The faux argument of “economic anxiety” has its roots in Reconstruction. It’s an old trope for racialized policy and voter intimidation. It was a lie then and it’s a lie today. (A history thread)
After the Panic of 1873 the nation was in a deep recession (this is what was called the Great Depression before 1929, in fact). But racist politicians used this to their advantage to wage political war on racial inequality.
Even though poor whites in particular benefited from the expansion of public goods during Reconstruction, they voted to oust Republican candidates and dramatically lower public goods expenditures. And this was due to racism being more salient than public goods.
Attempts to educate white (especially poor white) voters failed. When told of their own benefits from these policies (such as public education, etc.) they were not responsive. Indeed, the redistribution of resources directly benefitted them greatly. But they did not care.
It also benefited blacks, and that was a problem. Voter education ”had only limited effect on the mass of farmers, whose wartime and racial loyalties were nearly impervious to economic arguments” (Fitzgerald (2007), p. 99).
More generally, the strategy of use for violence for political aims followed the 1874 ”Alabama Plan” described by Rable (2007). Democrats in Alabama abandoned any hope of securing black votes and labeled themselves a ”white man’s party” and took that to heart.
The tactics ranged from preventing Republicans from assembling (Eutaw county), murder of locally prominent politicians (Sumter county), intimidation of black voters in the form of forcing them to vote for Democrats or lose their jobs (Barbour county)
Forcing blacks to leave poling stations without voting (Mobile county), having whites cross from neighboring states to cast ballots, and preventing Republicans who won their elections from raising their bonds and allowing defeated Democrats into those offices by default.
The general strategy was not to incite total violence,
which would increase the prospects of Congressional intervention and could put the election results into dispute, but to intimidate black voters.
which would increase the prospects of Congressional intervention and could put the election results into dispute, but to intimidate black voters.
The Attorney General in Alabama publicly stated that
anyone could murder a Republican for political intimidation without fear of punishment (Bellesiles,
2010)
anyone could murder a Republican for political intimidation without fear of punishment (Bellesiles,
2010)
This suggests that racial hatred was a guiding principle, much more then the role of public finance and taxation. If white supremacy or racial inequality is your primary interest, that is how you will vote. We have seen this in American history.
Today’s political discussions are nothing new. Instead of speaking about voters being misinformed we need to be honest about what information they do have and what their votes are telling us. Our inability to do so has us right back in 1874.
