Labor, business affirm longtime class divisions

And those class divisions -- rich/poor and blue-collar/white-collar -- were evident again this year. People on the lower end of the economic spectrum leaned toward Al Gore and his populist themes -- 57 percent of those with annual incomes under $15,000 and 54 percent of those with incomes between $15,000 and $30,000, according to exit polls.

On the other end of the economic spectrum, George W. Bush was the choice for his support of large tax cuts and keeping government out of the way of entrepreneurship. Among voters earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, Bush won 52 percent to 45 percent over Gore, exit polls showed. As wage levels increased, so did Bush's margin. He beat Gore by seven percentage points among those with salaries between $75,000 and $100,000. And over $100,000, he topped Gore by 11 percentage points.

The two candidates split the support of the middle class.

``I am concerned that unless there is some reaching out across these various divisions, that we could see our political system become more of a class kind of system than one based on issues or ideological kinds of things, like the size and role of government,'' said Ray Hilgert, a professor of labor relations at Washington University in St. Louis.

Labor unions demonstrated the divisions. Historically strong backers of Democratic candidates, unions rallied strongly behind Gore this year. Exit polls showed that 59 percent of union members voted for Gore, with Bush getting 37 percent.

By comparison, Reagan had a strong common-man appeal for a Republican. In his 1980 victory, Reagan earned 44 percent of the vote from union households, according to exit polls. Those so-called ``Reagan Democrats,'' many of them union members from the Midwest, helped him into the White House.

Clinton had the same appeal across the class divisions that typically separate the two major parties. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton narrowed the typically large gap between Republicans and Democrats among voters earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. And Bush beat Clinton only 46 percent to 38 percent among those earning more than $75,000. Four years later, Clinton actually narrowly beat Dole in the $50,000-$75,000 category.

``Both Reagan and Clinton were able to appeal to a broader range of folks,'' said John Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics. ``The apparently stark divisions you see in the exit polls may be more a product of this particular election than an increase in these longstanding class divisions. Here you had people who really did talk about the scope of government . . . so folks were forced to make a choice.''

For union workers, the choice was clear, even though both Gore and Bush support globalization and expanding free trade, such as the recently approved deal to grant China permanent normal trade relations. But in the face of globalization, unions realize that Democrats are much more in their corner than Republicans, Green said.

``Most union leaders will admit at least privately that globalization has won,'' he said. ``The question is, what are we going to do about it? Al Gore is willing to use the public sector to ameliorate the cost of trade.''

The way to do that is support legislation such as increasing the minimum wage, expanding health care coverage and using government money to help retrain workers, Green said. Offsetting Gore's support from unions was Bush's support from the other side of the class divide, the people running the businesses. Bush's across-the-board tax-cut proposal, his vow to abolish the estate tax and his general opposition to strong government regulations for businesses drew solid support among business owners and the upper income ranks.

``If Gore had not been able to count on the unions, and Bush had not been able to count on the business community, it really would have been a different election,'' Green said.

-- Jim Puzzanghera