Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

Media

Part of The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

Title

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

extracted text

The Future of Class Analyses
in American Politics
JEFFREY M. STONECASH

Abstract
Although the role of class has been extensively studied, this essay suggests several
important matters that have been neglected and deserve more attention. The focus
on occupational positions limits our understanding of the possible role of class. We
need to devote more attention to household income and its impact on opportunity.
We need to ask people about their aspirations and sense of fairness in American
society and how that affects class voting. The presumption that class divisions have
been reduced by racial and cultural issues has been embraced too quickly and needs
more careful analyses. The use of nationally aggregated individual-level surveys is
limiting because it neglects how the distribution of classes across legislative districts and their representation through that matters for the emergence of class issues.
Finally, the focus on multivariate analyses may satisfy academic notions of rigor but
it removes analyses from having relevance for politicians.

INTRODUCTION
Does class matter in American politics? Does the lower class vote Democratic
and the upper class Republican? Do existing divisions affect policy debates?
We have considerable evidence of trends that suggest that class would seem
to matter. Inequality in the distributions of income and wealth is steadily
increasing (Congressional Budget Office, 2011; Keister, 2000, 2009; Kochhhar, Fry, & Taylor, 2011), which in turn creates differential in opportunity
(Bowles et al., 2005; Lareau, 2011; Massey, 2008). Mobility from family class
during a lifetime and from generation to generation appears to be stagnant or
declining (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012). It would seem that America would
be experiencing class divisions in which party is supported.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Despite this, studies of the role and relevance of class have produced no
clear evidence about the extent of class political divisions. Some argue that
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

class is of declining relevance while others argue that it still matters. To
many, the issue is whether class has been displaced by other issues. As might
be expected, much of the disagreement revolves around measurement and
method issues. Should class be measured by relative economic position
and with what categories? What statistical technique should be used? The
decisions made about these matters affect the results and the conclusion
about the role of class. These matters have been analyzed and discussed
with considerable care (Clark and Lipset, 2001; Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007;
Weakliem and Adams, 2011).
Although there have been many careful and rigorous studies, the argument of this essay is that analyses of class have been severely limited by
how this topic was initially studied. The early studies of class began with
a focus on Marxian concerns of how individuals related to the means of production. The resulting studies have been well done but the heritage of these
individual-level analyses of how position affects political leanings has limited our understanding of the relevance of issues of class. Further, studies
have been conducted in a way that has little relevance to politicians. The following is not a critique of the issues that have been discussed in existing studies but an argument that the focus of current academic debates about the role
of class is far too limited. We need to rethink how the role of class is studied.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS IS RELEVANT?
The study of class has been enormously influenced by Marx’s focus on the
individual’s relationship to the means of production. His argument was that
this relationship defines one’s place in society and one’s perspective about
politics. This focus on economic position has been the basis for numerous
careful and thoughtful efforts to create measures of occupational position.
This has also prompted many exchanges about how many categories should
be created and what to do with students, spouses, and retirees.
Although this focus has produced some valuable analyses, the focus on
Marx’s argument about the position of individuals has also limited our thinking about how to define class. Two matters in particular need much more
attention. First, the focus on individuals and their positions leads us away
from thinking about what is surely more important for individuals: household income and wealth and the opportunity that they provide. The concern
about how to classify the “positions” of students, spouses, and retirees stems
from focusing on individual job titles. This focus on individual positions
misses some important matters. It is income that limits or creates opportunity and grants access to amenities and it is household income that ultimately

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

3

matters. Individual occupational categories can be poor indicators of individual income. Position categories may also be bad indicators of the household
situation, whether that be a married couple, individuals living together, or
an extended family. The Marxian focus on occupational position may have
made sense when there were factories, factory owners, and employees, but
titles are harder to make sense of now and may be much less relevant. We
all know someone who was laid off of a job and now defines himself as a
consultant, but actually makes a limited amount of money. It is income or
wealth that significantly affects opportunity in life and we need to focus on
the resources individuals have access to if we are to understand the class situation of people in American society. This also means thinking in terms of
household income. Most individuals still live in a household situation and
may even be involved in an extended family. The resources available to them
are generally broader than their income and we need to consider the total
income and wealth available to people to define their class situation.
Second, even if we devote more attention to overall resources, we are still
missing something very important about how people see their situation.
The presumption appears to be that positions (or income, when used) define
opinions. This assumption has inclined researchers to not ask individuals
about their aspirations, assessments of their capabilities, and frustrations
with the ability to achieve their goals in American society. What we do not
know is whether people in various economic situations expect more or are
satisfied. Do they aspire to more or find their situation satisfactory? Do
they think they are capable of more or think they are doing well given the
talents they have? If they aspire to more, do they see American society and
its policies as systematically limiting them or are limits seen as a result of
random luck in life? Essentially, do they accept their situation or are they
frustrated. Do they think that public policies could be adopted to change
opportunity or do they see government efforts as ineffective (Bageant, 2008;
Greenberg, 1996; Page and Jacobs, 2009)? The focus on position or income
as a definer of class mentality leads us to neglect the views of individuals.
To understand how class is seen by individuals and the role of class, we
need to devote more resources to asking people with different occupations
or incomes how they view their situation.
THE PRESUMPTION OF THE PULL OF OTHER ISSUES
The analysis of class appears to have been significantly affected by an
unstated presumption that if the working class were rational they would be
liberal on economic issues. Their failure to be heavily liberal has prompted
concern with why they are failing to fulfill these expectations. There has also
been a thread of clear disappointment with the working class. Ever since

