A Candidate for The Middle Class

As the campaign comes to a close and a Clinton victory seems imminent, I thought it would be useful to compile some of the most important promises that she has made to help the middle class. Over the last few months Clinton has proliferated a narrative that she is the better choice for “working families” and is more in touch with middle class values than her counterpart. Whether or not these claims will hold true, they have been a cornerstone of her rhetoric and have likely attracted voters.

Her Three Biggest Promises

Though Clinton has suggested a number of policies and policy changes during the 2016 race, I believe that the three most significant that could affect the middle class are: raising the minimum wage, making college tuition free (for some), and cutting taxes on middle class families. The viability and breakdown of these policies remains to be seen, but pending a Clinton victory, I think that these three policies will have the greatest impact on her ultimate legacy.

1. Clinton has announced intentions to raise the minimum wage to $12/hr. This would be the highest minimum wage ever recorded in US history. This article outlines the original context of the proposal and breaks down its potential benefits and flaws.
2. As for expanding access to college education, Clinton has suggested that tuition should be free for some families. At first, families making less than $85,000 annually would be eligible, and this figure would ideally increase to $125,000 by 2021.
3. With regard to cutting taxes on middle class families, Clinton has focused especially on “working” families with young children. Specifically, she has proposed doubling the child tax credit.

Overall Impact

Assuming a Clinton victory, it will be interesting to see how the policies that helped her get into the White House are actually implemented. If the Senate and House of Representatives end up with heavy republican leanings, these policies might prove difficult to implement. Nevertheless, Clinton’s rhetoric regarding the middle class thus far has served her well in reaching a commanding lead over Trump.

At this point in Clinton and Trump’s race for the White House, I feel confident that there has never been an election where the issues matter less. This is not to say that people will not still vote based on their policy tendencies, but given the personalities, unanswered questions, indiscretions, and possible corruption in both candidates, the choice at this point seems to revolve more around personality and less around policy.

Analyzing the current state of the election in the context of Hillary’s rhetoric of middle class voters is a challenge. Between leaked emails and tax returns, Clinton’s ability to relate to middle class voters on a genuine level is completely diminished. While Clinton was able to establish and promote a nostalgic narrative of her father’s workshop and her middle class upbringing in the first debate, greater issues took priority in the race and drowned out her ability to promote this narrative. I feel strongly that the 2016 vote will not be greatly characterized by the Middle Class’ favor of one candidate.

For the next week, I think that Hillary’s best strategy will be highlighting Trump’s recklessness and unfit nature for office. As of writing this post, many of her tweets reflect this tactic. Based on twitter activity, it almost seems that Hillary is in the same position as Trump was in the third debate; a position where she must use extreme tactics to deflect attention and blame in light of a recent scandal. While policies benefitting the middle class will still play a part in who we elect as our next president, I simply believe that other issues will have a greater effect on the outcome.

In analyzing the issues page on Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, I couldn’t help but notice the rhetorical significance of some of the descriptions of HRC’s stance on the issues. Many of the featured descriptions include general and inclusive language that, when closely analyzed, actually serves specifically to communicate with middle class voters.

With regard to the Economy, the description featured says, “We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.” Pertaining to campaign finance reform, the description offered says that, “Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.” I believe that the campaign’s use of ‘everyone’ is synonymous with the middle class. While this may seem obvious, the general aim of Clinton’s campaign has been to attract middle class voters and capitalize upon their commitment by outlining policies to help them. While the caveats of “not just those at the top” and “not just the wealthy and well connected” pander effectively to Clinton’s voter base, it seems that if she wanted to cater to “everyone,” these caveats would not be necessary. For these reasons, I believe that the word “everyone” is coded language for the middle class.

Two other examples of rhetoric skewed toward the middle class are the featured descriptions of Small Business policy and Wall Street Reform. For small business policy, the description mentions that, “we have to level the playing field.” For Wall Street reform, the description says that, “Wall Street must work for Main Street.” Each of these examples serves to ingratiate members of the “middle” or “working” classes without explicitly stating it.

