This
article refutes the argument that Obama’s new push to raise taxes on the
rich only appeal to left wing Democrats and will alienate voters in the center.
It states that, “while it’s true that Obama’s new posture is partly about firing up his base, he and
his advisers also view it as the best
way to win back moderates and independents.” According to the median voter
theory that we discussed in class this makes sense; in a two party system
politicians gravitate to towards the middle of the political spectrum to get
the most votes. Obama, or any political candidate, will try to locate
themselves as centrally as possible without alienating their voter base or causing
indifference between the two parties. They therefore wouldn’t support measures
that would dramatically shift them to one side of the spectrum
Considering that, according
to the US Census, the real median household income in the United States in 2010
was $49,445, it seems unlikely that a policy taxing the rich (income of
$250,000 or more) would alienate the median voter; they wouldn’t have to pay
this tax. The polls (as shown in the article) show that moderates support tax
increases. Looking at it form this perspective it seems weird that Republicans
are so adamantly opposed to raising taxes for the rich; shouldn’t they be
drifting towards the middle as well? Of course, in the real world things are
more complicated: voters abstain and there are multiple dimensions. As the article
suggest, Republicans can also use a slippery slope argument that Democrats are “tax-hikers;”
the current tax would only increase taxes for the rich, but the next tax might
affect the median voter as well. Maybe, the median voter opposes tax hikes
from an ideological perspective or they expect to make over $250,000 in the
future. Overall though, the argument that
tax increases for the rich appeal to the median voter seems reasonable.
1 comment:
I really enjoyed this article, Ellen. It was interesting how it painted the hunt to find where the median voter lies as a “bet”. It reveals that the decisions that that theses political parties, while based on statistics, are also largely based on the assumptions that they make to qualify these choices.
I totally agree with your statement that these issues are “more complicated” than they might seem from looking only at the statistics. This article did a great job of showing the statistics and poll outcomes which, by themselves, might make it seem obvious that the median voter would prefer that the rich where taxed more. One would imagine that if this was true, the median voter theorem would imply that the Republicans would make the same move, but they have obviously made their decision not to based on something they have inferred to be effecting these numbers. They have assumed that the median voter is not going to vote for the tax increase.
Though many think that Obama will actually alienate the median voter with this “class warfare”, it looks to many others that He won’t be (based on some of the numbers Ellen noted in her post). It seems like the lower tax brackets will most likely vote for tax increases on the wealthy, but how much does this really matter as to where the median voter really lies?
It is interesting to see how the Republicans are accounting for something in the actual stance of the median voter that is unrepresented by the statistics and polls given. Maybe they think that the more rich people will vote because it will possibly, dollar for dollar, affect them more individually, or maybe they are just accounting for the possible lower voter turnout from the less wealthy.
Even more interesting is the idea that the Republicans are accounting for a future median voter shift. What if the voting reforms that the republicans have proposed were passed and it became harder for African Americans, the Hispanics, or young voters to actually vote because of new voting laws? These majorly Dem voters would be lost and the median voter could shift toward the Republican side. Though this may be less likely, the Republicans and the Democrats are definitely disagreeing but both have hopes to catch that median voter.
Post a Comment