Skip to main content

The 47% charge in U.S. history

Claude Fischer, professor of sociology | September 19, 2012

There are many angles — and many comments on each angle — to Mitt Romney’s statement that 47% of American voters are “dependent upon government, … believe that they are victims, … believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, … that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” and “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Mitt RomneyPundits have already dissected the political ramifications of the speech, what it reveals about Romney’s world-views, and have speculated about his resulting political prospects. Many have presented the underlying numbers. (That is, 47% of American households in 2009 paid no federal income tax; just about all paid other kinds of taxes. By far, most of the 47% were either households of people who worked at poverty wages or of retirees on Social Security.)

My two cents here concerns the emotional resonance of Romney’s claim. Whatever the facts may be, the charge that huge numbers of shiftless moochers live off hard-working taxpayers feels true to many Americans – and has felt true to many Americans for centuries. It is a sentiment rooted in Americans’ exceptional emphasis on individual self-reliance and insistence on conditioning help upon virtue. (I link below to earlier posts that expand on these points.)


Let us recall that while our Founding Fathers were protesting the English monarch’s taxes on them (as in the original Tea Party protest), they also worried that the democracy they were founding might lead to the lower orders taxing them. They tried to build in safeguards against that threat. They distanced the population from power with devices such as the electoral college and having senators elected by state legislatures. They protected wealth holders and favored creditors over debtors and for decades restricted voting to men with property.

Our founding culture emphasized the importance of what was then called “competency” or “virtue”: being financially independent versus being dependent like women, youth, servants, slaves, the poor, and Indians were (see here and here). Only the “competent” – basically, older white men of property – could conceivably have the autonomy to be wise electors in a democracy that could survive populist pressures. Over the years, “competency” and the franchise expanded tremendously, the expansions being accompanied by alarms about the rising threat of mobocracy — not unlike Romney’s warnings.

Our nation grew out of a colonial society which was – by the standards of our day – grudging about helping people in need (see here). If the needy person was a “respectable,” long-term member of the community, one whose suffering was clearly due to no fault of his or her own, some help came – often in the form of being farmed out as a servant. If, on the other hand, the needy person was relatively new to town or marginal to it (say, a recently emancipated servant, a drinker, or an unwed mother), officials would “warn” him or her out of town.

Suspicion that the dependent needy were fakers and moochers persisted.  In the 19th century, the elderly without family support and the younger poor were commonly sent off to miserable almshouses (here). During Depressions, American communities typically treated unemployed workers on the move as not only dangerous (some may well have been), but also as lazy moochers. One California newspaper wrote of the hobos during the post-World War I recession, “There is work practically all the time for those who desire employment and it is not right that industrious people should feed these leeches” (here).

Such sentiments arise from Americans’ emphasis on individual self-reliance both as a value and as the way to understand the world. Even in the face of obviously dire circumstances like economic downturns, most Americans insist that need is all about individual responsibility. Many of the actual victims of bad times, such as laid-off workers, also blame themselves. More than any other peoples, Americans believe that we make our own fates; we are poor or rich, sad or happy because of the choices we make (here). Removing the consequences of those choices – by do-gooder government, or even by too-generous charity – is, in this world view, conducive to dependency and morally wrong.

Whatever the economic, sociological, or political logic of Mitt Romney’s statements, they resonate emotionally and  morally with many Americans, even with many in that very 47 percent.

Cross-posted from Claude Fischer’s blog, Made in America: Notes on American life from American history.

Comments to “The 47% charge in U.S. history

  1. We deed more people like Mitt Romney in OFFICE so the poor guy can pay all the taxes and the rich ones don’t have to.He thinks it’s fair for the rich just to pay 14% tax while the poor people may a lot more.

  2. Came across an actual video, of an interview with Mitt Romney’s mother, Lenore LaFount Romney, talking about how his father, George Romney, was on welfare relief after he came to the US as a refugee from Mexico. (See voice4america.) Everyone needs help sometime, there is no shame in asking for help, including Romney and Ryans families

  3. Very interesting lessons in history, but there is another that is far too important to overlook again because it has happened far too many times in our history.

    One of the greatest threats to civilizations, cultures, and societies has been the “look the other way” instinct which has enabled holocausts, most notoriously in Germany during WWII, as well as Christian Inquisitions throughout Europe and in colonial America, and atrocities occurring in many countries today.

    Since Obama was elected president, far too many statements by candidates, congressmen and their superPACs have been made to inflame racial hatreds, class warfare and religious prejudices, more than at anytime in America since WWII.

    The “47% charge” proves again, just in time, that there is a lot more that must be relearned quickly, no matter how well we are educated, and social scientists like yourself are the best citizens there are to meet this responsibility to protect American Democracy today.

    It would also be most useful for J-schools to innovate methods using our new worldwide communications technologies to accomplish much more widespread dissemination of your knowledge than ever before, before We the People vote in November on what have become the some of the most important political, social, economic and environmental issues in our history, issues that shall most certainly determine whether an acceptable quality of life shall be passed on by us to our newest and all future generations.

  4. With all the Twist and QE to infinity its hard to see who the 47% really are! I am saying its looks like the winners in all this are the banks and wall street.

  5. Thanks for the posting. One of my concerns about this deeply upsetting business is the idea that only people who pay federal income tax have what I have seen referred to by conservative pundits as “skin in the game” or what we might call a stake. Reducing the value of participation in the life of our country and the stake people living here have in its future to their marginal tax rate is the most impoverished idea of citizenship I have ever heard.

    Of course many families whose children serve in the military are quite poor but they might consider that having a child in Irag or Afghanistan is to have considerably more “skin in the game” than those who simply pay a bit more. And for all of us who live here, work here, all those who have children whose futures are directly shaped by the decisions the next administration will make–don’t we all have a stake? Doesn’t the value of our lives and our childrens’ lives merit being called “skin in the game”?

    And of course, merely from the crass political perspective, isn’t it odd that the Republicans now seem to be the pro-tax party. That is pro-tax for the poor.

Comments are closed.