Over at TNR, special correspondent Thomas B. Edsall raises
provocative questions about the coalition of wealthy and poor that
elected Obama.  Will they stand together?  Below, excerpts from his
post, and my comments:

“The health care debate has exposed the
ideological tension in Barack Obama’s political coalition between
moderates and liberals. But it has also offered hints of how another,
less obvious divide built into the Democratic majority could wreak
havoc on the administration during the years to come.

“In 2008, the Democratic Party blossomed into a successful alliance
of the upscale and the downscale–wealthy and needy marching hand in
hand, sharing animosity to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The
extent to which Democrats are relying on the far extremes of the income
spectrum is striking. Democrats have generally performed well among
low-income voters in the past, but now, the phenomenon has become more
pronounced. Voters from households making less than $30,000 backed
Obama by 31 points last November. That margin was 13 points higher than
Jimmy Carter’s advantage over Gerald Ford with poor voters in 1976–and
21 points better than Walter Mondale’s advantage among the same
demographic in 1984.

“Democratic gains among the rich have been even more dramatic and,
given the party’s history, surprising. Carter in 1976 and Mondale in
1984 were crushed by the wealthiest voters. Obama, by contrast,
actually carried those making $200,000 or more by 6 points. True, these
very affluent voters make up only 6 percent of the electorate, but
Obama fared well in other upper-income categories too. Among
non-Southern white voters–that is, voters living in states a Democrat
must carry or have a shot at carrying to win an election–Obama claimed
a majority of those making $80,000 or more. And this group makes up
over 30 percent of the electorate outside the South.”

Here I would note that Obama appealed to well-educated progressive
voters—and since education and income are closely correlated, this
means that he drew affluent voters.  “Obama needed this strong showing
at opposite ends of the income spectrum because he was far weaker in
the middle. The two previous Democratic victors, Carter and Bill
Clinton, won moderate-income voters–Carter in 1976 by 5.7 points and
Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by an average of 6.5 points. Obama merely
split these voters with John McCain.”

Unfortunately race may have been a factor. Many middle-class white voters who embraced Carter and Clinton rejected Obama.

Edsall
continues: “If the president’s top priority were foreign affairs, the
sharp class dichotomy in his coalition might not be so significant. But
his agenda has clear class implications: universal health care aimed at
helping the uninsured; stimulus spending heavily oriented toward the
unemployed; and a financial bailout that aided Wall Street while
enraging lower-income voters. And so, while the rich-poor alliance was
enough to get Obama to the White House, there is reason to wonder how
long–or how well–a coalition divided so sharply along economic lines
can survive the process of governing.
"You can see the income-based split over health care most clearly in
poll numbers. In a recent Gallup poll, those making less than $30,000
urged their congressmen to vote for health care reform by 13 points;
those making $75,000 or more took the opposite position by 16 points.”

For
low-income families, health reform will guarantee access without little
additional close. Those earning $30,000 will qualify for large
subsidies to help them pay their insurance premiums. By contrast  those
making $75,000 or more won’t.  This won’t matter to the majority in
this group: most already have generous employer-based insurance. On
average, employers who offer insurance pay 75% of the premium for
workers earning over $75,000. But under reform, self-employed
Americans, as well as those working for smaller companies will be asked
to buy their own insurance—and, for the upper-middle class, that will
mean pay the full cost themselves.   The good news is that the
Insurance Exchange will let them buy insurance at group rates; they
will no longer have to pay the exorbitant rates demanded in the
individual market. More importantly,  insurers won’t be able to reject
them—or hike their premiums—because of pre-existing conditions. And all
of the reform bills under consideration cap out-of-pocket spending at
$5,000 a year ($10,000 for a family.)  This means that if your family
is in an accident, and winds up with medical bills totally $200,000,
you will be expected to pay just $10,000—no matter how much you earn. 
Most hospitals and doctors would let a family pay the $10,000 over
time, which means no one should face a medical bankruptcy.

These are all good reasons for more affluent families to welcome
reform. Even so, since many have good employer-based insurance, some
are satisfied with the current situation—and wary of any change. 
Moreover some individuals earning over $75,000 may resent a mandate
telling them that they must buy insurance—especially if they are 
single, are young and healthy. Much depends on whether insurance
regulators let insurers sell them “dare-devil” policies for the
young—cheap, stripped down insurance that doesn’t include items like
maternity benefits, or physical therapy after surgery.  The problem
here is that if such policies are allowed, those who need comprehensive
insurance will have to pay higher premiums.

