Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age

The facts stand for themselves outside the realm of Partisan politics. Idealists hate facts. Fanatics hate facts. I Love facts. Whose ideas work the best is what I want. Most Americans would Love to make more money and do better each and every year. Who can argue against that except a suicidal maniac.

"Unequal Democracy" presents the results of a six-year exploration of the political causes and consequences of economic inequality in America. It was inspired by the substantial escalation of this inequality in recent years. Total income going to the top 0.1% of income earners has more than tripled, from 3.2% in the late 1950s to 10.9% in 2005; that going to the top 1% rose from 10.2% to 21.8%. Further, this widening is accelerating. Despite this trend, 80% believe that though you may start out poor, if you work hard you can make lots of money - more than any other developed nation. This belief undermines motivation for change.

Bartels believes that the most significant domestic policy initiative of the past decade has been a massive government-engineered transfer of additional wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich via substantial reduction in federal income taxes for the rich.

Economists have found little evidence that large disparities promote growth, or that progressive tax rates retard growth by discouraging economic effort.

Meanwhile, political campaigns have become dramatically more expensive, increasing the reliance of elected officials on those who can afford to help finance their re-election bids. At the same time, membership in labor groups, a previously countervailing force, has substantially declined.

On average over the past half century, real incomes of middle-class families grew 2X under Democrats vs. Republicans, and working poor families grew 6X faster under Democrats - even after allowing for differences in economic circumstances.

So why do those with lower incomes vote for Republicans? Bartels tells us that contrary to the theme of "What Happened to Kansas," moral values do not trump economics as a basis for lower-income voting behavior. Bartels offers evidence that the contradiction is explained by confusion generated by mixing "working class" (defined often as those w/o a college education) with lower-income. The working class has a lot of relatively high earners that are influenced by the moral values issues.

Bartels then contends that Republican success in presidential races is due to voters' overemphasis on election-year economic growth, vs. the superior longer-term performance of Democratic presidents, but lesser achievement during the last year of their terms.

Finally, its on to the estate ("death") tax. Actions to reduce and eliminate it during the early Bush II years represent about 15% of the impact of the overall tax reduction package. Bartels asserts that there is enormous misunderstanding about this tax regarding the wideness of its applicability. As a result, it is a wonder that it still exists.

Bottom Line: "Unequal Democracy" presents a carefully documented set of conclusions about an important and timely topic; its only drawback is that sometimes the statistics get too deep.

I would hardly trust a political scientist to do the work of an economist - and this is what this author attempts to do. A basic fallacy taught in introductory economics is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" - after the fact, therefore because of the fact - and could it not be that Bartel's causation works the same way? His assertions are causally flawed - for example, one cannot attribute the growth of the 1990's to Clinton - the economic "successes" of his administration are purely a case of a candidate that was elected at the right place at the right time. Clinton is such a shameless, vain individual that he (and now his wife) happily credit their savvy with our successes as a nation during that period. It's unfortunant that we work like Bartel's that only add to their ego.

A less salacious reframing would be to simply note that the poor's position has grown over all election cycles, just like the rich. Granted, the rich's position has grown faster, but then so has our economy. The true, central failing of this text is that Bartel, like so many others, preys on peoples notion that the economy is a finite pie and if the rich have more, the poor have less.

Recommended reading for the envious and political science majors who think their degree has value beyond a predictable path to law school.

I've been searching for some data on how well off people are during the different rules and along came unequal democracy. If you now people that keep trying to convince you that if you vote for the Dems, you will be over taxed to the gates of hell, this is a must read. It's a text book but very readable.

Regardless of the political party you identify with, this is a great informative read if you are interested in US politics, especially in this day and age with our failing economy.