Re: “The Trouble With Class Interest Populism, ” by Stephen Rose
On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Michael Pugliese wrote:
Same Stephen Rose? http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww? section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12002
…One strand of this argument contends that, despite rising insecurity and inequality, most people are doing fine
This came up here before. Rose is really cherry-picking - he builds
his argument towards the incomes of two-earner, prime-age, married-
couple families, who are hardly representative of the population. He
touts net worth dominated by home equity, which people can’t
meaningfully tap unless they sell the house and move into a trailer
when they retire. It’s wrong to say the American masses are
suffering, but there are vast numbers barely getting by, and many of
the well-off are fearful that they won’t be forever (or that their
kids won’t be). He tries to make them disappear.
Oh and this: “These numbers all add up to this one: $23,700, the
household income at which a white voter was more likely to vote
Republican than Democratic in the 2004 congressional races.” Race, of
course, has nothing to do with this.
Doug