In What s the Matter with Kansas?

Voting on Values or Bread-and-Butter? Effects of Union Membership on the Politics of the White Working Class PETER L. FRANCIA the focus because, in the political arena, they typically endorse Democratic candidates and encourage workers to focus on their economic concerns. Non-union white working-class voters, however, must turn to other outlets for political information, such as their church, where a more socially conservative message is often popular. The end result, according to the statistical analysis presented in this article, is that white working-class voters who belong to labor unions fit a description consistent with that of Bartels: economic issues matter most and there is strong support for Democratic candidates. Conversely, among non-union white working-class voters, I find that Frank s description is more accurate: moral values trump economic issues and there is strong support for In What s the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank writes about what he perceives to be the paradoxical political behavior of the white working class. According to Frank, many of today s white working-class voters cast their ballot on the basis of social issues, such as abortion and gun control, as opposed to voting in their economic self-interest. This development has brought victories for Republicans, which have ushered in an era of conservative economic policymaking that, in Frank s words, have produced incalculable, historic harm to working-class people. 1 Yet in the academic article, What s the Matter with What s the Matter With Kansas? Larry Bartels writes that Republicans have made their gains in recent years with upper- and middle-income voters, and that losses for Democrats Economic issues have come predominantly matter most. in southern states. Looking at voting patterns in presidential elections, Bartels maintains that cultural wedge issues have not been the top priority of white working-class voters and Defining the Working Class that material economic concerns... were of primary importance. 2 The purpose of this article is to offer clarity to this debate, but with a deeper analysis that examines the influence of union membership on the politics of the white working class. Labor unions are Republican candidates. The article concludes with a discussion of some implications for labor law, union organizing, and the future of American politics. Before examining the politics of the white working class, it is worth reviewing the voters who belong to this bloc. Frank defines the working class as those without a four-year college degree. 3 Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers also use this definition in America s Forgotten Major- 27

ity: Why the White Working Class Still Matters. They write that non-collegeeducated whites are not your father s white working class. Instead of blue-collar work, this new white working class is more likely to be doing low-level whitecollar and service work... in an office with a computer or at a similar servicesector job.... But, in economic terms, they are not so different from the white working class of previous generations. 4 Although there is some debate about this definition, Bartels proceeds with it in his analysis. 5 This article also defines working class as those without a fouryear college degree, in order to permit equivalent comparisons. Voting Behavior and Issue Priorities of the White Working Class Table 1 provides voting patterns by race and class in the 2004 and 2006 elections. The results confirm that non-whites are the Democratic Party s most reliable bloc of voters, and more interestingly, that white working-class voters are more supportive of Republican candidates than whites with college degrees. Some 62 percent and 60 percent of white working-class respondents voted for Republican George W. Bush for President and their district s Republican U.S. House candidate in 2004 respectively. Republican support declined in 2006, although majorities (of the white working-class) still supported GOP candidates for Governor and the U.S. House, despite what turned out to be a very strong election year for Democrats nationally. Table 2 divides the voting patterns of white working-class voters by their issue priorities. Some 88 percent of white working-class voters who cited moral values as the one issue that mattered most to them voted for George W. Bush, compared to only 12 percent for John Kerry. These white working-class values voters also were strong supporters of Republican candidates for the U.S. House in 2004 and 2006. Support for Democratic candidates, however, significantly increased with white working-class voters who cited economic issues as the issue that mattered most to them. Roughly two-thirds of these white working-class bread-andbutter voters cast their ballots for John Kerry and their district s Democratic Table 1. Race, Class, and Voting Behavior candidate for the U.S. House in 2004. In 2006, support for the Democrats U.S. House candidates increased further, reaching 76 percent. By comparison, white working-class voters who cited the Iraq War or terrorism were more likely to vote Republican in 2004. However, with the declining popularity of the Iraq Whites (4-year Whites (no 4-year Non-whites college degree) college degree) Voted Republican (President) 28 % 55 % 62 % Voted Democrat (President) 72 % 45 % 38 % Voted Republican (U.S. House) 27 % 56 % 60 % Voted Democrat (U.S. House) 73 % 44 % 40 % 2006 Election b Voted Republican (Governor) 26 % 51 % 52 % Voted Democrat (Governor) 74 % 49 % 48 % Voted Republican (U.S. Senate) 22 % 48 % 50 % Voted Democrat (U.S. Senate) 78 % 52 % 50 % Voted Republican (U.S. House) 22 % 50 % 55 % Voted Democrat (U.S. House) 78 % 50 % 45 % Notes: All differences are statistically significant at p <.001. U.S. Senate elections are not included for 2004 because the National Election Pool did not ask respondents about their vote choice in these contests. Percentages are based on the two-party vote. Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2004 (N = 10,380 voted in election for President; N = 9,540 voted in election for House). b National Election Pool, Edison Media Research and Mitosky International, National Election Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2006 (N = 5,836 voted in election for Governor; N = 5,499 voted in election for Senate; N = 7,508 voted in election for House). Table 2. Issue Priorities and Voting Behavior of Whites without a Four-Year College Degree Issue that Mattered Most Economy/ in Voting Decision: Moral Values Jobs/ Taxes Iraq/Terrorism Other Issues Voted Republican (President) 88 % 33 % 73 % 33 % Voted Democrat (President) 12 % 67 % 27 % 67 % Voted Republican (U.S. House) 83 % 34 % 68 % 36 % Voted Democrat (U.S. House) 17 % 66 % 32 % 64 % 2006 Election b Voted Republican (U.S. House) 76 % 24 % 42 % 33 % Voted Democrat (U.S. House) 24 % 76 % 58 % 67 % Notes: All differences are statistically significant at p <.001. The National Election Pool did not ask respondents to list the one issue that mattered most to them in deciding how to vote in the 2006 election. Results for the 2006 election are therefore based on data from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections are not included for 2006 because the Pew survey did not ask respondents about their vote choice in these contests. See notes in Table 1 for more information. Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2004 (N = 2,611 voted in election for President; N= 2,379 voted in election for House). b The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Post-Election Survey, 2006 (N = 415 voted in election for House). 28 SUMMER 2008/WINTER 2009

