Of course the white overclass cuts across Democratic and Republican lines. Why wouldn’t it? That’s not the same as saying there’s no difference between the parties – something Linds certainly does not believe, and neither do I. Within the overclass there is of course a wide range of political opinions and traditions – but also a commonality of interests.
But the overclass is not poorly defined. Certainly, its lower boundaries are blurry – it might be difficult to decide whether a particular person is or is not part of the overclass – which is inevitable in a society like ours where hard-and-fast caste divisions (within the white community) have never existed. But that is a detail. The white overclass is a real social class, just as real (and almost as self-aware) as the British gentry.
As for minorities, Lind also identifies a “black overclass” and “Hispanic overclass” but emphasizes that these are not part of the white overclass. For one thing, they lack independent financial resources; most “upper-class” blacks are salaried professionals or civil servants, not business tycoons or trust-fund kids. For another, their social circles and family ties remain separate. Intermarriage between prosperous blacks and whites is still rare enough to be remarkable. Lind considers the minority overclasses to be dependent auxiliaries of the white overclass. I think this is very insightful.
At the risk of putting a tiny bit of levity into what has become a very dense & serious discussion, are any of you guys (or gals) old enough to remember how H.L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore, defined an “honest politician” way back in the 20’s?
“An honest politician is one who, when he’s bought, stays bought.” Probably the best definition in existance for one of that rare breed.
In the United Kingdom, a party’s nominee is not expected to fund his/her own campaign – the party will fund it – but the nominee can also secure funding from other sources. E.g., Labour candidates often are sponsored by trade unions and Conservative candidates by wealthy businessmen. But there are strict limits on funding and spending for an individual campaign. The parties are allowed to spend unlimited amounts on the general election, as opposed to an individual candidacy – e.g., on “Vote Labour!” ads rather than “Vote for Ken Livingstone!” ads – but proposals have been made to limit that kind of spending too.
In Germany the parties pay for their candidates’ campaigns. The parties are allocated a few broadcast slots on the major TV chains before the election. There are no legal limits on a candidate spending more on his/her own campaign, but massive spending just isn’t done, because it would backfire – the candidate would be perceived as being bankrolled by rich donors. To stand as a candidate you don’t need to secure funding, you need to secure the party nomination – which requires you first serve in lower party offices and do some networking.
In France, political ads on TV and radio are illegal. Candidates are interviewed by TV journalists prior to the election and each on must get the same air time. The parties fund the campaigns. Donations for this purpose, and spending on campaigns, are strictly limited. Campaign expenses, up to a given amount, are reimbursed by the state if the campaign/party gets more than 5% of the vote. The system is designed to put all candidates on a more or less equal footing; to make sure the outcome of the election doesn’t depend on who has the most to spend on it; and to restrict lobbying.
Any of these would be a better system than what we’ve got now in the U.S. And take note, John, these laws apparently work as intended, apparently, and they do not involve any “draconian restrictions on freedom”! Unless you’re using some very different definition of “freedom” then most people.