President Bush: When a shareholder receives his or her share of the profits, it is taxed again, and that doesn’t make sense to me...

Bill Clinton: This is an amazing crowd and it’s certainly the biggest crowd we’ve had for the population of the community. The biggest percentage. I think it has just been amazing...

Urycki: You get the impression things are growing out there?

Clinton: I think they are.

Bush: I want you to understand that I understand that Ohio manufacturers are hurting...

Urycki: But just as fewer people join bowling leagues—even here—fewer people are participating in government. Only about 50% of American adults even bother voting for president. That number has been on a downward trend since 1968. And there’s another interesting breakdown in American voting—the less money a person earns, the less likely he/she is to vote. And political participation by the lower class has been trending downward. Dr. John Green, Director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron...

Green: It varies very dramatically. Class distinctions matter in politics in a number of different ways, but, by far, the most important way is with the level of participation. The group that votes tends to be people with resources, with skills, and with connections. But if you move beyond voting to things like writing to your member of Congress, attending a political meeting, sending in a campaign contribution or any of those other forms of civic activity, they’re even more strongly connected with resources, skills and connections. Class underlies all of those things.

Urycki: The poor and middle class haven’t just disengaged from political parties says Harvard Professor Theda Skocpol. In her new book Diminished Democracy: “From Membership to Management in American Civil Life,” Skocpol says participation in voluntary citizen groups has dropped off. She says they once had wide membership across class lines and carried quite a bit of political clout...

Skocpol: That’s the part that comes as a surprise to many people and I have to admit it came as a surprise to me when I did my research on large voluntary associations in American history. I don’t know how many people realize that women’s groups were the ones that supported policies for mothers and children, families and a lot of educational policies throughout American history. We do know about unions and farm groups supporting policies for workers and farmers. But, the GI Bill of 1944, which is one of the most important social programs in American history because it opened the doors of college for millions of men returning from World War II, provided farm and business help. That was written by the American Legion and supported by the American Legion, which persuaded both conservatives and liberals to enact very generous veterans benefits.

Urycki: Oddly the liberal protesters of the 60’s never formed a permanent grassroots political organization. Skocpol says organizers these days focus more on simply raising money from members to execute lobbying efforts. Political parties have also changed...

Skocpol; Yes, political parties used to be much more like membership associations. I mean, at least in the 19th century, people felt themselves to be a member, they would attend meetings, would go on parades and marches and attend picnics for their political party. That started to change earlier than I think a lot of the other kinds of voluntary groups changed. But the changes have been especially strong in political parties since the 50s and 60s because they used to have at least local activists who would go door-to-door and try to get out the vote. Now, political parties are much more collections and fundraisers and pollsters. You don’t have nearly as much of a person-to-person operation. We’ve gotten to the point now where American elections are reported in the newspapers as if they were fundraising contests. We hear that Howard Dean is way ahead because he’s raising more money. That’s an odd thing, in a way, to talk about in a democracy where it ought to be the votes...

Urycki: And that, laments Skocpol, leaves members untrained in citizen skills. In the 1920’s there were grassroots parties that focused on the poor. As did, says Professor Green, many urban political machines...

Green: In legend and song, these organizations are seen as being very corrupt and ignorant. And there’s some truth to that, of course. But a lot of that criticism came from middle class and upper class individuals who resented the machines. Who resented the bosses...precisely because they were mobilizing lower status people and bringing their interests into politics.

Urycki: Journalist William Greider, the author of “Who Will Tell The People: The Betrayal of American Democracy,” told an audience at Kent State this year that there’s a new kind of political machine...

Greider: Our politics are now organized for us and this is particularly true of the last 20, 30 years—largely by business organizations. In one of my earlier books, I called them “the new machines.” The new political machines...and they’re called corporations...and they literally finance both political parties. They help choose the candidates, usually with their money. They rigorously develop issues for legislation and the agendas. And they are quite adept at blocking issues and agendas that they don’t approve of.

Urycki: Listen to Congressman Sherrod Brown talking this summer to one of the bastions of working class politics–a labor union.

Brown: Everything Congress votes on, every bill is written by corporate America. The Medicare privatization bill is written by the insurance industry, the Social Security privatization bill is written by Wall Street, the energy legislation is written by Enron, the environmental legislation is written by...and so forth.

Beeghley: Well, why would a politician pay attention to people who don’t vote for them?

Urycki: Sociologist Leonard Beeghley, author of The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States...

Beeghley: Campaign contributors—wealthy campaign contributors—tend to know their senators personally. It’s just that ability to get on the phone and make your case...to have a meeting and to make your case—for your particular issue or against your particular issue. And that’s the way the system works.

Urycki: There is little argument that the wealthy have the ear of office holders. And the people we spoke to say government tax structure and policies reflect that. While the Democrats claim to represent the common man, the Republicans actually retain a stronger grassroots organization, collecting smaller donations from more people than the Democrats. John Green says the two big parties, more and more, cut across class lines.

Green: The Democrats have developed a middle class constituency, particularly well-educated professionals that live in the suburbs around major cities. Folks who are by any historic standards very affluent, but very concerned about things such as the environment, social justice, affirmative action, and individual tolerance. On the other hand, the Republican Party has developed something of a traditionally lower-class constituency. Many groups of blue-collar workers and religious people in the South and Midwest have gravitated towards the Republican Party because of issues like abortion and gay rights. So these images persist, of the Republican Party being of the “haves” and the Democratic Party being of the “have-nots.” It’s really a much more complicated picture.

Urycki: Surveys find that American’s occupations are a better determinate of their political views than are their salaries. Nevertheless, there is a direct correlation between income and political participation. Sociologist Richard Sennett, who has interviewed middle class workers, believes them to be disengaged because they are demoralized and resigned. But, political scientists say poor and working class Americans have too much faith in getting rich themselves to fight policies that may be aimed at helping the wealthy.

Whatever the case, Dr. Green says politicians react to pressure and if any group is not active in politics, its interests will not be met.