Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 3 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (5 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   20 comments

General News

Economic Opportunity Is Lowest In the Former Slave States

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Supported 4   Must Read 3   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 12/20/13

Become a Fan
  (68 fans)


" populumcaptn="Wikimedia Commons
(image by Wikimedia Commons)


Class-Rigidity Is Extreme In the Republican Bible-Belt Heartland, The First Geographic Study of Class-Rigidity in the U.S. Finds.

The website  Equality-Of-Opportunity.org was established this year by four leading economists from Harvard and Berkeley, and it now headlines their major findings, "Mobility in the 100 Largest Commuting Zones." It ranks all 100 largest U.S. cities for the chances of a person born poor to rise from the bottom 20% to the top 20%.

Whereas all of the top 21 cities (NYC being ranked #21) are shown clustered there closely around 10% for the given place's odds that a resident born in the bottom 20% will rise into the top 20%, all except just 3 of the bottom 21 cities are in Old Dixie; and, here, the probabilities of rising from the bottom 20% to the top 20% range widely, between just 6.7% (one-third less than in the best locales) down to merely 2.6% (around one-quarter of the probability in the best locales), among these 21 bottom-ranked cities. 

In other words: virtually all of this nation's class-rigidity still remains in the U.S. South, even after the Civil War. So: New Dixie has replaced the aristocracy's black slaves of Old Dixie, by the local (white) aristocracy's institutionalized bigotry against poor people, now of all ethnic groups. What used to be their purely racist bigotry has, it seems, devolved into a crushing, pervasive, classist, bigotry in the South. 

Explaining this would produce controversy, and unfortunately the researchers don't even try. However, it is a striking finding, which demands an explanation.

For a century after Abraham Lincoln was shot in 1865, the North's Protestant aristocracy increasingly supported the Republican Party, which gradually became, in a sense, the new version of the old aristocratic Southern Democratic Party, but now spread nationwide: oriented more toward concerns about the "free market," than toward concerns about democracy. Government became subordinated to economics -- and not just to any economics, but to "free market" economics, whereas economics had virtually nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, which was instead concerned with political matters: government.

With the advent of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his "New Deal" reforms and regulations during the Great Depression, and his starting of the Social Security system, this aristocratic hostility towards the Democratic Party intensified even more. Thus, in FDR's re-nomination acceptance speech in 1936, he said, "Economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution." This was a speech that could be given today.

Then, as if to add insult to Protestant aristocratic outrage, the Catholic Democratic President John F. Kennedy finally committed the Democratic Party against the unquestionably bigoted South; and, next, the remarkably progressive Democratic Texan President Lyndon Baines Johnson fatefully sealed this FDR-type Democratic Party, with the Civil Rights Acts, and also Medicare and Medicaid -- all done so as to serve mainly the very same people, the middle class and the poor, whom aristocrats traditionally have wanted instead to be suppressed, if not again enslaved (such as was the case in the Old South). For example, labor unions are routinely suppressed by aristocrats, because such unions challenge "the free market" -- they challenge aristocrats' hired managers, who no longer possess unrestrained control when a labor union is present. 

Aristocrats call this "free market" of theirs simply "freedom," meaning actually their own freedom, but also meaning (though never mentioning) the "freedom" of millions of have-nots to suffer unto their graves (via such class-rigidity as prevails especially in the South, and in underdeveloped countries around the world). These financial elite also sometimes call this "free-market" economics "tough love." But no matter what the rationalization -- whether "freedom," or else perhaps "discipline," or even just "order" -- its result for its victims is basically like the Mafia's kiss of death; this is more that type of "love," even when the proponents themselves actually sincerely believe it to be some sort of "love," for the people who are actually suffering from this one-sided "freedom" of the aristocracy.

Republicans are proud of this "freedom," or "discipline," or "tough love": they even sometimes call it "the opportunity society." That's what pervades the South -- the very same region of this country where economic opportunity is actually the very lowest.

However, apparently enough Americans support this Orwellian operation, so that Republicans constitute a major Party, which even includes some of the very same people who suffer from it. This is the only way to explain the continued existence of the Republican Party as being a major political party in the U.S.