Each of these examples can be found on Clinton’s issues page, which is just one click away from the homepage (which is essentially a donation page). With regard to our recent discussion about the role of websites in political campaigns, I find it rhetorically significant that these middle class appeals (and seeming disdain for “the top”) are some of the first things a visitor might see on Hillary’s website.

Fair Share Surcharge

A recently-released Factsheet on Hillary Clinton’s website outlines one of her new tax policies seeking to aid the middle class, something she calls the “Fair Share Surcharge.” It will be imposed on people making over 5 million dollars each year, and is loosely based on a proposal introduced by Barrack Obama in 2011.

In reading this factsheet, a particular quote stood out to me. The quote was, “It’s outrageous that multi-millionaires and billionaires are allowed to play by a different set of rules than hard-working families, especially when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes.”  I found this quote rhetorically significant because of the way that it humanizes the middle class by illustrating them as families. Contrarily, millionaires and billionaires are referred to as simply that, rather than “hardworking families making millions or billions of dollars.”

The Roles of Ingratiation and Enthymeme

I believe that this example represents a greater rhetorical theme in Clinton’s rhetoric. In my first post, I outlined the way in which Clinton’s rhetoric about the middle class closely incorporates family values. By constantly referring to the middle class as “families” who are “hard-working,” and “American,” she seems to be attempting to ingratiate them. Referring to her fair share surcharge, Clinton said, “That’s what American families need – not another giveaway to the super wealthy.” I think this quote perfectly evidences her attempts to ingratiate the middle class. Through enthymeme, it suggests that the super wealthy aren’t true American families. This seems to be a stellar tactic, and is further carried out in her new advertisement.  If she continues to use this rhetorical strategy, I think it will be easier for middle class voters to look past her status as a multi-millionaire who can’t truly relate to them.

Given the current climate of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton has seemingly focused less on appealing to her potential voter base and more on sending Donald Trump packing; especially in light of the recent lewd audio recording tainting his campaign. Last night’s debate consisted more of back-and-forth personal attacks than policy substance, and given the hectic environment, there was little room for Clinton to recite the narrative of her middle class values that she did in the first debate. Thanks to Wikileaks however, news about her rhetoric appealing to the middle class has remained in the headlines.

This recent email leak features part of a speech that she gave at Goldman Sachs, and appears newsworthy because she admits to being “far removed” from the middle class lifestyle in which she grew up. Some of the text is highlighted by the Wikileaks source, however the highlight ends before the sentence ends by saying, “but I haven’t forgotten it.” For this reason, I question the newsworthiness of this rhetoric that some sources have elaborated upon. The truth is that Clinton remains the favorite choice for moderate, middle-class voters, and the argument that she is too removed from them does not achieve much of an effect. Personally, I think that there is grounds for the average middle-class American to look to Clinton as evidence that just because you currently find yourself in the middle class, doesn’t mean you will never be able to “climb the ladder” and rise out of it. No one will ever be able to take that away from Clinton despite all of her other shortcomings, and that is why she is able to manipulate middle-class rhetoric so well.

One of Hillary Clinton’s most frequent allusions to her middle-class roots illustrates her father’s humble profession working with silk screens. More recently, she appealed to the middle class in an op-ed by describing the lessons she learned as “a mother who works.” Simply put, since Clinton cannot truly relate to the middle class population, she merges her appeals with stories and memories of family with which everyone can relate.

The truth is that Clinton has been out of touch with the middle class lifestyle for over 25 years. This disparity continues to grow as both Hillary and Bill continue to reap the benefits of their powerful positions, evidenced especially by their 2014 Tax Returns. Giving speeches at an average fee of $210,795 is a far cry from squeegeeing silk screens with her father.

With regard to the title, I must point out the irony that Clinton touts her relatability to the middle-class in a wardrobe valued at around $200,000.

All kidding aside however, the power of Clinton’s strategic combination of family values and middle class values is evidenced through her current popularity. Though the narratives of working at her father’s business and living humbly as a new mother in Little Rock are irrelevant to the current election, they still resonate with voters and give Clinton a degree of traction over Trump. As far as tax brackets and annual earnings are concerned, Clinton and Trump are more similar than they are different. Nevertheless, it is the crafty rhetoric illustrating an honest, middle-class upbringing that enables Clinton to make voters think otherwise.