VIEWPOINT: Obama's money class
By David Brooks WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama sells the Democratic Party short. He talks about his fundraising success as if his donors were part of a spontaneous movement of small-money enthusiasts who cohered around himself. In fact, Democrats hav...
By David Brooks
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama sells the Democratic Party short. He talks about his fundraising success as if his donors were part of a spontaneous movement of small-money enthusiasts who cohered around himself. In fact, Democrats have spent years building their donor network. Obama's fundraising base is bigger than John Kerry's, Howard Dean's and Al Gore's, but it's not different.
As in other recent campaigns, lawyers account for the biggest chunk of Democratic donations. People who work at securities and investment companies have given Obama about $8 million, compared with $4.5 for McCain. Professors and other people who work in education have given Obama roughly $7 million, compared with $700,000 for McCain.
When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fundraising advantage over McCain.
When he is swept up in rhetorical fervor, Obama occasionally says that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors. He has indeed had great success with small donors, but only about 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less.
The real core of his financial support is something else, the rising class of information-age analysts. Once, the wealthy were solidly Republican. But the information age rewards education with money. There are many smart high achievers who grew up in liberal suburbs around San Francisco, L.A. and New York, went to left-leaning universities like Harvard and Berkeley and took their values with them when they became investment bankers, doctors and litigators.
Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican. The former get their values from competitive universities and the media world; the latter get theirs from churches, management seminars and country clubs.
The trends are pretty clear: Rising economic sectors tend to favor Democrats while declining economic sectors are more likely to favor Republicans. The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fundraising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century's service economy?
Amazingly, Democrats have cultivated this donor base while trending populist on trade, by forsaking much of the Clinton Third Way approach and by vowing to raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthy. If Obama's tax plans go through, those affluent donors could wind up giving more than 50 percent of their income to the federal government.
If the Democrats are elected, this highly educated class will have much more say over policy than during the campaign. Undecided voters sway campaigns, but in government, elites generally run things. Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that capital gains tax hike or serious measures to expand unionization.
Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few, they might just take over the whole darn thing.
Brooks writes for The New York Times.