“Why vote for conservative parties when they’re making them poorer?”
You’ve likely heard this question frequently posed by progressives. Back in 2012, the Hankyoreh newspaper’s extensive “Poor Democracy” project sought to answer this question. The results were very interesting. Among those who identified themselves as economically “lower class,” 26.8% identified themselves as conservative, a higher percentage than the middle class (19.1%) or the upper class (21.6%).
So, what’s the reason? At the time, Professor Jeong Yeong-tae of Inha University analyzed, “Disadvantaged groups lacking self-esteem tend to find their identity in their nation and ethnicity.” He added, “They tend to prefer those who give them even a single briquette.”
Generation or Class?
But a closer look at this phenomenon reveals an different story. Professor Jeon Byeong-yu of Hanshin University and Professor Shin Jin-wook of Chung-Ang University analyzed voter trends over a ten-year period from 2003 to 2012 and found that low-income Koreans did not vote “class-crossing.” Their apparent conservative choices were a result of a combination of age and the other variable.
In other words, it’s not the poor who are conservative; it’s the elderly who are conservative, and coincidentally, there are many poor elderly people among them. Controlling for the age effect, the tendency for low-income people to vote class-crossing disappears, and it turns out that they vote class-crossing, driven by subjective class consciousness.
What’s Happening in Europe
However, the phenomenon of working-class support for right-wing parties remains in many countries, regardless of generation. In the first round of the 2024 French general election, 57% of workers supported the far-right National Rally (RN), and in Austria, 50% of workers supported the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ). In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) won 46% of the working-class vote in the Brandenburg state elections. The UK is similar. In the 2019 general election, the Conservatives toppled Labour’s traditional stronghold, the “Red Wall” (working-class areas in north-central England). The Brexit issue was crucial, and according to research by Professor Geoff Evans of Oxford University, the class voting structure in the UK completely flipped in less than five years between 2015 and 2019. In 2015, the gap in voting preferences between the middle class and the working class was only 18 percentage points, but in 2019, the Conservatives gained 21 percentage points lead among the working class. Interestingly, 64% of working-class Conservative Party supporters who defected to Reform UK (a far-right party) in 2019 cited immigration as their top priority. This contrasts sharply with only 9% of the general population, who viewed immigration as their top priority.
The Trap of ‘Welfare Chauvinism’
Here, we must focus on the concept of ‘welfare chauvinism.’ First proposed in a study of far-right parties in Denmark and Norway in the 1990s, this concept asserts that “welfare benefits should be given only to ‘us.'”
European far-right populist parties, rather than attacking the welfare state itself, pursue a strategy of undermining the class-based solidarity of welfare. They argue that immigrants are free riding on the system, dividing workers into “us who contribute” and “them who exploit.” A 2023 study by the University of Cambridge found that working-class voters in nearly all Western and Southern European countries were significantly more welfare chauvinistic than middle-class voters. This trend also held true among Social Democratic Party supporters. The working class was found to be more susceptible to welfare chauvinism due to concerns about immigration, low-wage competition, and perceived competition for resources.
The irony comes from the fact that, when these parties gain power, they often curtail workers’ rights and, in alliance with established conservative parties, pursue anti-worker policies. Finland’s 2023 case is a prime example. After the far-right Finland Party, which calls itself a “workers’ party without socialism,” joined the ruling coalition, it passed anti-worker legislation, including restricting union representation in workplaces, cutting social security, imposing fines for strikes deemed illegal by the courts, and limiting the duration of political strikes.
Insights from German Behavioral Economics
When German behavioral economists visited extremely poor rural Moroccan farms, they were shocked to find TVs and DVDs in homes where people barely had enough to eat. “Why did they buy a TV instead of grain? Are they lacking judgment? Is this why they remain poor?”
However, after repeated research, they reached a completely different conclusion. It wasn’t that the poor were making “wrong” choices, but rather that they were so caught up in the weight of everyday life that they had no time to think about the future. Nietzsche’s words about the ancient Greeks needing “tragedy” to forget the hardships of daily life come to mind. Ultimately, to change the mindset of the poor, who are gripped by a sense of defeat, simply providing them with immediate needs is meaningless. The researchers even argued, “Make their lives easier. Sometimes, giving them a television instead of grain might be better.”
