The United States is commonly thought of as a “classless” society in the sense that most people do not think in terms of social class distinctions, and as a result, the role of class in politics is largely irrelevant (Richard Reeves, “Classless America, Still?” Brookings Institution Research Memo, 2014). In the rare instances where hints of social class do find their way into American politics, discussions of class are focused on the public’s criticism of the poor and admiration of the wealthy. American individualism leads people to view the poor with disdain. Those who are unsuccessful are seen as lacking personal traits like ambition and work ethic. The rich, conversely, are looked up to as examples of what happens when people work hard. Americans perceive the wealthy with admiration and hope to someday join their ranks.

While this story about class in the United States may sound familiar, it may also be untrue. This is the argument made in Spencer Piston’s Class Attitudes in America. Piston suggests that contrary to conventional wisdom, class attitudes are not only common among the American public but that these views also play a substantial role in shaping political preferences.

The book focuses on developing two specific, class-related concepts: sympathy for the poor and resentment of the rich. Using open-ended survey responses, Piston demonstrates that people regularly mention the terms “rich” and “poor” when asked to consider what they like and dislike about the two major parties and presidential candidates. This suggests that when the public is asked to think about politics in their own words, they often think in terms of class. Furthermore, mentions of the rich are often negative and characterized by resentment. People tend to view the rich as receiving more than they deserve. When referencing the poor, however, respondents generally discuss the group in sympathetic terms. These comments indicate that the poor have less than they deserve and that the government should do more to help them.

Clearly, this description of class politics in the United States directly contradicts the conventional portrayal just summarized. How, then, have both popular and academic accounts of class in America missed so badly in their understanding of the importance of class among the public? Piston offers several explanations, but two seem particularly consequential. First, since Americans do not appear to be divided along class lines, many scholars have assumed that class is politically unimportant. We know very little, however, about how the public thinks about other class groups, like the rich and the poor, and whether these attitudes influence political preferences. Second, scholars have also mistakenly concluded that the United States does not have more redistributive policies because there is little public support for more redistribution. Of course, public opinion does not always translate into public policy, and so it is still possible that class attitudes about the rich and the poor influence support for redistribution among the public.

In addition to the open-ended survey responses, Piston offers a robust set of analyses showing that sympathy for the poor and resentment of the rich are fairly prevalent with the public, are attitudes that persist over time, and are distinct from other well-known concepts like political ideology, egalitarianism, and attitudes about race. Using novel measures of class attitudes and original survey data, including a number of well-designed survey experiments, Piston demonstrates that class attitudes have a substantial influence on the public’s support of redistributive policies and vote choice. Those who have sympathy for the poor and those who resent the rich are more likely to favor a variety of policies, ranging from government aid to the poor and the homeless to tax increases on millionaires. These same attitudes are found to increase support for political candidates who are viewed as being more likely to help the poor.

While the book certainly provides a new perspective on class politics in the United States, it also raises some new questions. Piston’s approach to understanding class attitudes emphasizes the role of outgroup perceptions of the rich and the poor. But if outgroup attitudes are central to the way that most of the public thinks about class, by definition these same people must be part of some ingroup. The author does not spend much time exploring how the members of the public view their own class positions relative to their outgroup attitudes, and so it is not clear how he sees this potential intergroup dynamic playing out. If there are differences in how people tend to view their own class status (e.g., working class, middle class, etc.), these distinctions may help us better understand variations in attitudes about the rich and poor and how they are developed. We might think differently about the political implications of class attitudes, for example, if sympathy for the poor is disproportionately present among those who view themselves as belonging to the upper-middle class versus those belonging to the working class.

Additionally, more closely examining ingroup class perceptions may give us a sense of where intergroup conflict may more likely be found. For instance, if those who identify as working class see themselves as being in conflict with the poor over political resources, they might be less likely to demonstrate sympathetic attitudes for low-income groups and less likely to support policies directly benefiting the poor. Alternatively, the working class may feel socially close to the poor, leading to higher levels of sympathy and greater support for redistributive policies (e.g., see Noam Lupu and Jonas Pontusson, “The Structure of Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution,” American Political Science Review, 105[2], 2011). Of course, similar dynamics might be at work for various class ingroups and outgroups. The main point is that intergroup class dynamics have the potential to play an important role in the American view of class.

I also wonder if class attitudes and attitudes about economic inequality have more in common than the portrayal of these two concepts that is offered by Piston. In his analysis of open-ended survey responses related to political likes and dislikes, for instance, he contrasts mentions of rich and poor with mentions of inequality (and other related terms). He finds very few mentions of inequality and concludes that the evidence demonstrates a “stark imbalance in favor of the class group account” relative to the economic inequality account of public opinion (p. 20). But it is not clear to me that class attitudes are necessarily separate from attitudes about inequality. Instead, it may be the case that studies attempting to explain how the public thinks about inequality would benefit from a stronger emphasis on class groups. In fact, some studies have found that simple comparisons of the income gap between the rich and the poor tend to accurately reflect the public’s underlying perceptions of inequality (e.g., Graham Wright, “The Political Implications of American Concerns About Economic Inequality,” Political Behavior, 40[2], 2018).

Overall, I highly recommend Class Attitudes in America. The book offers an important and compelling argument about how the public views the rich and the poor, which is bolstered by clear and precisely written prose. Piston introduces a novel perspective on U.S. class politics that I hope will shape how scholars think about social class, government redistribution, and economic inequality.