Edsall points  out that you can see the class division, not only
when you  poll individuals, but also  “in the behavior of Democratic
politicians representing wealthy states. Reacting to a suggestion that
rich areas of the country are spending too much on Medicare under the
current system, Senator John Kerry said, ‘States like Massachusetts are
concentrated centers of medical innovation where cutting-edge
treatments are tested and some of the nation’s finest doctors are
trained. This work might cost a little more, but it benefits the entire
country.’  For her part, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California cut
right to the chase: If health care reform means California is going to
take it on the chin, she said, ‘I can’t vote for it.’"

This is
truly distressing. Senators like Kerry and Feinstein are capable of
understanding what people such as  Dr. Atul Gawande have been telling
us:  in areas where medicine is money-driven, millions of health care
dollars are wasted on over-priced, unnecessary tests and treatments.
And this is not just a waste of money; when treatment is not needed
patients are exposed to unnecessary risks.
Kerry and Feinstein are being provincial—though perhaps this is to be
expected.  As one HealthBeat reader recently noted:  “We have research
demonstrating that Medical centers like Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Kaiser
Bay Area, Group Health of Puget Sound, Geisinger Clinic [in
Pennsylvania], and many others outperform — cost less and have better
results” than many marquee medical centers in Massachusetts and
California.

“I do expect a lot more push back on this in the future,” he added,
“for two reasons: First it runs directly into the ego and reputation of
many prestigious medical systems and supposedly sophisticated
geographic areas of practice. The idea that people in small cities in
the West and Midwest are doing a better job than silk stocking medical
care in large cities on the coasts and in the Sunbelt is very
threatening.

“Second, it remains a truism that one person's medical waste is another person's new beach house.”

Edsall
concludes: “The point is not that class divisions on any of these
issues will single-handedly undo the opportunity to pass a given piece
of legislation. It is also quite possible that the combined weight of
these rich-poor splits won’t end up doing the administration much
overall harm. And, even if Obama’s coalition ends up wracked by
class-based antagonism, Democrats may be able to put off a day of
reckoning because of Republican disarray.

“Still, it’s hard to
dismiss the possibility that this intraparty schism based on income
might create headaches for Obama. The Democrats have a substantial
majority on Capitol Hill, but, with few Republicans willing to break
ranks, any Democratic faction has the ability to wield veto power more
or less whenever it wants. Obviously, these factions break down along
many different lines–but class is certainly one of them.”

In the
end, Edsall suggests that perhaps progressives should make a concerted
effort to win back the middle-class.  But this, I think, would be
difficult.  Those middle-class Americans who have voted for
conservatives and “Blue Dogs” just don’t share the values that
progressives embrace. When it comes to thinking collectively, equality
regardless of race, gender or sexual preference, and separation of
church and state,  there is  a wide divide between liberals and some
middle-class Americans.

Progressives have a better chance, I
think, if they try to unite lower-income Americans—providing programs
that help low-income households, regardless of race. Secondly, they
appeal  need appeal to fair-minded, educated Americans of all classes
by talking about ideas, educating as they go along.

I recently
participated in a round table discussion with long-time political
organizer Marshall Ganz (on Grit TV the Laura Flanders Show)  and he
emphasized that this is what building a movement is all about: “moving
minds from a place they are to a place they could be.” Building a
movement is “not marketing” or “packaging” said Ganz, who is a lecturer
at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  It’s not about bumper
stickers. It’s not about telling people what they want to hear.
Appealing to“narrow self-interest” will never build a movement that
moves history forward.

So I don’t think that progressives should
try to appeal to the “class interest” of the middle-class—and let me be
clear, I don’t think this is what Edsall meant. But, inevitably, this
is how some readers will interpret him. They would argue that liberals
should try to recapture the voters who put “Blue Dog Democrats” in
office. Instead, liberals should offer all Americans a generous vision
of the nation that encourages us to think in terms of “we” rather than
“me and mine.”  If we can use ideas—and moral argument—“to move Blue
Dogs from the place they are to a place they could be” this would
represent real progress. If not, we will have to move forward without
them.