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Seymour Martin Lipset published an article expressing his sense that the
working class was authoritarian and not as liberal as he hoped, there been
a vague sense that the working class may simply have the wrong values
to fulfill the expectations of many (Lipset, 1959). The expectation was that
the working class should be devoted to programs expanding opportunity
and benefits, and heavily Democratic. Class divisions were expected to be
greater than they were.
The thinly veiled sense was that the working class was too concerned with
other values and that assigning class a central role in politics was a mistake.
The developing conclusion was that the working class was distracted
by noneconomic values. The working class has less education and was
seen as authoritarian, racist, heavily religious, and attached to traditional
cultural norms and behaviors (Hetherington & Weiler, 2009; Hunter, 1991;
Lipset, 1981). The Democratic Party, concerned with fairness and seeking
to expand its electoral base, was becoming an advocate for blacks in the
1960s (Carmines & Stimson, 1989). In sharp contrast, the white working
class was strongly committed to norms of personal responsibility. They
saw themselves as adhering to norms of diligence and were opposed to
welfare, particularly for blacks who they saw as exploiting America’s guilt
over slavery and racial discrimination (Carter, 1995; Edsall & Edsall, 1991).
They were also intolerant of homosexuality and abortion. This conclusion
that class did not matter as much as might be expected was supported
by the arguments that western societies were entering a postmodern era
in which economic pressures were diminishing and quality of life issues
were becoming more prominent (Inglehart, 1971, 1977, 1990, 1997). The
combination of authoritarianism and racism among working class whites
and postmodernism was making class divisions less and less relevant (Clark,
1994; Clark & Lipset, 1991).
The loss of the white working class became a central concern of those
involved in politics (Galston & Kamarck, 1989; Greenberg, 1985, 1996).
It is difficult to read popular works such as Thomas Frank’s What’s the
Matter with Kansas and not sense the idea that the working class is being
unfortunately distracted by issues not central to their lives. Perhaps most
importantly, they have presumably been duped by Republicans with social
issues (welfare exploitation, race, abortion, and homosexuality issues).
To some, class divisions had even become inverted, with the working
class voting Republican and the more educated voting Democratic (Ladd,
1976–1977, 1978, 1984; Ladd and Hadley, 1975; Lawrence, 1991, 1997). It
became conventional wisdom that the working class is voting Republican
(Harwood, 2012; Stevenson, 2011). It is now common to encounter assertions
such as “The Republican Party is the party of the white working class. They
overwhelmingly favor Republicans” (Brooks, 2011, A21).

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

5

Lower
Middle
Higher
Low-high difference
80
70
60
Percentage

50
40
30
20
10
0
−10

1952

Figure 1

1960

1968

1984

1976

1992

2000

2008

Year

Democratic presidential voting by income groups, 1952–2008.

The difficulty is that it appears the disappointment with the white working class has been more influential than the evidence for these conclusions.
Two data trends illustrate just how dubious the abovementioned conclusions
might be. First, if income is used to group individuals, the evidence indicates a steadily growing division in partisan voting between those in the top
and bottom third of the income distribution. Figure 1 presents these results,
using National Election Studies (NES) from 1952–2008. All respondents are
grouped into thirds of the income distribution, and the percentage voting for
Democratic presidential candidates within each group is presented. The bottom line presents the difference between the bottom and top thirds. Several
matters are important. First, the difference between the two has increased
over time. Second, those in the bottom third are now voting more Democratic than in the 1950s and 1960s. Third, since the early 1980s, those in the
top third are voting somewhat more Democratic. Despite this, a greater difference between the top and bottom third has emerged because those in the
bottom third are now more Democratic. The basic premise that the working
class is less Democratic is not supported by these data. There are of course
issues of how we define and measure the working class, as noted earlier.
These data, however, surely suggest the need for caution in declaring that
class divisions are less relevant.
The aforementioned fact raises the issue of whether the working class is so
caught up in cultural issues that they now vote less Democratic. The evidence

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Lower—pro-life
Lower—pro-choice
Higher—pro-life
Higher—pro-choice
80
70

Percentage

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Year

Figure 2 Abortion views, class, and Democratic presidential voting, 1976–2008.

that racial resentment is reducing class voting among whites does not hold
up on review (Brewer & Stonecash, 2001; Shafer & Johnston, 2006). Another
issue that is often seen as exerting a powerful impact on the working class is
abortion. Presumably those who are less affluent but conservative on a social
issue such as abortion are moving to the Republican Party, resulting in less
class voting. Figure 2 uses NES data and provides an effort to sort out this
issue. Assume that we can measure class by relative income position (again,
there is disagreement about this). We can classify people by relative income
position, so we can place voters in the bottom or top third of the income
distribution. We can also classify voters by whether they define themselves
as pro-choice or pro-life. This allows us to track the voting behavior of those
who are in the lower third and who are pro-choice or pro-life, and those in
the top third who are pro-choice or pro-life.
In the 1970s, before cultural issues emerged, those in the lower third,
regardless of abortion opinions, voted more Democratic and those in the top
third of the income distribution voted less Democratic by about 20% points.
Over time, as the abortion issue increased in saliency, opinions about this
issue have come to play a greater role in affecting votes. Among those in
the lower third, those pro-choice moved more Democratic and those pro-life
moved less Democratic. A cultural issue mattered, but its effect among
those less affluent and pro-life has been to reduce their Democratic voting
by only about 5% points. As indicated in Figure 1, however, overall those in

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

7

the bottom third are now voting more Democratic now than they did before
1980.
Equally interesting is what has happened among the more affluent. Opinions about abortion have had a significant effect within this group. Those
pro-life have moved away from the Democratic Party while those pro-choice
have moved strongly Democratic. The more affluent generally have more
education and are more inclined to be pro-choice. The net effect is that since
1980 the more affluent have moved more Democratic. In short, the relationship is just the opposite of the argument that the less affluent are moving
Republican. It is the more affluent who are moving more Democratic (Liscio,
Stonecash, & Brewer, 2010). This, of course, will not settle the matter, as some
will not accept the definition of class used here. However, there are grounds
for doubting the assertions that other issues are displacing class issues and
moving the working class more Republican.
The interesting matter is that disappointment in the behaviors of the white
working class has been so dominant that there has not been careful empirical analysis of their behavior. Assertion dominates over analysis (Pakulski
& Waters, 1996). There has also been little examination of the more affluent,
apparently under the presumption that they all vote Republican because they
are better educated and equipped to not be distracted from economic issues.
We are at a point where analyses simply need to be redone if we are to understand the relevance of class in American politics.
HOW ISSUES EMERGE
Finally, the focus on aggregated national samples takes us very far away
from how issues of class emerge in American politics. The standard
assessment of the relevance of class for politics is how much variation
there is across occupations or incomes in partisan identification or voting.
The focus is on the mass public and differences within the public, which
has little relevance for how issues become or do not become a part of
national political discussions and policy debates. What matters are the
distribution of people across districts and how that creates electoral bases
for legislators who in turn may advocate class-related positions. It also
ignores the Bartels–Hacker–Pearson–Gilens argument that groups and their
mobilization of support across districts and within Congress have a major
impact on policies with class implications.
While there are arguments about the extent of class divisions within
nationally aggregated samples of voters, class issues matter in public policy
debates. Efforts to enact legislation in Congress often have a distinct class
focus—what strata will pay what taxes and who will benefit from specific
programs. The issue is how does this focus emerge if voters are not that