Nonetheless, unfortunately, this does not mean that today's Democratic Party is actually in favor of the poor -- the Democratic Party of today just doesn't hate them as Republicans do. The clearest evidence that this is the case came in a different study:

Princeton's Larry M. Bartels posted to the internet in 2002, updated in August 2005, his article,  "Economic Inequality and Political Representation,"  which examined the votes of U.S. Senators on eight bills; and he found that, "Republicans were about twice as responsive as Democrats to the views of high-income constituents," but that, "There is no evidence of any responsiveness [of Senators] to the views of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution, even from Democrats." Furthermore, "For Republican senators there is no evidence of responsiveness to middle-income constituents," but only to the views of high-income constituents, and, "Democrats seem to have responded at least as strongly to the views of middle-income constituents as to the views of high-income constituents -- though, once again, there is no evidence of any responsiveness to the views of low-income constituents."

The popular myth has always been promulgated by Republicans saying that Democratic politicians engage in class-warfare against the middle-class, on behalf of the poor; but that's just a blatant lie, whose purpose is to hide the very real class-war, by Republicans, against the middle class, which is being waged successfully on behalf of the rich -- the exact opposite of what Republicans claim. 

Furthermore, "Senators seem to have been a good deal more responsive to upper-income constituents when a Republican was in the White House ... than they were with a Democrat in the White House." Perhaps this is the reason, then, why even with a conservative Democratic President such as Obama, today's far-rightwing Republican Party cannot get much of its wish-list filled. Moreover, Bartels found "surprisingly strong and consistent evidence that the biases I have identified in senators' responsiveness to rich and poor constituents are not due to differences between rich and poor constituents in [electoral] turnout, political knowledge, or contacting." In common parlance: Bartels found that ideology alone accounts for this difference. 

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down

Indications that the U.S. Is Planning a Nuclear Attack Against Russia

Harry Reid Effectively Kills Obama's TPP and TTIP International Trade Deals

MH-17 'Investigation': Secret August 8th Agreement Seeps Out

The Propaganda War About Ukraine: How Important It Really Is

Elizabeth Warren Comes Down Hard Against Global Warming, Separates Herself From Hillary Clinton on Climate Change

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 20 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

It's no wonder there's such social injustice and i... by E. J. N. on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:08:25 PM
EJN (whomever you are), I think that that is a bri... by Eric Zuesse on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:40:47 PM
Thanks, Eric. I appreciate your work too.I appreci... by E. J. N. on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:09:15 PM
The irony is that those causing the problems claim... by E. J. N. on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:46:18 PM
Here I disagree. The Bible was quoted extensively ... by Eric Zuesse on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:34:08 PM
Yes, that's my point. As I said, Southern preacher... by E. J. N. on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:56:52 PM
The Bible supports slavery. People who rely upon t... by Eric Zuesse on Friday, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:14:31 PM
The Bible reflects the times and the cultures in w... by E. J. N. on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:25:48 PM
There's nothing better than experience to guide yo... by Charles Roll on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:19:16 PM
And other Christian saints supported slavery, but ... by Eric Zuesse on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 8:11:05 PM
When you say "The Bible reflects the times and the... by Eric Zuesse on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:19:47 PM
You have a right to choose your gospel:Gospel of S... by Charles Roll on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:11:33 PM
Hate to say it, but they are getting what they vot... by Dennis Kaiser on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:42:16 AM
That's blaming the victim.Uganda now has a law wit... by Eric Zuesse on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 8:10:32 AM
Who put those in office who are passing those laws... by Dennis Kaiser on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:16:49 AM
When you said " Hate to say it, but they are getti... by Eric Zuesse on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 10:51:21 AM
I still say they get what they vote for....You are... by Dennis Kaiser on Saturday, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:19:49 AM
Excellent work, Mr. Zuesse - up to your usual high... by Charles Roll on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:43:04 PM
2. Bartels study was 'born too soon', should have ... by Charles Roll on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:55:21 PM
Charles, thank you so much for calling my attentio... by Eric Zuesse on Sunday, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:44:39 PM