Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Wooing the working class

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 11:30am - 0 Comments

Patrick Muttart, one of those often credited with bringing Stephen Harper to power, turns up in a bit of American election analysis, hailed in this case as “perhaps the world’s leading expert on working-class voters in English-speaking countries.”

He has found that in each country, working-class voters may form the base for successful center-left governments but are crucially responsible for the rise of center-right leaders like Harper, Australia’s John Howard, and Margaret Thatcher … He emphasized that working-class voters do not fit neatly on the traditional left-right continuum. They are fiscally conservative, wanting low rates of taxation and wanting government to live within its means, but economically populist, suspicious of trade, outsourcing, and high finance. They are culturally orthodox but morally moderate, in the sense that they don’t feel their lives will change much because of how social issues play out. They are patriotic and supportive of the military, but suspicious of foreign adventures.

Most importantly, they are modest in their aspirations for themselves. They do not aspire to be “type A business owners”; they want to go to work, do what’s asked of them, not have too much stress in their lives, and spend time with their families. They want structure and stability in their lives so that things are taken care of and they don’t have to worry.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    That's are only a collection of centre-right leaders by a very broad stretch.

  • Inkless

    It's a decent analysis, partly because it does not attempt to depict working-class voters as automatic conservatives, but as a hotly contested voter segment that must be carefully wooed. Too bad the writer misidentifies Muttart as a former chief of staff. That should be fixed.

  • Dot

    How long before he appears on CNN politics panels?

  • Olivier

    What a refreshing read: something coherent, short and to the point.

    My personal experience definitely confirms what this man said.

    • Claudia Lemire

      I agree!

  • Richard_S_Argent

    I suspect that were these positions cleverly posed in a questionnaire that pretty much everyone would answer like the working class voter described above.

  • Claudia Lemire

    The tea party will go away, they just get too much coverage, or pay for it!

  • Emily

    Nah…the 'wave' wasn't even a wavelet. Win a few, lose a few.

    And having the house doesn't make it any different than when the obstructionist blue dog Dems did the same.

    • Richard_S_Argent

      Fair's fair Emily – that was a better than anticipated result for the Republicans in the House, and they were expected to do well. But you're right, that 30 odd of the seats lost by the Dems belonged to the "Blue Dogs" should be noted.

      Also I think it's fair to say that the Republicans under-performed in the Senate – the "tea party" candidates cost them seats in Delaware, Colorado, and West Virginia. More mainstream candidates likely would have ensured a Republican controlled Senate as well.

      Some of this was structural, some of it was economic, some of it was good/poor campaigning, and some of it was voter anger – anyone claiming otherwise isn't being entirely truthful.

      • Mike T.

        If America has a hope it lies with the tea party being so insane they take seats from the Republcians and make them worthless.

      • Emily

        Better than anticipated?? We've been told for ages that everything Dem was a goner….and nothing like that happened.

        Clinton's first midterm saw Dems lose control of both houses in 1994.

        • Richard_S_Argent

          Better than anticipated in the House – I had read predictions of 45-55 seats. They actually improved by 65 seats. That's a better than anticipated result…in the House.

          In the Senate, yes, they underperformed – they could have taken it with more moderate candidates.

          No need to sugarcoat the results…they are what they are. Now I sincerely hope and pray the House actually does some legislating and doesn't go the "government shutdown" route like they did in the 1990s. I think everyone can agree that's not the best way forward for anyone.

          • Emily

            LOL then you read the only mild prediction in existence.

            Americans have gridlock like they always do…whether they fight their own, or fight each other.

            And in their case it doesn't matter if they legislate, or shutdown….the jobs aren't coming back.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Sorry, my mistake – I was going by Nate Silver's final projection of a 53 seat gain.

            (everything else you say I don't really have an issue with – American governance is one of the few things that makes Canadian governance look good :)

  • Dot

    “perhaps the world’s leading expert on working-class voters in English-speaking countries.”

    This is one pretty big enchilada. Before there were so called "experts" (Dan Gardner likes that term) what Muttart is doing used to be called "stereotyping". No doubt it will fit some.

  • Rob Shift

    More likely, this gives the Republican's an incredibly strong mandate.

    This sentence is the problem. As predicted, Republicans will see this as a mandate, when all it is is the American people being unhappy with everything in DC.

    • Emily

      Read a few days ago that 65% of Americans would like to toss them ALL out….house and senate. LOL

  • Orson Bean

    Muttart's analysis seems consistent with the results of the Canadian Election Study relating to the Canadian federal elections in the 1990s, when Reform went from nowhere to the official opposition, and the NDP went from 40 seats to life support (losing official party status). The Canadian Election Study found that a very significant number of Reform Party voters were former NDP voters — and that certainly cuts against traditional left-right analysis. I think those NDP-cum-Reform voters would pretty much exactly match Muttart's description.

    • Mike R

      You make a very good point. The electoral trends in British Columbia between 1993 and 2004 illustrate what you say exactly. Almost half of the Reform Party vote came from dissaffected traditional CCF/NDP supporters. When the Reform/CA party merged back into the Conservative Party, and became less of a protest party and more of a "mainstream" party, much of that support went back to the NDP (in part, to be fair, because the name NDP was not as toxic provincially by 2004 as it had been prior to the departure of the Clark/Miller/Dosanjh provincial government).

      • Orson Bean

        Yep, and getting rid of Audrey McLaughlin, and ultimately getting the politically adept Layton as leader also helped.

  • Dot

    Say Aaron, a serious question. You write: "Patrick Muttart, one of those often credited with bringing Stephen Harper to power".

    I know of one person who has claimed this in a lengthy mag article, and worked it into a book. And I have seen one other PPG journalist refer to the original analysis. Apart from that, who are those that have often credited Patrick Muttart with bringing Stephen Harper to power? Seriously.

  • Dot

    Actually, I was referring to a joint Susan Delacourt study I subsequently that quoted your work, and built upon it.

  • Orson Bean

    I'm not sure what/who exactly you're ripping into there.

    But what you describe does not describe the methodology of the Canadian Election Study, which I have consistently found to be excellent. Crack for the political junkie. And it's held in high regard in research circles. It's probably the single best source for objective, non-partisan data on voting behaviour in Canadian federal elections. And btw I have nothing to do with it, so I'm not talking it up out of self-interest.

    I agree that a lot of social science is crap. But it's always irresponsible to dismiss an entire academic discipline simply because there's a lot of crap out there. There's a lot of lousy social science, but there is some excellent stuff out there as well.

    • Dot

      Agreed, hindsight is 20/20.

From Macleans