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

divided in their partisan voting by class. We have much to learn about this,
but it appears that in emerges in two ways. One involves the interaction
between partisan voting by income level and the variation in electoral bases
across legislative districts. The other involves the growing role of ideology
and the mobilization of ideology within the political process.
The search for the relevance of class generally involves examining differences in partisan voting among individuals. This neglects the fact that the
expression of concerns about class also emerge in the policy preferences of
representatives in congress, depending on the electoral base they represent.
National surveys treat voters as one aggregated unit, without regard to their
distribution across states and House districts. To take House districts as
an example, there are enormous variations in the economic composition of
House districts. On the basis of 2000 census data, the median family income
in House districts during the 2000s ranged from $20,924 to $91,571. The 2010
census results are likely to reflect similar differences. The populations being
represented by members differ enormously. These differences are likely to
make members vary in their concern for class issues.
Second, House Members are not elected by the entire constituency in a district. Democrats are more likely within each district to draw votes from lower
income constituents and Republicans are likely to draw votes from higher
income constituents. Table 1 provides an illustration of this. Assume that
based on national surveys that 60% of those in the bottom third of the income
distribution vote Democratic, 50% of those in the middle do so, and 40% of
those in the top third do so. Those percentages are in the second column. Then
to the right of that are four House districts, with varying population compositions. In district 1, the population is 80% lower income and 20% middle.
If each group votes follows the national pattern and there are 100 votes in
the district, then the Democrat receives 48 votes from lower income voters
and 10 from middle. The Democrat wins with 58 of 100 votes. This Democrat
has an electoral base that is heavily lower income. In contrast is district 4,
which is 20% middle and 80% higher. Assuming the national voting pattern
prevails, the winner is a Republican with a heavily higher income base. The
result is that many Democrats are likely to be forceful in their representation
of lower class concerns and more likely to vote for corresponding legislation.
Republicans are more likely to oppose such legislation. These differences are
a direct reflection of the distributions of populations across districts. While
the national individual level survey results may not show major differences
in partisanship by income, the distribution of populations across states and
House districts and the differences in electoral bases of party members create significant differences in representation concerns. These differences are
surely a source of much of the class content of debates in Congress. If we

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

9

Table 1
District Composition, National Voting, and Party Electoral Bases

Income

%D

Lower
Middle
Higher
Winner

60
50
40

District 1
Pop D Votes
80
20

48
10
0
D: 58

District 2
Pop D Votes
60
30
10

36
15
4
D: 55

District 3
Pop R Votes
10
30
60

4
15
36
R: 55

District 4
Pop R Votes
0
20
80

0
10
48
R: 58

are seeking to understand the role of class in American politics, we need to
understand how these district differences affect policy debates.
Class issues also emerge from the mobilization efforts of those seeking
to expand and limit programs. Liberal advocacy groups are continually
expressing concern about the growing inequality in the distribution of
income and opportunity. As programs have grown and more of the federal
income tax comes from the affluent, conservatives have mobilized to seek
to reduce taxes, programs, and regulations (Bartels, 2008; Hacker & Pierson,
2010; Smith, 2012). They are seeking to change the focus of debates from
the needs of the less affluent to their lack of discipline and character and
exploitation of federal programs (Eberstadt, 2012; Murray, 1994, 2012; Sykes,
2011). Any analysis of class has to incorporate these battles between groups
and the lobbying efforts within state and national legislatures. Many voters
may be completely unaware of these battles, but class issues are discussed
and policy changes are made that have great relevance for classes. While
much of the analysis of class has focused on individual level differences,
class issues are being contested at other levels and those other levels need
to be incorporated when considering the relevance of class in American
politics.
METHODS AND POLITICIANS
Finally, there is a fundamental issue of how academic work connects to
the politicians engaged in these policy debates. Most academic research is
conducted and presented to other academics. Modes of analysis develop
and become accepted among academics as appropriate. In the case of class
analysis, there is a question of whether the modes of analysis that dominate
most studies have any relevance for politicians who are trying to understand
whether class matters. Do class divisions exist within their constituency?
Are issues of economic fairness and differences in opportunity relevant to
their constituents and should they speak of such matters, depending on

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the makeup of their electoral base? Do academic analyses in this area help
politicians understand what divisions and issues exist in politics?
In addressing these questions, I comment largely based on having spent
25 years conducting polls and doing analyses of electoral patterns for
politicians. Most academic work is of limited relevance for two reasons. The
reliance on nationally aggregated samples is of very limited relevance for
politicians. Even presidential candidates must run in states so a national
analysis might be of interest, but not necessarily relevant. What matters
for a politician at any level is the composition of a political unit—state,
legislative, or local government—and how groups within the district vote.
It is the combination of the two that might lead a politician to either stress
issues of class or downplay them.
Even if relevant political units were focused on, there is the issue of whether
most academic analyses would convey much of meaning to politicians. Most
academic work has been influenced by the general move to multivariate analysis. The question asked is whether class, however measured, matters after
controlling for an array of presumably relevant individual traits. The issue
is whether this approach consigns academic analyses to being irrelevant to
politicians. A politician wants to know how groups see him or her and how
they vote. Telling a politician that the coefficient for a class variable, after
controlling for education, race, and sex, is statistically significant will leave
them mystified as to what that statement means. They do not understand
those statements and do not think that way about voters. They want to know
what percentage of their district is less or more affluent, whether people who
make less or more money vote for them, and by how much. They also want to
know how neighborhoods and communities vote. They know their district
and ask for analyses about party identification and voting by community.
The analyses that dominate in academic publications have little relevance for
politicians trying to understand what issues are motivating voters. Although
academics tend to think of the independent effects of a variable, politicians
do not think that way. As long as academic studies continue to focus on multivariate statistical analyses, the results will have little relevance to politicians
seeking to understand their electoral base.
SUMMARY
The study of class divisions in America has a long and rich history. Although
many valuable studies have been produced, the argument of this essay is that
we need to expand our sense of how class can matter and how we need to
study it. The prior studies tell us a great deal about nationally aggregated
patterns of behavior, but we need to add to them to gain a full sense of how
class matters.