War, this pattern reversed in 2006 with security voters more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. Thus, while security voters support shifted from one party to the other, values and bread-and-butter voters support for Republicans and Democrats, respectively, remained constant from 2004 to 2006. Differences Separating Union and Non-Union Members Given the strong relationship between issue priorities and voting behavior, Table 3 examines whether union membership has any influence in shifting the concerns of the white working class toward the economy, jobs, or taxes. The results indicate that white working-class union members were significantly more likely than nonunion members to rate economic issues as their primary concern in 2004 and 2006. Roughly 40 percent of white workingclass union members cited the economy, jobs, and taxes as their top issues in 2004. This ranked ahead of the Iraq War and terrorism (27 percent), moral values (18 percent), and other issues (15 percent). Non-union white working-class voters, comparatively, cited moral values more frequently (28 percent) than economic In 2006, security voters were more likely to vote for Democrats. issues (23 percent). Nonunion white working-class voters also mentioned moral values as frequently as economic issues (20 percent for each respectively) in 2006. The same was not true for white working-class union members who were almost three times more likely to cite the economy, jobs, and taxes (28 percent) than they were to cite moral values (10 percent) in 2006. White working-class union members also favored Democratic candidates over Republicans (see Table 4). In 2004, white working-class union members supported John Kerry by a 51 49 percent advantage over President Bush and their district s Democratic House candidate by a 57 43 advantage over the Republican candidate. More than 60 percent of (white working-class) union members voted for Democratic candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House in 2006. White working-class non-union members, by contrast, were strong supporters of Republican candidates. They favored George W. Bush over John Kerry (64 percent to 36 percent) and Republican House candidates to Democratic House candidates (63 percent to 37 percent) in Table 3. Most Important Issue to Union and Non-Union Whites without a Four-Year College Degree Union Member Non-union Member 2004 Election Issues a Moral values 18 % 28 % Economy/ Jobs / Taxes 40 % 23 % Iraq / Terrorism 27 % 37 % Other issues 15 % 12 % 2006 Election Issues b Moral values 10 % 20 % Economy/ Jobs / Taxes 28 % 20 % Iraq / Terrorism 19 % 39 % Other issues 43 % 21 % Notes: All differences are statistically significant at p <.001. See notes in Table 1 and Table 2 for more information. Sources: a National Election Pool, Edison Media Research and Mitosky International, National Election Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2004 (N = 2,600). b The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Post-Election Survey, 2006 (N = 471). 2004. The Republican advantage among white working-class non-union members diminished some in 2006, but nevertheless held in contests for Governor (55 percent to 45 percent), U.S. Senate (53 percent to 47 percent), and the U.S. House (58 percent to 42 percent). Differences within the white working class were most pronounced when combining union membership and issue priorities. White working-class union members who cited the economy overwhelming supported Democratic candidates for various offices in 2004 and 2006. Conversely, white working-class non-union members who cited moral values voted for Republican candidates by similarly large margins. The Political Importance of Unions At least three implications are suggested by the voting patterns presented above. One is that although organized labor continues to be an important social force among the white working class, the future of both U.S. unions and the Democratic Party remain uncertain. Union membership has declined for more than a half-century, and if it continues to fall, then it is likely that white working-class voters are destined to fit a description consistent with the picture that Frank offers in What s the Matter with Kansas? A strengthened labor movement, by contrast, would turn the white working class into a voting bloc that looks similar to Bartels description, spelling success for future Democratic candidates. A second implication is that the results presented above fail to resolve a familiar conundrum. On the one hand, the findings in this article suggest that union revitalization is a vital prerequisite for the Democratic Party to recapture the white working class. On the other hand, union revitalization may be at least somewhat dependent upon changes in organizing laws (such as those recently proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act), which, in order to take effect, will undoubtedly re- 29

