Syracuse University political science professor Jeffrey Stonecash argued Tuesday that the influence of class in American elections requires a higher degree of academic scrutiny in a lecture sponsored by the Rockefeller Center. In the speech, Stonecash stressed the importance of being skeptical of current literature about the role of class and called for increased research in the field.
Stonecash, who holds a Master's and Ph.D. in political science from Northwestern University, first became interested in the issue of class in elections during the 1990s, when he studied the Reagan presidency. Stonecash's new research was in direct opposition to the popular idea that the working class had voted for Reagan, leading him to wonder where these old results were coming from.
Though Stonecash said he had always been a "skeptic" when reading academic literature, his research led him to realize that something was missing in writings about working-class status and votes in America. One example Stonecash referenced was that of a study by Ron Inglehart, a University of Michigan professor, who argued that material concerns had ceased to matter, and that want was now absent in American life. This theory sounded ridiculous to Stonecash, who was in graduate school at the time and working three jobs.
"I was baffled that people actually bought it," he said of the theory.
Stonecash also observed a tendency to ignore class and blame voting trends on race and cultural issues. One summer, Stonecash said in his lecture, he and one of his students studied the voting habits of both the top and bottom thirds of income-earners of white Southern Democrats. The results showed that while the bottom third stayed consistent in voting Democratic, the top third of voters moved further away from the party. Stonecash and his student were belittled at the conference where they presented their data, as other scholars insisted that it was a race, not class, issue.
Stonecash tried to sidestep the topic of race in his most recent book, Split: Class and Cultural Divisions in American Politics, choosing instead to focus on class, which he feels is a more accurate reading of voting patterns.
"The reaction to [race] is so emotional," Stonecash said. "People can't get analytical when it comes to race."
The importance of class, Stonecash said, lies in its influence over people's interests and life choices.
"A guy making $25,000 a year does not have the same daily concerns as Bill Gates," he said.
Stonecash has experienced this difference first-hand. Though he grew up in Dayton, Ohio, in a "well-to-do" family, Stonecash said that there was a period when his family had very few resources. This experience made him aware of how his priorities shifted based on class, he said.
Stonecash also noted how little first-hand research is done on why the working class votes, and said he thinks the way they do about politics. Researchers don't talk to these people, Stonecash claimed, but simply assume that they are uneducated and not well-informed, without questioning why this might be.
Stonecash compared the current era to the 1920s and 1930s, when inequality was sky rocketing, immigration laws were made tighter and the population was reaching alarming heights.
"The only difference is that there is no Great Depression," he said.
In the meantime, Stonecash said he is aware that not everyone shares his passion for politics and class studies. He jokingly commented that most people would rather watch "Who's Bride is it Anyway?" than politics or news.
The event was co-sponsored by the Rockefeller Center and the League of Women Voters of the Upper Valley.
