The Middle-Class MomentnWith a whoop and a holler, politiciansnhave suddenly discovered that there’s anwild animal called the American middlenclass prowling around, the votingnbooths, and officeholders are poundingndown the stairs to make sure the roughnbeast does no damage once it gets insidenthe house. Almost every issue that hasnemerged in national politics in the lastnyear—term limits and taxes, housingnand health care, racial quotas and rascalsnin government — centers around thencultural identity and material interests ofnthe middle class, and the nation’s incumbentnoligarchs well understand thatnall the growling about such matters isnrather like the roaring of lions in thenjungle night. It’s when the roaring stopsnand the hunt begins that they betternstart worrying.nThe hunt began last fall with thenPyrrhic victory of the oligarchs overnDavid Duke in Louisiana and the announcementnsoon afterwards of bothnMr. Duke and Patrick J. Buchanan ofntheir Middle American-oriented campaignsnfor President as Republicans.nBefore that,’ however, Democrats likenPennsylvania’s Harris WofFord andnIowa’s Tom Harkin were raising populistnbanners that the white middle classnwas likely to find attractive. At the samentime, even the oracles of conventionalnwisdom were beginning to perceive thatnthe middle class was in economic trouble.nColumnist George Will, ever anreliable source for what is respectable tonthink and say, announced his persuasionnthat middle-class economic distressnwas a significant political force, andnNewsweek, which is even more conventionalnif not always as wise as Mr.nWill, rehearsed the facts and figures ofnmiddle-class withering in a cover storynthe following week. Other journalisticnaccounts around the same Hme — innthe Philadelphia Inquirer, the NewnYork Times, and the Washington Post,namong others — also burrowed into thenstatistical underbrush to document thensame story and sagely pondered itsnpolitical implications.nThe arithmetic of annihilation is byn12/CHRONICLESnPrincipalities & Powersnby Samuel Francisnnow reasonably familiar. As Mr. Willnreported, “The wages of average workersnare below 1979 levels, but familynincomes have been maintained bynwives going to work. In 1960, 30npercent of wives with children undern18 worked. By 1987, 65 percent did.n… In 1950, the average middle-agenmiddle-class homeowner spent 14 percentnof his gross income on mortgagenpayments. By 1973, that had crept upnto 21 percent. In the next 10 years itnrocketed to 44 percent. Home ownershipnrates, which rose for six decades,ndeclined.”nThe reality of middle-class decline isnmasked by the continuity between thenfigures for income levels in earliernperiods and those for more recentnyears. The reason for the apparentncontinuity is that wives are working andnthereby bringing in extra income toncompensate for what would otherwisenbe a clear fall in earnings and livingnstandards. The middle class runs faster,nexpends more energy, to stay in thensame place.nOf course, there are the perennialnoptimists, mostly self-described “conservatives,”nwho make a living out ofnclaiming that the middle class is morenprosperous than ever. They like tonpoint to the availability of VCRs, personalncomputers, and shopping mallsnto make their case that we’ve never hadnit so good. Such cheerleaders seem notnto have met Mrs. Margaret Collier ofnPeoria, Illinois, and thousands of wivesnlike her. Mrs. Collier in fact doesn’tnhold a job, but that’s because, as shentold the New York Times, “It takes menworking full-time at home to keep thenbills down to the point that we can livenon his [Mr. Collier’s] income. I splitnthe wood [for the Franklin stove], plantnand work a vegetable garden, can vegetables,nbuy meat when it is on sale, helpnmy husband fix our cars.” Not onlyndoes Mrs. Collier not have a personalncomputer. She seems to live at prettynmuch the same economic and technologicalnlevel as an Apache squaw beforenmodern civilization liberated her.nAs for home ownership, the CensusnBureau reports that today only 9 percentnof the nation’s renters can affordnnnto buy a home and that 36 percent ofnactual homeowners would be unable tonbuy a median-priced home if they hadnto do so on the market at the time ofnthe survey. To own a home and supportna wife who doesn’t work are, ofncourse, deeply held aspirations of thenAmerican middle class, and the declinenof the ability to do so represents anserious economic demotion. It alsonrepresents an important social and culturalnchange. Home ownership — evennthe abstract and rather fictitious sort ofnmortgaged ownership to which Americansnin recent generations have becomenhabituated — is one of the traditionalnsymbols of the economic andnsocial independence that distinguishesnfree men from medieval serfs bound tonthe land or slaves fed from their master’snhand. It is difficult to see how thentransiency that residential renting in- ‘nvolves can be consistent with the kindnof rooted commitment to communityn(or family, for that matter) on whichnrepublican government must rely. It isnalso difficult to understand how familyninstitutions can flourish when wivesnand mothers must work for a livingnoutside the home. That married womennmust increasingly do so meansnfewer children and alternate provisionsnfor existing children — and for preparingnmeals, shopping, cleaning, etc.nToday it means a massive redistributionnof social functions and the psychic andnmoral dislocations that redistributionninvolves: husbands keeping house, childrenncooking for themselves, andnwomen escaping the natural bonds ofnhome and husband.nThe economic independence of thenmiddle class disappeared long ago,nhowever, when modern corporate andngovernmental organizaHons began tonswallow the independent businessesnand farms that made the bourgeoisnclass of the 19th century the core ofnAmerican society, politics, and culture.nAt the turn of the century, as historiannJames Lincoln Collier writes, the middlenclass constituted “no more than anquarter of the population of the UnitednStates,” but neverthelessnit was the dominant section ofn