Are Self-Entitled Politicians With Too Much Money Endangering The Rest Of Us?

Monday we did two posts about the problem climate deniers pose for normal people-- the first one here and the other one here. In both posts, we looked specifically at the Florida congressmembers whose districts are likely to sink under the waves and who are still denying climate change science to please the Cheney types and their donors (while betraying their constituents). Most of them are Republicans, of course-- crooks and idiots like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, Dennis Ross, Vern Buchanan, Bill Posey-- but there are two Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- New Dems Joe Garcia and, much worse, Patrick Murphy-- who have been working hand-in-first with their Republican colleagues to undermine progress in dealing with Global Warming.

Last week, Chris Mooney, writing in Mother Jones, reported on an interesting analysis of a study by Jeremiah Bohr in the journal Climate Change, pointing to the problem from a different perspective: wealthy Republicans are the worst climate deniers. Mooney rues a phenomenon he calls the "smart idiot" effect and another, related one he called the "rich idiot: effect. He writes that "Apparently being highly informed or capable interacts with preexisting political biases to make those on the right more likely to be wrong than they would be if they had less education or knowledge… The study finds that among Republicans, as levels of income increase, so does their likelihood of 'dismissing the dangers associated with climate change.' But among Democrats and independents, there is little or no change in climate views as levels of income increase or decrease."

[T]he survey asked the following: "In general, do you think that a rise in the world's temperature caused by climate change is extremely dangerous for the environment, very dangerous, somewhat dangerous, not very dangerous, or not dangerous at all for the environment?"

Bohr looked specifically at those individuals who chose the "not very dangerous" or "not dangerous at all" options. And he found that at the lowest income level, the probability that a Republican would give one of these dismissive answers was only 17.7 percent. But at the highest income level, it was 51.2 percent. Here's a visualization of the chief finding, showing how the likelihood of a Republican giving one of these answers changes in relation to wealth:

This therefore leads to a surprising conclusion: "At the bottom quintile of income, Republicans are not significantly different from either Independents or Democrats" with respect to their denial of climate risks, the study reports. It's only as income increases that Republicans become so much more likely to be deniers.

So why does this occur? There are several possibilities discussed in the paper.

The first is that income is actually a proxy for something else: Namely, being politically aware. It's possible that being wealthy is related to paying more attention to politics and your political party, and people who do so would be more aware of what those who agree with them on other issues actually think about global warming. (The study controlled for another possible influencing factor, education.)

The other possibility, though, is that climate denial is a defense of economic interests. "Among individuals with conservative political orientations, there is a correlation between occupying advantageous positions within industrial economic systems and an unwillingness to acknowledge the risks associated with climate change," Bohr writes. "Perhaps to validate their economic interests, these individuals are more likely to process information on climate science through political filters that result in denying the risks produced by climate change."

There are way too many millionaires and multimillionaires in Congress to adequately represent the country or their districts. Both corrupt Beltway parties recruit them as a matter of course. Sunday, Roll Call's Emily Cahn looked at some especially unsavory new ones recruited for November: Maine GOP extremist Bruce Poliquin, crooked Minnesota businessman Stewart Mills, and South Jersey sleaze bag Tom MacArthur. (Richer than any of them is DCCC mystery meat candidate Sean Eldridge (who married well.) She reported that "Middle class people do not begrudge people who make money. As long as they’re honest and hard working, everyone aspires to be that guy or that woman," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone of wealthy candidates. "It’s when you either are screwing someone else or taking advantage of someone else, or once you get there are taking care of the rich rather than the middle class." Anzalone's firm works for Blue Dogs and New Dems and is very much a part of the infrastructure of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Eldridge has faced relentless attacks on his personal fortune from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Dubbing him “$ean Eldridge,” the NRCC called out the candidate for carpetbagging into the Hudson Valley district, buying a $2 million home there, and investing some of his immense wealth in banks, oil and tobacco companies he criticizes on the trail.

MacArthur also took flack for how he earned his millions in an ugly GOP primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jon Runyan, R-N.J. MacArthur’s primary opponent, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, said insurance adjusters affiliated with MacArthur made families “jump through hoops” to receive insurance money after their homes and properties were destroyed from a natural disaster.

It’s an attack line that Belgard has already started to use against MacArthur in the general election. In this south New Jersey district, many of the voters faced similar battles with insurance companies after their homes were decimated by Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“He got rich by helping insurance companies shortchange the victims of hurricanes and wildfires-- no one should expect him to start standing up for the middle class now that he’s running for Congress,” Belgard’s campaign manager Hannah Ledford said in a statement.

Nolan began criticizing Mills’ wealth-- derived from his family’s popular chain of sport and farming equipment stores peppered through the Midwest-- calling him a “one percenter” who is “personally offended … that the rich should pay more taxes.” It’s an attack that could work in this district, where the median household income is $46,692-- the lowest of the Gopher State’s eight House districts-- according to the most recent U.S. Census.

Poliquin also faced attacks on his wealth in a Republican primary from his opponent, former state Sen. Kevin Raye. Raye labeled Poliquin as a self-funding Wall Street hedge fund manager who could not relate to working-class Mainers.

Cain [a new Dem herself with Wall Street sympathies] has yet to use that attack line against Poliquin now that the race has moved on the to general election.

...And all four of the candidates are already trying to inoculate themselves from attacks on their affluence either by telling rags-to-riches success stories, describing themselves as job creators, or touting their philanthropic endeavors.

In his first ad for the general election contest, MacArthur’s family and friends in the community describe him as a man who ascended from middle-class roots to be a successful businessman who gives back to his community.

A report in the NY Times horrified Democrats when Eldridge whined that he understands how working people live because both his parents were mere doctors. Cahn writes that "it’s hard for these same candidates to run from their wealth-- especially when they put some of their own funds into their campaigns." MacArthur has already spent more than $2 million from his own pocket on his race, making him vulnerable to criticism he is trying to buy the seat. MacArthur is a Climate Change denier and can be expected, if he beats Belgard, to vote with his party against virtually all measures to address the problem. Eldridge has put nearly a million dollars of his own funds into his race already, but he's presumably more environmentally-sensitive. It's worth noting that his opponent, Chris Gibson, has the best voting record on Climate Change of any Republican in the House-- and better than several conservative Democrats.



The newest Member of Congress, teabagger Curt Clawson, who just replaced Republican cocaine dealer and ex-Hate Talk Radio host Trey Radel, is an especially shady character who spent $3,699,679 on his special election, $3,653,076 (92%) of which came from his own pocketbook. Clawson is an especially vile self-promoter who once spent $2,000,000 advertising a challenge to President Obama in a game of basketball. His district, FL-19, stretches along the Gulf Coast from Boca Grande and Fort Meyers in the north, through Naples and down to Collier-Seminole State Park and Marco Island in the south. It's just a matter of time-- probably within out lifetimes-- that every inch of FL-19 will be uninhabitable and soon afterwards will disappear under the waves. Clawson wants to abolish the EPA and dismisses Global Warming and Climate Change entirely. He is the poster boy for Mooney's post and Bohr's study. One of his first acts in Congress, last week, was to vote for an amendment by the coal industry's David McKinley (R-WV) "to prohibit use of funds to design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change."

Also worth noting, the Republican dubbed "the worst enemy of the planet earth" by the L.A. Times, Energy and Commerce Committee chair, Fred Upton (R-MI), is an hereditary multimillionaire who was lucky enough to have been born into the family that started, many generations ago, Whirlpool. Upton makes a point of bottling up and destroying every single Climate Change bill that comes through the system.