Table 4. Issue Priorities and Voting Behavior of Union and Non-Union Whites without a Four-Year College Degree quire Democrats to control the Congress and White House. Some labor scholars are skeptical that even Democratic victories will bring about reforms in organizing laws given the party s past failures to do so. However, it is worth noting that unlike the 1960s the last decade of Democratic dominance anti-union southern Democrats no longer hold institutional power within the party. Republicans and Democrats have become more ideologically cohesive as the conservative solid South has moved into the Republican Party. 6 This development has translated into consistent support for pro-labor legislation among House and Senate Democrats in recent congresses. It also has coincided with declining labor support from congressional Republicans, making both a Non-union Union / Non-union / Union Member Member Economic 1 Moral 2 Voted Republican (President) 49 % 64 % 24 % 89 % Voted Democrat (President) 51 % 36 % 76 % 11 % Voted Republican (U.S. House) 43 % 63 % 23 % 85 % Voted Democrat (U.S. House) 57 % 37 % 77 % 15 % b, c, d 2006 Election Voted Republican (Governor) b 35 % 55 % NA NA Voted Democrat (Governor) b 65 % 45 % NA NA Voted Republican (U.S. Senate) b,c 37 % b 53 % b 25 % c NA Voted Democrat (U.S. Senate) b,c 63 % b 47 % b 75 % c NA Voted Republican (U.S. House) b,c, d 40 % b 58 % b 19 % c 78 % d Voted Democrat (U.S. House) b,c, d 60 % b 42 % b 81 % c 22 % d Notes: All differences are statistically significant at p <.001. 1 Refers to whites without a four-year college degree who are union members and cited economic issues as mattering most to them in their voting decision. 2 Refers to whites without a four-year college degree who are not union members and cited moral values as the issue that mattered most to them in their voting decision. NA = data not available. See notes in Table 1 and Table 2 for more information. Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2004 (N= 4,096 voted for President, union/non-union; N= 768 voted for President, union economic/non-union moral; N= 3,727 voted for House, union/non-union; N= 711 voted for House, union economic/non-union moral); b National Election Pool, Edison Media Research and Mitosky International, National Election Pool General Election Exit Poll, 2006 (N= 1,895 voted for President, union/ non-union); c Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Study # 8148, AFL-CIO Election Night Survey, 2006 (N = 122 voted in election for Senate, union economic; N = 168 voted in election for House, union economic); and d The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Post-Election Survey, 2006 (N = 72 voted in election for House, non-union moral). Union revitalization may depend on changes in organizing laws. bipartisan coalition less likely and the need for a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate seemingly necessary for major legislation to pass. 7 To be sure, a filibusterproof Democratic majority requires strong support from white working-class voters, which, absent their membership in unions, seems unlikely to occur under normal political conditions. Yet current conditions are not normal. It is possible that recent developments such as rising gas and food prices, the mortgage crisis, and increased unemployment could create high enough levels of economic anxiety among white working-class voters to yield major Democratic gains. When combined with the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, which moved securityminded voters from supporting Republican candidates in 2004 to supporting Democrats in 2006, conditions could be ripe for a future Democratic electoral landslide (this essay went to press in the summer of 2008). Today s economic conditions also offer union organizers an opportunity to tap into the frustration of the working class. If organizers capitalize on that sentiment, then the result could be an upswing in union membership despite the unfavorable legal environment. A multi-racial coalition of minorities and a unionized, white working class could jointly provide the Democratic Party with a durable and lasting majority. Perhaps the clearest implication of the results presented above, however, is that the fate of unions and the Democratic Party are deeply interwoven. If Democrats fail to expand their political power and organized labor is unable to reverse its membership declines, then Republicans stand positioned to win an increasing share of the vote from the white working class, and as a consequence, to govern and control labor policy into the future. NOTES 1. Thomas Frank, What s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004), 6. 2. Larry M. Bartels, What s the Matter with What s the Matter with Kansas? Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1 (2006), 218. 3. Thomas Frank, Class is Dismissed, (2005). Available at: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dlinzer/frank- ClassDismissd.pdf. 4. Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers, America s Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 15. 5. For a summary of this debate, see Ruy Teixeira, Will the Real White Working Class Please Stand Up (Again)? (2006). Available at: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/ 2006/01/will_the_real_white_ working_cl_1.html. 30 SUMMER 2008/WINTER 2009

6. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate, Journal of Politics 60(3) (1998), 634 653. See also Nolan Mc- Carty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006). 7. Taylor E. Dark III, The Paradoxical Situation of Organized Labor in American Politics, The Labor and Working- Class History Association Newsletter, Spring (2008), 6 8. See also Peter L. Francia, The Future of Organized Labor in American Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006). Peter L. Francia Peter L. Francia is associate professor of political science at East Carolina University (Greenville, NC). He is author of Conventional Wisdom and American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), The Future of Organized Labor in American Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), and numerous articles on U.S. elections and the political activities of labor unions. 31