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

11

REFERENCES
Bageant, J. (2008). Deer hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s class war. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. O. (2005). Unequal chances: Family background and
economic success. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Brewer, M. D., & Stonecash, J. M. (2001). Class, race issues, declining white support
for the democratic party in the south. Political Behavior, 23(2), 131–155.
Brooks, D. (2011). Workers of the world, unite! New York Times. January 3, 2011, A21.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of
American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carter, D. T. (1995). The politics of rage: George Wallace, the origins of the new conservatism, and the transformation of American politics. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction
and its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 512–532.
Clark, T. N. (1994). Race and class vs. the new political culture. In T. N. Clark (Ed.),
Urban innovation: Creative strategies for turbulent times (pp. 21–78). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Clark, T. N., & Lipset, S. M. (1991). Are social classes dying? International Sociology,
6(4), 397–410.
Clark, T. N., & Lipset, S. M. (2001). The breakdown of class politics: A debate on
post-industrial stratification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Congressional Budget Office (2011). Trends in the Distribution of Household Income
between 1979 and 2007, http: www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 (accessed 18
November 2014).
Eberstadt, N. (2012). A nation of takes: America’s entitlement epidemic. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Edsall, T. B., & Edsall, M. D. (1991). Chain reaction: The impact of race, rights, and taxes
on American politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Galston, W., & Kamarck, E. C. (1989). The politics of evasion: Democrats and the presidency. Washington, DC: The Progressive Policy Institute.
Greenberg, S. (1985). Report on democratic defection. Washington, DC: The Analysis
Group.
Greenberg, S. (1996). Middle class dreams. New York, NY: Times Books.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich
richer—and turned its back on the middle class. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Harwood, J. (2012). Obama’s tax policy targets rising sector of his base; the affluent.
New York Times. February 20, 2012. A10.
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Inglehart, R. (1971). The silent revolution in Europe. American Political Science Review,
65(4), 991–1017.
Inglehart, R. (1977). Silent revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Keister, L. (2000). Wealth in America. Cambridge: New York, NY.
Keister, L. (2009). Getting rich: America’s new rich and how they got that way. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kochhhar, R., Fry R., and Taylor P. (2011). Twenty-to-one: Wealth gaps rise to record
highs between whites, blacks and Hispanics. Pew Research Center: Washington,
DC. July 26.
Ladd, E. C. (1976–1977). Liberalism turned upside down: The inversion of the new
deal order. Political Science Quarterly, 91(4), 577–600.
Ladd, E. C. (1978). The new lines are drawn: Class and ideology in America. Public
Opinion, 1(3), 48–53.
Ladd, E. C. (1984). Is election ’84 really a class struggle? Public Opinion. April/May,
41–51.
Ladd, E. C., & Hadley, C. (1975). Transformations of the American party system. New
York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lawrence, D. G. (1991). The collapse of the democratic majority: Economics and vote
choice since 1952. Western Political Quarterly, 44(4), 797–820.
Lawrence, D. G. (1997). The collapse of the democratic presidential majority. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1959). Democracy and working class authoritarianism. American Sociological Review, 24(4), 482–501.
Lipset, S. M. (1981). Political man (Expanded ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Liscio, R., Stonecash, J. M., & Brewer, M. D. (2010). Unintended consequences:
Republican strategy and winning and losing voters. In J. C. Green & D. J. Coffey (Eds.), The state of the parties (6th ed., pp. 255–270). New York, NY: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Massey, D. S. (2008). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New
York, NY: Russell Sage.
Murray, C. A. (1994). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980 (Tenth Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Murray, C. A. (2012). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960–2010. New York,
NY: Crown Forum.
Page, B. I., & Jacobs, L. R. (2009). Class war: What Americans really think about economic
inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The death of class. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

13

Pew Charitable Trusts (2012). Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility
Across Generations, July. Washington, DC. http://www.pewstates.org/uploaded
Files/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf (accessed 19 November
2014).
Shafer, B. E., & Johnston, R. (2006). The end of southern exceptionalism: Class, race, and
partisan change in the postwar south. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, H. (2012). Who stole the American dream? New York, NY: Random House.
Stevenson, R.W. (2011). Tough fight ahead for white blue collar votes. New York Times.
January 14, 2011, A12.
Sykes, C. J. (2011). A nation of moochers: America’s addiction to getting something for
nothing. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Weakliem, D., & Adams, J. P. (2011). What do we mean by ‘class politics’? Politics and
Society, 39(4), 475–496.

JEFFREY M. STONECASH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jeffrey M. Stonecash is Maxwell Professor in the Maxwell School, Syracuse
University. He does research on political parties and changes in their
electoral bases. His recent books are Party Pursuits and the Presidential-House
Election Connection, 1900–2008, (Cambridge, 2013); Understanding American Political Parties: Democratic Ideals, Political Uncertainty, and Strategic
Positioning, (Routledge, 2012); Counter Realignment: Political Change in the
Northeast (with Howard L. Reiter: Cambridge, 2011); New Directions in Party
Politics, Editor (Routledge, 2010); The Dynamics of the American Party System
(with Mark D. Brewer; Cambridge, 2009); Reassessing the Incumbency Effect
(Cambridge, 2008); Split: Class and Cultural Divisions in American Politics
(with Mark D. Brewer; CQ Press, 2007); Parties Matter: Realignment and
the Return of Partisanship (Lynne-Rienner, 2006); Governing New York State
(SUNY Press, 2006); Political Polling (Roman and Littlefield, 2003, 2009);
The Emergence of State Government: Parties and New Jersey Politics, 1950–2000
(Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002); Diverging Parties: Social Change,
Realignment, and Party Polarization (Westview Press, 2002); and Class and
Party in American Politics (Westview Press, 2000).
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon
and Woo Chang Kang
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy
Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Political Inequality (Sociology), Jeff Manza
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future (Sociology), Daniel
Schneider and Judith Stepan-Norris
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem



The Future of Class Analyses
in American Politics
JEFFREY M. STONECASH

Abstract
Although the role of class has been extensively studied, this essay suggests several
important matters that have been neglected and deserve more attention. The focus
on occupational positions limits our understanding of the possible role of class. We
need to devote more attention to household income and its impact on opportunity.
We need to ask people about their aspirations and sense of fairness in American
society and how that affects class voting. The presumption that class divisions have
been reduced by racial and cultural issues has been embraced too quickly and needs
more careful analyses. The use of nationally aggregated individual-level surveys is
limiting because it neglects how the distribution of classes across legislative districts and their representation through that matters for the emergence of class issues.
Finally, the focus on multivariate analyses may satisfy academic notions of rigor but
it removes analyses from having relevance for politicians.

