A fascinating discussion. May I suggest that one reason for the fact that American voters are now perfectly willing to vote against their 'class' interests is that we are now increasingly voting for the values in our sociologies, depending upon an urban/rural divide. Essentially, the confluence of so many long-term national demographic and sociological trends have come together in the first decade of the 21C: 1. We are no longer a majority Protestant nation. 2. We are no longer majority Anglo. We are mostly employed by large corporations, not small businesses. And the 2010 census is likely to reveal that most of us now live in urban districts instead of in rural districts. Nationally, America has become 'urbanized,' for the first time in its history. We have shifted permanently from a center-Right nation to a center-Left nation, during this first decade of the new century. The shift is the result of more than a century of trends: the former slaves sweeping to Northern cities in search for jobs after the Civil War; the Non-Protestant mass immigrations on both coasts settling into urban conclaves; our Industrial Revolution; and the industrially efficient agriculture sending rural youth in

this is only semi-related to the talk but I've been noticing economists pointing towards reagan-union busting, globalization and also the tech divide as suspects for the cause of rising income inequality. recently, i caught an article where someone mentioned that CDSs and other exotic tools that are only available those rich enough to "buy in" to the hedge fund or whatever could also be an accelerant that's widening the gap. anyone have any knowledge on this? could it also be that it's simple math: the more you have invested the more you'll earn in the market.

I understand Wilkinson tends to over-emphasize economics when discussing political events. But, I don't recall any discussion of how political systems affect voting trends. When asking why waitresses are better representing in Congress, what about the influence of a first-past-the-post electoral system has on the results? The question I would ask is, how would different political systems, like Britain, Japan, and some other sample of states mediate class and representation. Liberals, whether political science or economics majors, and Marxists and other non-realists tend to disregard political systems. Realists don't usually make that mistake.

Quoting Baltimoron: I understand Wilkinson tends to over-emphasize economics when discussing political events. But, I don't recall any discussion of how political systems affect voting trends. When asking why waitresses are better representing in Congress, what about the influence of a first-past-the-post electoral system has on the results? The question I would ask is, how would different political systems, like Britain, Japan, and some other sample of states mediate class and representation.

Liberals, whether political science or economics majors, and Marxists and other non-realists tend to disregard political systems. Realists don't usually make that mistake.

Great point. And I agree. The books by Glaeser and Alesina, "Fighting Poverty in the U.S. and Europe" and Persson and Tabellini, "The Economic Effects of Constitutions" provide strong evidence that political systems make a big different to distributive politics. Here's a bit from an unpublished draft I wrote

Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini find that the structure of government set out in constitutions can have a strong effect on policy. In particular, they find that "majoritarian [as opposed to proportional] elections induce smaller governments, smaller welfare states, and smaller deficits." And they find that "presidential regimes create considerably smaller governments than parliamentary regimes. A negative constitutional effect of presidential regimes on welfare spending is also

Quoting Baltimoron: Liberals, whether political science or economics majors, and Marxists and other non-realists tend to disregard political systems. Realists don't usually make that mistake.

Fact! Total Fact! 100%!!!

Thanks, for the reply and the book recommendations. I was working with a copy of Liphart's Patterns of Democracy when I wrote the original post.

It all gets really complicated when you consider that the structure of the political system tends reflect a deeper political culture, and the biases that fall out of the structure tend to reinforce that political culture.

Isn't this a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here? maybe in 1789 in Philadelphia there was consensus, that America copy the existing British voting system. But, how did that survive the Progressive era, when even Republicans flirted with political reforms? Isn't it more accurate to highlight legal and political resistance to progressive change, not cultural? I just don't know how culture manifests itself in a battle between reform and the status quo. And, what about reforms in certain states, like California, or even earlier when the Southeast in the 1820-30 period enacted even more democratic constitutions than older states? Thanks, again.

(touching my nose with my index finger, and pointing at you with my other index finger).

NY and Ct have had democratic leadership over the last 20 years...? I think this would come as quite a shock to George Pataki and John Rowland//Jodi Rell.

corners and lawns

That was really interesting, especially on the topic of relationships, networks and future success. I would love it if Will would do a dialog about the ways "outsiders" have successfully infiltrated networks that were seemingly beyond their reach. (I work in the entertainment industry, which is almost 100% relationship driven and am fascinated by the ways the most unlikely people maneuver their way in.) I'm sure there's an economic angle in there somewhere...