decline in union membership, the electorate has become less aware of what constitutes its economic interest. Thus, inexplicably, many of the lowest paid households are voting for parties that will almost certainly contribute to their relative poverty. They are voting to bring down what they perceive as the  elite or “aristocracy” by condemning same-sex marriage and abortion.

In reality, the only thing they will do to the “aristocracy” is to give them a tax cut.

The Right has successfully muddied the waters about who is really profiting from the status quo.

For the centre left parties to have any hope of regaining their heartlands, they must work to re-frame class as a product of economics and not culture.