INTRODUCTION
Does class matter in American politics? Does the lower class vote Democratic
and the upper class Republican? Do existing divisions affect policy debates?
We have considerable evidence of trends that suggest that class would seem
to matter. Inequality in the distributions of income and wealth is steadily
increasing (Congressional Budget Office, 2011; Keister, 2000, 2009; Kochhhar, Fry, & Taylor, 2011), which in turn creates differential in opportunity
(Bowles et al., 2005; Lareau, 2011; Massey, 2008). Mobility from family class
during a lifetime and from generation to generation appears to be stagnant or
declining (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012). It would seem that America would
be experiencing class divisions in which party is supported.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Despite this, studies of the role and relevance of class have produced no
clear evidence about the extent of class political divisions. Some argue that
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

class is of declining relevance while others argue that it still matters. To
many, the issue is whether class has been displaced by other issues. As might
be expected, much of the disagreement revolves around measurement and
method issues. Should class be measured by relative economic position
and with what categories? What statistical technique should be used? The
decisions made about these matters affect the results and the conclusion
about the role of class. These matters have been analyzed and discussed
with considerable care (Clark and Lipset, 2001; Chan and Goldthorpe, 2007;
Weakliem and Adams, 2011).
Although there have been many careful and rigorous studies, the argument of this essay is that analyses of class have been severely limited by
how this topic was initially studied. The early studies of class began with
a focus on Marxian concerns of how individuals related to the means of production. The resulting studies have been well done but the heritage of these
individual-level analyses of how position affects political leanings has limited our understanding of the relevance of issues of class. Further, studies
have been conducted in a way that has little relevance to politicians. The following is not a critique of the issues that have been discussed in existing studies but an argument that the focus of current academic debates about the role
of class is far too limited. We need to rethink how the role of class is studied.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS IS RELEVANT?
The study of class has been enormously influenced by Marx’s focus on the
individual’s relationship to the means of production. His argument was that
this relationship defines one’s place in society and one’s perspective about
politics. This focus on economic position has been the basis for numerous
careful and thoughtful efforts to create measures of occupational position.
This has also prompted many exchanges about how many categories should
be created and what to do with students, spouses, and retirees.
Although this focus has produced some valuable analyses, the focus on
Marx’s argument about the position of individuals has also limited our thinking about how to define class. Two matters in particular need much more
attention. First, the focus on individuals and their positions leads us away
from thinking about what is surely more important for individuals: household income and wealth and the opportunity that they provide. The concern
about how to classify the “positions” of students, spouses, and retirees stems
from focusing on individual job titles. This focus on individual positions
misses some important matters. It is income that limits or creates opportunity and grants access to amenities and it is household income that ultimately

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

3

matters. Individual occupational categories can be poor indicators of individual income. Position categories may also be bad indicators of the household
situation, whether that be a married couple, individuals living together, or
an extended family. The Marxian focus on occupational position may have
made sense when there were factories, factory owners, and employees, but
titles are harder to make sense of now and may be much less relevant. We
all know someone who was laid off of a job and now defines himself as a
consultant, but actually makes a limited amount of money. It is income or
wealth that significantly affects opportunity in life and we need to focus on
the resources individuals have access to if we are to understand the class situation of people in American society. This also means thinking in terms of
household income. Most individuals still live in a household situation and
may even be involved in an extended family. The resources available to them
are generally broader than their income and we need to consider the total
income and wealth available to people to define their class situation.
Second, even if we devote more attention to overall resources, we are still
missing something very important about how people see their situation.
The presumption appears to be that positions (or income, when used) define
opinions. This assumption has inclined researchers to not ask individuals
about their aspirations, assessments of their capabilities, and frustrations
with the ability to achieve their goals in American society. What we do not
know is whether people in various economic situations expect more or are
satisfied. Do they aspire to more or find their situation satisfactory? Do
they think they are capable of more or think they are doing well given the
talents they have? If they aspire to more, do they see American society and
its policies as systematically limiting them or are limits seen as a result of
random luck in life? Essentially, do they accept their situation or are they
frustrated. Do they think that public policies could be adopted to change
opportunity or do they see government efforts as ineffective (Bageant, 2008;
Greenberg, 1996; Page and Jacobs, 2009)? The focus on position or income
as a definer of class mentality leads us to neglect the views of individuals.
To understand how class is seen by individuals and the role of class, we
need to devote more resources to asking people with different occupations
or incomes how they view their situation.
THE PRESUMPTION OF THE PULL OF OTHER ISSUES
The analysis of class appears to have been significantly affected by an
unstated presumption that if the working class were rational they would be
liberal on economic issues. Their failure to be heavily liberal has prompted
concern with why they are failing to fulfill these expectations. There has also
been a thread of clear disappointment with the working class. Ever since

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Seymour Martin Lipset published an article expressing his sense that the
working class was authoritarian and not as liberal as he hoped, there been
a vague sense that the working class may simply have the wrong values
to fulfill the expectations of many (Lipset, 1959). The expectation was that
the working class should be devoted to programs expanding opportunity
and benefits, and heavily Democratic. Class divisions were expected to be
greater than they were.
The thinly veiled sense was that the working class was too concerned with
other values and that assigning class a central role in politics was a mistake.
The developing conclusion was that the working class was distracted
by noneconomic values. The working class has less education and was
seen as authoritarian, racist, heavily religious, and attached to traditional
cultural norms and behaviors (Hetherington & Weiler, 2009; Hunter, 1991;
Lipset, 1981). The Democratic Party, concerned with fairness and seeking
to expand its electoral base, was becoming an advocate for blacks in the
1960s (Carmines & Stimson, 1989). In sharp contrast, the white working
class was strongly committed to norms of personal responsibility. They
saw themselves as adhering to norms of diligence and were opposed to
welfare, particularly for blacks who they saw as exploiting America’s guilt
over slavery and racial discrimination (Carter, 1995; Edsall & Edsall, 1991).
They were also intolerant of homosexuality and abortion. This conclusion
that class did not matter as much as might be expected was supported
by the arguments that western societies were entering a postmodern era
in which economic pressures were diminishing and quality of life issues
were becoming more prominent (Inglehart, 1971, 1977, 1990, 1997). The
combination of authoritarianism and racism among working class whites
and postmodernism was making class divisions less and less relevant (Clark,
1994; Clark & Lipset, 1991).
The loss of the white working class became a central concern of those
involved in politics (Galston & Kamarck, 1989; Greenberg, 1985, 1996).
It is difficult to read popular works such as Thomas Frank’s What’s the
Matter with Kansas and not sense the idea that the working class is being
unfortunately distracted by issues not central to their lives. Perhaps most
importantly, they have presumably been duped by Republicans with social
issues (welfare exploitation, race, abortion, and homosexuality issues).
To some, class divisions had even become inverted, with the working
class voting Republican and the more educated voting Democratic (Ladd,
1976–1977, 1978, 1984; Ladd and Hadley, 1975; Lawrence, 1991, 1997). It
became conventional wisdom that the working class is voting Republican
(Harwood, 2012; Stevenson, 2011). It is now common to encounter assertions
such as “The Republican Party is the party of the white working class. They
overwhelmingly favor Republicans” (Brooks, 2011, A21).

