“I often find that there is a particular derision toward or contempt for poor whiteness that comes from better-off whites…. And that seems to me to suggest that they are offended by essentially looking in the mirror, seeing someone who is more a physical reflection of themselves in whiteness, who is living the shame of poverty.”
So said author Sarah Smarsh in a recent radio interview in which she talked about the experience of growing up with white and poor in the United States. The sometime journalist and academic was interviewed on the US National Public Radio on her recently published autobiography, “Heartland: A Memoir of Working Hard and Being Broke in the Richest Country on Earth.”
Smarsh’s take on race and class raises anew the question of which is the primal driving force in societies. For countries such as Nigeria, ethnicity is the obvious substitute for race. I will return to this.
Suffice to state here that to communists and structural reformers, the answer is simple: class. But many in the underclass don’t necessarily see it that way. And their social and political choices reflect that.
One of the notable aspects of the US presidential election in 2016 is the large percentage of the white underclass that voted for candidate Donald Trump. Yet, his campaign rhetoric aside, evidence abounded that the real estate tycoon has a condescending streak.
Similarly, a large percentage of the white underclass opposed President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. Whatever may be its flaws, it is intended to help the poor. The affluent don’t need it, as they can fly to Switzerland, if necessary, to obtain high quality medical care.
Yet a substantial number of poor whites bought into Trump’s declaration that ACA “is a disaster.” It was only after abolishment of the programme became imminent that the implication sank in and support for the programme surged.
While president, Obama repeatedly bemoaned this paradox of poor whites’ political choices. He once illustrated it with an experience he had while campaigning for the ACA. At a small-town meeting with a sizable audience from the white underclass, he encountered stiff opposition to the proposed act. The argument against it was primarily that it would be a government-run programme, which the opponents saw as undesirable in a free-enterprise society.
So, Obama took a poll. If you are on Medicare raise your hands, he asked. Several hands went up. If you are receiving social security payment raise your hand, he asked again. Even more hands went up. Well, these are all government-run programmes, he pointed out. Those people depended on those programmes for dear life. In opposing the ACA because it would be a government-run programme, they were merely parroting the ideological line of elites who feared the programme would dip into their deep pockets.
Yet such opposition to one’s own class interest goes beyond parroting one’s opinion leaders. It also reflects the fact that for poor whites, racial identity often overrides class interests. In fact, as Smarsh explains, some don’t consciously think of themselves as poor. The logic is this: white is a race of privilege; therefore, one cannot be white and poor.
“I never in a million years thought that I was poor, and I don’t think that my family would have used that word either when we were — well, and many are — living that experience,” Smarsh said in the radio interview.
The corollary, as Smarsh sees it, is that affluent whites despise poor whites because they are an embarrassment to the race. Apparently, much of society sees white poverty as, indeed, an anomaly; hence the tag “white trash.”
“Trash, of course, is garbage; it is dispensable; it is, by definition, something to be thrown away,” Smarsh said. “And it’s a dangerous way to talk about human beings, about ourselves, about our country.”
Remarkably, this take on poor whites very much reflects the way American segregationists saw black people through much of American history. To them, blacks were niggers and didn’t belong in the same neighborhood, schools and restaurants. Some restaurants posted the sign, “We don’t serve coloured people here.” To which the late black comedian retorted, “That’s all right, I don’t eat coloured people. Bring me a whole fried chicken.”
Yet even at the worst of times in this regard, some white segregationists exempted successful blacks from the practice of segregation. These are not niggers, they would say. Much has changed since then, but there is still no neat resolution of the intersection of race and class matters. To many, poverty is still associated with blacks and to be white and poor remains an anomaly. This all complicates the politics of economic justice. The perception of what race most benefits from this or that programme still affects public sentiments and legislations.
Meanwhile the most privileged in society — the millionaires and corporations — ram through legislations that most benefit them. And these are routinely sold to public opinion as programmes that would benefit the middle class, an economic stratum that even the poor claim to belong in.
The recent tax cut, which Trump trumpets as the biggest in history, is an example. Its primarily goal was to relieve corporations and the wealthiest Americans of substantial tax obligations. Most workers saw a trickle increase in their paychecks, and that was enough to hail the cuts. It was only after the tax cuts began to manifest in cuts to social programmes that the working class began to sour on it. But it was too late. And the effects of the mounting deficits are yet to kick in.
Nigeria dimension
Nigeria’s politics remarkably reflects this phenomenon of confusing ethnic identity with class interests. The obsession with ethnic representation is one example. Typically, the masses are more concerned with whether a government has appointees from their ethnic group than with the impact of programmes on their wellbeing.
This is not intended to support President Muhammadu Buhari’s incredibly ethnocentric pattern of appointments. It’s just that Nigerians would sooner vote for a poor performing government that substantial represents their ethnic group than one that performs well but with fewer representations.
It is taken as a given that the ethnic or local representatives will bring home the largesse. But this is often more a matter of sentiment than reality. At best, the largesse is more like crumbs and fleeting gestures. But with the elites’ rhetoric and flair, they make sure the masses don’t know it. And so it goes all over.
END
Be the first to comment