Republicans need to get over their '47 percent' obsession
It's factually wrong. It's morally repugnant. And it's politically stupid.
Mitt Romney's defeat in 2012 had many causes, but the one that crystallized his reputation as an out-of-touch plutocrat was the "47 percent" tape. In case you've forgotten, he went on at awkward length about how those who pay no federal income tax are a bunch of whining moochers whose will to work has been drained to nothingness by government handouts.
It is now clear that this kind of thinking is dangerously attractive to Republicans, and is going to be a consistent political liability if they can't deal with it. New tape released last week shows Bob Beaubrez, a GOP gubernatorial candidate in Colorado, saying similar things back in 2010:
His remarks came several years ago, but according to the Post, his campaign stands by the comments, spinning them as being "about lifting up and creating more opportunity."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The reason Republicans are so drawn to this 47 percent meme is that it confirms all their darkest fantasies: that social insurance is luring the poor into a hammock of dependency, that a small minority of "job creators" responsible for all economic growth are being expropriated by a rapidly growing horde of lazy takers, and that the country is near a tipping point in which the takers will outnumber the makers.
It fits right in with the brutal Randian worldview that has come to dominate the GOP. The problem is that it's a crock. The hammock theory of poverty is bogus, the job creator view of economic prosperity is bogus, and the United States welfare state is, if anything, threadbare when compared with our peer nations (except for the parts that subsidize the rich, of course). And though the 47 percent number is true with respect to federal income taxes, when you include state and local taxes, nearly everyone pays.
But even if you set all that aside, the most ludicrous idea is that the bottom 51 percent of the income distribution scale are in an electoral position to help themselves to the national trough. The undeniable reality is that poor people have no influence whatsoever over federal policy. On the contrary, as this sweeping report from Demos shows, U.S. policy is overwhelmingly aligned with the preferences of the wealthy, on issues ranging from the minimum wage, to generating jobs for the unemployed, to providing shelter for those who need it.
Campaign contributions surely have something to do with this. But the fact is that voting itself is highly correlated with wealth. People making more than $150,000 are almost 37 percentage points more likely to vote than those making less than $10,000.
You'd think that someone campaigning for election would realize this, given that Beaubrez at the time was addressing a room full of rich people — and not, say, a homeless shelter.
The irony is that Republicans are largely responsible for the "47 percent" situation. A major reason that federal taxes on lower-income people are so low is that cutting them used to be the GOP's accepted way of fighting poverty. It's a policy that Ronald Reagan, for example, was very proud of.
But these days, it's just another excuse for Republicans to kick the poor.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
India elections start amid violence, hate speech accusations
Talking Points Narendra Modi seeks a third term while critics worry about the future of the country's democracy
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
'Biden is smart to keep the border-security pressure on'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
Bird flu worries mount as virus found in milk, cows
Speed Read The FDA found traces of the virus in pasteurized grocery store milk
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published