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

5

Lower
Middle
Higher
Low-high difference
80
70
60
Percentage

50
40
30
20
10
0
−10

1952

Figure 1

1960

1968

1984

1976

1992

2000

2008

Year

Democratic presidential voting by income groups, 1952–2008.

The difficulty is that it appears the disappointment with the white working class has been more influential than the evidence for these conclusions.
Two data trends illustrate just how dubious the abovementioned conclusions
might be. First, if income is used to group individuals, the evidence indicates a steadily growing division in partisan voting between those in the top
and bottom third of the income distribution. Figure 1 presents these results,
using National Election Studies (NES) from 1952–2008. All respondents are
grouped into thirds of the income distribution, and the percentage voting for
Democratic presidential candidates within each group is presented. The bottom line presents the difference between the bottom and top thirds. Several
matters are important. First, the difference between the two has increased
over time. Second, those in the bottom third are now voting more Democratic than in the 1950s and 1960s. Third, since the early 1980s, those in the
top third are voting somewhat more Democratic. Despite this, a greater difference between the top and bottom third has emerged because those in the
bottom third are now more Democratic. The basic premise that the working
class is less Democratic is not supported by these data. There are of course
issues of how we define and measure the working class, as noted earlier.
These data, however, surely suggest the need for caution in declaring that
class divisions are less relevant.
The aforementioned fact raises the issue of whether the working class is so
caught up in cultural issues that they now vote less Democratic. The evidence

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Lower—pro-life
Lower—pro-choice
Higher—pro-life
Higher—pro-choice
80
70

Percentage

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Year

Figure 2 Abortion views, class, and Democratic presidential voting, 1976–2008.

that racial resentment is reducing class voting among whites does not hold
up on review (Brewer & Stonecash, 2001; Shafer & Johnston, 2006). Another
issue that is often seen as exerting a powerful impact on the working class is
abortion. Presumably those who are less affluent but conservative on a social
issue such as abortion are moving to the Republican Party, resulting in less
class voting. Figure 2 uses NES data and provides an effort to sort out this
issue. Assume that we can measure class by relative income position (again,
there is disagreement about this). We can classify people by relative income
position, so we can place voters in the bottom or top third of the income
distribution. We can also classify voters by whether they define themselves
as pro-choice or pro-life. This allows us to track the voting behavior of those
who are in the lower third and who are pro-choice or pro-life, and those in
the top third who are pro-choice or pro-life.
In the 1970s, before cultural issues emerged, those in the lower third,
regardless of abortion opinions, voted more Democratic and those in the top
third of the income distribution voted less Democratic by about 20% points.
Over time, as the abortion issue increased in saliency, opinions about this
issue have come to play a greater role in affecting votes. Among those in
the lower third, those pro-choice moved more Democratic and those pro-life
moved less Democratic. A cultural issue mattered, but its effect among
those less affluent and pro-life has been to reduce their Democratic voting
by only about 5% points. As indicated in Figure 1, however, overall those in

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

7

the bottom third are now voting more Democratic now than they did before
1980.
Equally interesting is what has happened among the more affluent. Opinions about abortion have had a significant effect within this group. Those
pro-life have moved away from the Democratic Party while those pro-choice
have moved strongly Democratic. The more affluent generally have more
education and are more inclined to be pro-choice. The net effect is that since
1980 the more affluent have moved more Democratic. In short, the relationship is just the opposite of the argument that the less affluent are moving
Republican. It is the more affluent who are moving more Democratic (Liscio,
Stonecash, & Brewer, 2010). This, of course, will not settle the matter, as some
will not accept the definition of class used here. However, there are grounds
for doubting the assertions that other issues are displacing class issues and
moving the working class more Republican.
The interesting matter is that disappointment in the behaviors of the white
working class has been so dominant that there has not been careful empirical analysis of their behavior. Assertion dominates over analysis (Pakulski
& Waters, 1996). There has also been little examination of the more affluent,
apparently under the presumption that they all vote Republican because they
are better educated and equipped to not be distracted from economic issues.
We are at a point where analyses simply need to be redone if we are to understand the relevance of class in American politics.
HOW ISSUES EMERGE
Finally, the focus on aggregated national samples takes us very far away
from how issues of class emerge in American politics. The standard
assessment of the relevance of class for politics is how much variation
there is across occupations or incomes in partisan identification or voting.
The focus is on the mass public and differences within the public, which
has little relevance for how issues become or do not become a part of
national political discussions and policy debates. What matters are the
distribution of people across districts and how that creates electoral bases
for legislators who in turn may advocate class-related positions. It also
ignores the Bartels–Hacker–Pearson–Gilens argument that groups and their
mobilization of support across districts and within Congress have a major
impact on policies with class implications.
While there are arguments about the extent of class divisions within
nationally aggregated samples of voters, class issues matter in public policy
debates. Efforts to enact legislation in Congress often have a distinct class
focus—what strata will pay what taxes and who will benefit from specific
programs. The issue is how does this focus emerge if voters are not that