The Gap Revealed by the Minimum Wage Debate
Every time they recall the conflict surrounding the minimum wage increase, which was a major controversy in Korea, the progressive camp feels frustrated. “Why do low-income people oppose a minimum wage increase that benefits them?”
However, the voices of low-income people on the ground differ significantly from the views of the progressive camp, which is largely comprised of the middle class and above. A 20-something convenience store worker might think, “If the minimum wage goes up, the owner will lay off workers. It could be me.” We see people in their 40s working at small restaurants mumble, “My owner is struggling to pay off his debts, too…”
Is this brainwashing from conservative media, or a fear born from real-life experience? Research shows that short-term job losses occur immediately after minimum wage increases. Of course, society may improve in the long run. But how comforting is the “long-term perspective” advocated by the progressive camp to someone who must pay rent tomorrow?
The Paradox of Senior Employment Policies
Policies that begin with good intentions can sometimes lead to unexpected consequences. Take senior employment policies, for example. The intention of providing jobs and income to poor seniors is admirable.
But what is the reality? Seniors who scrape by scraps of scrap paper and barely make ends meet can’t even afford to apply for senior jobs. Meanwhile, relatively well-off seniors often take those jobs. Moreover, under the guise of “equal for all,” senior jobs are often allocated to wealthy neighborhoods just as much as to poor areas.
Are these benefits truly reaching those who need them? This reverse discrimination is difficult to detect among the middle class and above, as it’s not their problem. However, the poor resent progressive parties that use them as an excuse to advocate for welfare policies that benefit the middle class and above.
Failure of Political Parties
As an analysis of South Korea’s 2012 presidential election revealed, groups with a lower-class consciousness once had more progressive leanings on socioeconomic policy issues, but this did not translate into support for progressive parties. Why? The absence of a political party or political force that represented a specific class or class and highlighted welfare for them as a distinct political issue. Let’s examine the reasons in more detail.
Unlike in the past, with deepening social division, the era in which the title “worker” signified a specific group has ended. Within the working class, numerous subdivided groups now exist. And even among workers, those who belong to the middle class and above are increasingly becoming more interested in politics. This is why most progressive parties around the world focus their policies on those who express significant interest and opinions—those who, despite being workers, have a level of comfort beyond the middle class and who, free from immediate concerns about survival, focus on the future.
This practical discrepancy leads the poor to perceive progressive parties as failing to understand them.
What We’re Missing
Uruguayan left-wing journalist Morales commented on the election of a second-generation chaebol in Argentina, who was elected president by mobilizing the votes of the poor: “The poor are poor because they have the rich in their souls. The ruling class rules you not because you have more money, but because, as a poor person, your thoughts are those of the rich.”
Is this really what happened? Could it be that middle-class and above-class progressive intellectuals are viewing the political leanings of the poor through their own lens? The concerns faced by many employees of large corporations and professionals in Korea, who define themselves as progressive leftists, are fundamentally different from those faced by day laborers and small business owners, whom they dismiss as the poor who support the right wing. One person might support a policy, believing that “society should be more equal in the long run,” while the other person might worry about “how I’m going to pay next month’s rent.” Which of these two is truly at fault?
A starting point for a conversation
Philosopher Martha Nussbaum says, “All political principles, good or bad, require emotional support to maintain stability over time.” She believes the progressive camp has ceded the realm of emotion to the conservative camp because of a lack of “emotional empathy.” This requires the ability to vividly imagine another’s thoughts as part of our own. This means not just understanding them intellectually but also limiting envy and disgust in favor of compassion for others’ losses, anger at injustice, and inclusive empathy.
As Jonathan Haidt points out, “It seems more difficult for progressives to understand conservatives than for conservatives to understand progressives.” The failure of progressive parties to adequately counter the far-right’s weapons of welfare chauvinism and identity politics stems from their inability to adequately engage with the real fears and experiences of the working class.
Could it be because I failed to listen?
Can I judge the choices of people living in different environments and conditions solely through my own lens? If we agree that those with financial means are neither “better” nor “higher” in status than those without, shouldn’t we accept their choices not as “incomprehensible” but as “not yet understood“?
What do you think?