Skip to content
Donate Now
  • Donate Now
  • logo
  • logo
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
    • Premium Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • Donate Now

  • Subscribe
  • Member Log in
  • Manage Subscription
Link to subscription form
  • News
  • Fundraising
    • Fundraising
    • Crowdfunding
    • Development
    • Donor Retention
  • Philanthropy
    • Philanthropy
    • Foundations
    • Grantmaking
    • Online Giving
  • Management
    • Management
    • Board Governance
    • Finance
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Policy
    • Policy
    • Activism
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Healthcare
    • Taxes
  • Webinars
    • Premium Webinars
  • Magazine
  • Opinion
    • Editor’s Notes
    • The Cohen Report
    • Dr. Conflict
    • The Nonprofit Ethicist
    • Unraveling Development
    • Voices from the Field
  • Store
  • My Menu

Trump’s Election, Race & Culture: The “Ignored” Factor

By Martin Levine Martin Levine | February 24, 2017
Share25
Tweet
Email
Share11
36 Shares

February 16, 2017; Washington Post

In search of an explanation for Donald Trump’s surprising victory, the angst of white working class voters rose to the top. Democrats focused on the need to reshape their policies and messages to more effectively respond to a voter segment that had walked across the political aisle. Their unrecognized anger at a government that was said to have failed them and had allowed others to take their place in line in pursuit of the American Dream became the common explanation.

The real picture now seems to be more challenging. U.S. Census Bureau data recently analyzed by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests government may not be really their problem, and we need to look deeper and harder to understand the political forces that have shook up our democracy.

Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild spent years studying a community in rural Louisiana in an effort to understand this population’s unhappiness and pain at how our nation was working. Her book, Strangers in Their Own Land, captured the angst of the white working class families that was acted out so powerfully on November 8, 2016. She describes a view of life that sees “others” stealing their success away with the help of unfair government policy.

You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Many of these line-cutters are black—beneficiaries of affirmative action or welfare…Then you see immigrants, Mexicans, Somalis, the Syrian refugees yet to come…you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward…the government has become an instrument for redistributing your money to the undeserving. It’s not your government anymore; it’s theirs.

The Trump campaign tapped into this perception and used it in their march to victory.

Many supporters’ families work in blue-collar occupations such as construction, transportation, and infrastructure; live in low mobility areas; and have little personal contact with immigrants. “Us vs. them” rhetoric framed diversity as an impediment to American greatness, and—consistent with historical racial and socioeconomic fractures—global trade and immigration, the increasing presence of white women and people of color in government, and “dangerous inner cities” emerged as threats.

The emotions are real, but they may not truly be the result of economic and government policies that seem to help those in financial pain. From the CBPP’s analysis of what “safety net” programs have actually accomplished, the biggest winners from government anti-poverty come from the very white working class that seems most disaffected, especially those without a college degree.

One of the report’s authors, Isaac Shapiro, a senior fellow at the CBPP, captured this perspective when he discussed their study with the Washington Post: “There is a perception out there that the safety net is only for minorities. While it’s very important to minorities because they have higher poverty rates and face barriers that lead to lower earnings, it’s also quite important to whites, particularly the white working class.”

Of the more than 13 million working age adults who were helped out of poverty by government safety-net programs in 2014, 12.2 million did not have a college degree.

The safety net lifted out of poverty 39 percent of working-age adults without a college degree who would otherwise be poor; it reduced their poverty rate from 30.4 percent before government benefits and taxes to 18.5 percent after those transfers. By comparison, it lifted 27 percent of otherwise-poor adults who have a college degree out of poverty. It reduced their poverty rate from 8.7 percent before government benefits and taxes to 6.4 percent after such support is taken into account.

Both whites and people of color saw substantial poverty rate reductions because of government assistance, but “working-class whites are the biggest beneficiaries of federal poverty-reduction programs, even though blacks and Hispanics have substantially higher rates of poverty.”

The result does not simply reflect the fact that there are more white people in the country. The percentage of otherwise poor whites lifted from poverty by government safety-net programs is higher, at 44 percent, compared to 35 percent of otherwise poor minorities, the study concluded.

So if it is not that government anti-poverty programs have been unfair to the white segment of America, why then do so many among them see themselves as victims? Perhaps it’s that while the safety net has helped many, the loss of jobs that pay well has had a greater impact on financial security. It may be that problems we face come more from technological advances than government policy. This view was implied in Trump’s campaign rhetoric, as he tied economic concerns to the loss of domestic manufacturing and other jobs, not scarcity of government benefits.

However, what if what we see is neither about jobs nor finances but race and cultural norms? If these are at the heart of the divisions that have left us with national and state governments that seem so at war with much of the population, then the challenge is even greater—if we do not want a split country at odds with itself.—Martin Levine

Share25
Tweet
Email
Share11
36 Shares

About Martin Levine

Martin Levine

Martin Levine is a Principal at Levine Partners LLP, a consulting group focusing on organizational change and improvement, realigning service system to allow them to be more responsive and effective. Prior to forming Levine Partners, Mr. Levine served the CEO of JCC Chicago creating a purpose driven organization, continuously realigning service and management systems to responsively and effectively fulfill JCC Chicago’s mission. Over the past 35 years Mr. Levine made major contributions to the transformation of JCC Chicago to its present position as a pre-eminent JCC in North America. Mr. Levine focused on strengthening the JCC’s effectiveness as a Jewish Community Building and Jewish Educational organization dedicated to “Bringing Jewish Values to Life” in all aspects of JCC programs and services. Mr. Levine was been responsible for the development of new facilities as part of JCC Chicago’s response to the changing demography of the Metropolitan Jewish Community. In addition, Mr. Levine had responsibility for guiding the Chicago JCC’s integration of its service and business strategies into a holistic approach. In addition to his JCC responsibilities, Mr. Levine served as a consultant on organizational change and improvement to school districts and community organizations. Mr. Levine has published several articles on change and has presented at numerous conferences on this subject. Mr. Levine held membership in many professional organizations including the Association of Jewish Center Professionals (Board member), Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Association for Quality and Participation, and the Future Search Alliance. A native of New York City, Mr. Levine is a graduate of City College of New York (BS in Biology) and Columbia University (MSW). He has trained with the Future Search and the Deming Institute. Mr. Levine served as President of the Gan Project, an organization committed to engaging communities in locally and ethically produced food.

  • More by Martin

Read Next

  • The “Lazy Poor” Story and the Use of Useless Work Requirements

    Most of those who are very poor actually do work, but who ever said that facts matter in policymaking?

Popular Posts

  • Green New Deal Bill Introduced in Congress
  • The 2019 Gates Letter: What Surprises Them Scares Us
  • Reframing Nonprofit Leadership Succession: The Ultimate Strategic Hedge Against a “Bad CEO Hire”
  • Cash Flow in the Nonprofit Business Model: A Question of Whats and Whens
  • Counting What Counts: Why Social Accounting MATTERS
  • Scaling Social Justice: A Latinx Immigrant Worker Co-op Franchise Model

Write for NPQ

  • Our Mission
  • Advertise
  • Board of Directors
  • Foundations and Funders
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • NPQ Staff
  • Contact Us
  • Press Release
  • Donors
  • Newsletters
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Back to top ↑

To Access the Full Article, Please Login or Subscribe

Can't Login?

Register a New Account Forgot Password

Continue Reading