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

divided in their partisan voting by class. We have much to learn about this,
but it appears that in emerges in two ways. One involves the interaction
between partisan voting by income level and the variation in electoral bases
across legislative districts. The other involves the growing role of ideology
and the mobilization of ideology within the political process.
The search for the relevance of class generally involves examining differences in partisan voting among individuals. This neglects the fact that the
expression of concerns about class also emerge in the policy preferences of
representatives in congress, depending on the electoral base they represent.
National surveys treat voters as one aggregated unit, without regard to their
distribution across states and House districts. To take House districts as
an example, there are enormous variations in the economic composition of
House districts. On the basis of 2000 census data, the median family income
in House districts during the 2000s ranged from $20,924 to $91,571. The 2010
census results are likely to reflect similar differences. The populations being
represented by members differ enormously. These differences are likely to
make members vary in their concern for class issues.
Second, House Members are not elected by the entire constituency in a district. Democrats are more likely within each district to draw votes from lower
income constituents and Republicans are likely to draw votes from higher
income constituents. Table 1 provides an illustration of this. Assume that
based on national surveys that 60% of those in the bottom third of the income
distribution vote Democratic, 50% of those in the middle do so, and 40% of
those in the top third do so. Those percentages are in the second column. Then
to the right of that are four House districts, with varying population compositions. In district 1, the population is 80% lower income and 20% middle.
If each group votes follows the national pattern and there are 100 votes in
the district, then the Democrat receives 48 votes from lower income voters
and 10 from middle. The Democrat wins with 58 of 100 votes. This Democrat
has an electoral base that is heavily lower income. In contrast is district 4,
which is 20% middle and 80% higher. Assuming the national voting pattern
prevails, the winner is a Republican with a heavily higher income base. The
result is that many Democrats are likely to be forceful in their representation
of lower class concerns and more likely to vote for corresponding legislation.
Republicans are more likely to oppose such legislation. These differences are
a direct reflection of the distributions of populations across districts. While
the national individual level survey results may not show major differences
in partisanship by income, the distribution of populations across states and
House districts and the differences in electoral bases of party members create significant differences in representation concerns. These differences are
surely a source of much of the class content of debates in Congress. If we

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

9

Table 1
District Composition, National Voting, and Party Electoral Bases

Income

%D

Lower
Middle
Higher
Winner

60
50
40

District 1
Pop D Votes
80
20

48
10
0
D: 58

District 2
Pop D Votes
60
30
10

36
15
4
D: 55

District 3
Pop R Votes
10
30
60

4
15
36
R: 55

District 4
Pop R Votes
0
20
80

0
10
48
R: 58

are seeking to understand the role of class in American politics, we need to
understand how these district differences affect policy debates.
Class issues also emerge from the mobilization efforts of those seeking
to expand and limit programs. Liberal advocacy groups are continually
expressing concern about the growing inequality in the distribution of
income and opportunity. As programs have grown and more of the federal
income tax comes from the affluent, conservatives have mobilized to seek
to reduce taxes, programs, and regulations (Bartels, 2008; Hacker & Pierson,
2010; Smith, 2012). They are seeking to change the focus of debates from
the needs of the less affluent to their lack of discipline and character and
exploitation of federal programs (Eberstadt, 2012; Murray, 1994, 2012; Sykes,
2011). Any analysis of class has to incorporate these battles between groups
and the lobbying efforts within state and national legislatures. Many voters
may be completely unaware of these battles, but class issues are discussed
and policy changes are made that have great relevance for classes. While
much of the analysis of class has focused on individual level differences,
class issues are being contested at other levels and those other levels need
to be incorporated when considering the relevance of class in American
politics.
METHODS AND POLITICIANS
Finally, there is a fundamental issue of how academic work connects to
the politicians engaged in these policy debates. Most academic research is
conducted and presented to other academics. Modes of analysis develop
and become accepted among academics as appropriate. In the case of class
analysis, there is a question of whether the modes of analysis that dominate
most studies have any relevance for politicians who are trying to understand
whether class matters. Do class divisions exist within their constituency?
Are issues of economic fairness and differences in opportunity relevant to
their constituents and should they speak of such matters, depending on

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the makeup of their electoral base? Do academic analyses in this area help
politicians understand what divisions and issues exist in politics?
In addressing these questions, I comment largely based on having spent
25 years conducting polls and doing analyses of electoral patterns for
politicians. Most academic work is of limited relevance for two reasons. The
reliance on nationally aggregated samples is of very limited relevance for
politicians. Even presidential candidates must run in states so a national
analysis might be of interest, but not necessarily relevant. What matters
for a politician at any level is the composition of a political unit—state,
legislative, or local government—and how groups within the district vote.
It is the combination of the two that might lead a politician to either stress
issues of class or downplay them.
Even if relevant political units were focused on, there is the issue of whether
most academic analyses would convey much of meaning to politicians. Most
academic work has been influenced by the general move to multivariate analysis. The question asked is whether class, however measured, matters after
controlling for an array of presumably relevant individual traits. The issue
is whether this approach consigns academic analyses to being irrelevant to
politicians. A politician wants to know how groups see him or her and how
they vote. Telling a politician that the coefficient for a class variable, after
controlling for education, race, and sex, is statistically significant will leave
them mystified as to what that statement means. They do not understand
those statements and do not think that way about voters. They want to know
what percentage of their district is less or more affluent, whether people who
make less or more money vote for them, and by how much. They also want to
know how neighborhoods and communities vote. They know their district
and ask for analyses about party identification and voting by community.
The analyses that dominate in academic publications have little relevance for
politicians trying to understand what issues are motivating voters. Although
academics tend to think of the independent effects of a variable, politicians
do not think that way. As long as academic studies continue to focus on multivariate statistical analyses, the results will have little relevance to politicians
seeking to understand their electoral base.
SUMMARY
The study of class divisions in America has a long and rich history. Although
many valuable studies have been produced, the argument of this essay is that
we need to expand our sense of how class can matter and how we need to
study it. The prior studies tell us a great deal about nationally aggregated
patterns of behavior, but we need to add to them to gain a full sense of how
class matters.

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

11

REFERENCES
Bageant, J. (2008). Deer hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s class war. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. O. (2005). Unequal chances: Family background and
economic success. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Brewer, M. D., & Stonecash, J. M. (2001). Class, race issues, declining white support
for the democratic party in the south. Political Behavior, 23(2), 131–155.
Brooks, D. (2011). Workers of the world, unite! New York Times. January 3, 2011, A21.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of
American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carter, D. T. (1995). The politics of rage: George Wallace, the origins of the new conservatism, and the transformation of American politics. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction
and its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 512–532.
Clark, T. N. (1994). Race and class vs. the new political culture. In T. N. Clark (Ed.),
Urban innovation: Creative strategies for turbulent times (pp. 21–78). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Clark, T. N., & Lipset, S. M. (1991). Are social classes dying? International Sociology,
6(4), 397–410.
Clark, T. N., & Lipset, S. M. (2001). The breakdown of class politics: A debate on
post-industrial stratification. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Congressional Budget Office (2011). Trends in the Distribution of Household Income
between 1979 and 2007, http: www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485 (accessed 18
November 2014).
Eberstadt, N. (2012). A nation of takes: America’s entitlement epidemic. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Edsall, T. B., & Edsall, M. D. (1991). Chain reaction: The impact of race, rights, and taxes
on American politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Galston, W., & Kamarck, E. C. (1989). The politics of evasion: Democrats and the presidency. Washington, DC: The Progressive Policy Institute.
Greenberg, S. (1985). Report on democratic defection. Washington, DC: The Analysis
Group.
Greenberg, S. (1996). Middle class dreams. New York, NY: Times Books.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich
richer—and turned its back on the middle class. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Harwood, J. (2012). Obama’s tax policy targets rising sector of his base; the affluent.
New York Times. February 20, 2012. A10.
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York, NY: Basic
Books.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Inglehart, R. (1971). The silent revolution in Europe. American Political Science Review,
65(4), 991–1017.
Inglehart, R. (1977). Silent revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Keister, L. (2000). Wealth in America. Cambridge: New York, NY.
Keister, L. (2009). Getting rich: America’s new rich and how they got that way. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kochhhar, R., Fry R., and Taylor P. (2011). Twenty-to-one: Wealth gaps rise to record
highs between whites, blacks and Hispanics. Pew Research Center: Washington,
DC. July 26.
Ladd, E. C. (1976–1977). Liberalism turned upside down: The inversion of the new
deal order. Political Science Quarterly, 91(4), 577–600.
Ladd, E. C. (1978). The new lines are drawn: Class and ideology in America. Public
Opinion, 1(3), 48–53.
Ladd, E. C. (1984). Is election ’84 really a class struggle? Public Opinion. April/May,
41–51.
Ladd, E. C., & Hadley, C. (1975). Transformations of the American party system. New
York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed.). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lawrence, D. G. (1991). The collapse of the democratic majority: Economics and vote
choice since 1952. Western Political Quarterly, 44(4), 797–820.
Lawrence, D. G. (1997). The collapse of the democratic presidential majority. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Lipset, S. M. (1959). Democracy and working class authoritarianism. American Sociological Review, 24(4), 482–501.
Lipset, S. M. (1981). Political man (Expanded ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Liscio, R., Stonecash, J. M., & Brewer, M. D. (2010). Unintended consequences:
Republican strategy and winning and losing voters. In J. C. Green & D. J. Coffey (Eds.), The state of the parties (6th ed., pp. 255–270). New York, NY: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Massey, D. S. (2008). Categorically unequal: The American stratification system. New
York, NY: Russell Sage.
Murray, C. A. (1994). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980 (Tenth Anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Murray, C. A. (2012). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960–2010. New York,
NY: Crown Forum.
Page, B. I., & Jacobs, L. R. (2009). Class war: What Americans really think about economic
inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pakulski, J., & Waters, M. (1996). The death of class. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

The Future of Class Analyses in American Politics

13

Pew Charitable Trusts (2012). Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility
Across Generations, July. Washington, DC. http://www.pewstates.org/uploaded
Files/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdf (accessed 19 November
2014).
Shafer, B. E., & Johnston, R. (2006). The end of southern exceptionalism: Class, race, and
partisan change in the postwar south. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, H. (2012). Who stole the American dream? New York, NY: Random House.
Stevenson, R.W. (2011). Tough fight ahead for white blue collar votes. New York Times.
January 14, 2011, A12.
Sykes, C. J. (2011). A nation of moochers: America’s addiction to getting something for
nothing. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Weakliem, D., & Adams, J. P. (2011). What do we mean by ‘class politics’? Politics and
Society, 39(4), 475–496.

JEFFREY M. STONECASH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jeffrey M. Stonecash is Maxwell Professor in the Maxwell School, Syracuse
University. He does research on political parties and changes in their
electoral bases. His recent books are Party Pursuits and the Presidential-House
Election Connection, 1900–2008, (Cambridge, 2013); Understanding American Political Parties: Democratic Ideals, Political Uncertainty, and Strategic
Positioning, (Routledge, 2012); Counter Realignment: Political Change in the
Northeast (with Howard L. Reiter: Cambridge, 2011); New Directions in Party
Politics, Editor (Routledge, 2010); The Dynamics of the American Party System
(with Mark D. Brewer; Cambridge, 2009); Reassessing the Incumbency Effect
(Cambridge, 2008); Split: Class and Cultural Divisions in American Politics
(with Mark D. Brewer; CQ Press, 2007); Parties Matter: Realignment and
the Return of Partisanship (Lynne-Rienner, 2006); Governing New York State
(SUNY Press, 2006); Political Polling (Roman and Littlefield, 2003, 2009);
The Emergence of State Government: Parties and New Jersey Politics, 1950–2000
(Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002); Diverging Parties: Social Change,
Realignment, and Party Polarization (Westview Press, 2002); and Class and
Party in American Politics (Westview Press, 2000).
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
Emergence of Stratification in Small Groups (Sociology), Noah Askin et al.
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Stereotype Content (Sociology), Beatrice H. Capestany and Lasana T. Harris
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Intergenerational Mobility (Economics), Steve N. Durlauf and Irina
Shaorshadze
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Stratification in Hard Times (Sociology), Markus Gangl
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon
and Woo Chang Kang
The Reorganization of Work (Sociology), Charles Heckscher
Racial Disenfranchisement (Political Science), Vincent L. Hutchings and
Davin L. Phoenix
The Emerging Psychology of Social Class (Psychology), Michael W. Kraus
Education for Mobility or Status Reproduction? (Sociology), Karyn Lacy
Immigrant Sociocultural Adaptation, Identification, and Belonging (Sociology), Sarah J. Mahler
Political Inequality (Sociology), Jeff Manza
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Intergenerational Mobility: A Cross-National Comparison (Economics),
Bhashkar Mazumder
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Stratification and the Welfare State (Sociology), Stephanie Moller and Joya
Misra
Health and Social Inequality (Sociology), Bernice A. Pescosolido
Class, Cognition, and Face-to-Face Interaction (Sociology), Lauren A. Rivera
US Union and Workers’ Movements, Past and Future (Sociology), Daniel
Schneider and Judith Stepan-Norris
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem