Growing SUV and pickup sales are cancelling out emission savings from electric cars

Even if more cars go electric, it's almost pointless unless we get rid of light trucks.

The great benefit of electric cars is that there are no tailpipe emissions, because there is no tailpipe. And even with our usual complaints, it has been wonderful to see them taking off. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA):

Plans from the top 20 car manufacturers suggest a tenfold increase in annual electric car sales, to 20 million vehicles a year by 2030, from 2 million in 2018. Starting from a low base, less than 0.5% of the total car stock, this growth in electric vehicles means that nearly 7% of the car fleet will be electric by 2030.

 The IEA notes talk about "the beginning of the end for the ICE age.” As passenger cars consume nearly one-quarter of global oil demand today, does this signal the approaching erosion of a pillar of global oil consumption?"

Nope. In fact, emissions from transportation keep climbing, even as fewer cars are sold and more are electric, because so many more people are buying SUVs and pickups trucks.

On average, SUVs consume about a quarter more energy than medium-size cars. As a result, global fuel economy worsened caused in part by the rising SUV demand since the beginning of the decade, even though efficiency improvements in smaller cars saved over 2 million barrels a day, and electric cars displaced less than 100,000 barrels a day.

It's just going to get worse.

In fact, SUVs were responsible for all of the 3.3 million barrels a day growth in oil demand from passenger cars between 2010 and 2018, while oil use from other type of cars (excluding SUVs) declined slightly. If consumers’ appetite for SUVs continues to grow at a similar pace seen in the last decade, SUVs would add nearly 2 million barrels a day in global oil demand by 2040, offsetting the savings from nearly 150 million electric cars.

We do go on about how SUVs and pickups are killing and maiming people by the thousands, and all of the other problems that they cause, but surely this should raise some eyebrows. Many countries offer incentives and tax credits to encourage people to buy electric cars, which all seems kind of silly if they don't have disincentives for buying light trucks like SUVs and pickups.

The government actually subsidizes big SUVs.

It gets still worse; if you buy a truck or SUV in the U.S. that is heavier than 6,000 pounds, the IRS gives you a massive tax write-off for depreciation. Range Rover is even using this in their marketing to people who use their cars for business. Another site conveniently lists all the cars over 6,000 pounds (copied below) that are eligible for this.

The government is giving these tax deductions because they consider these to be work vehicles. Given how dangerous they are, it's time to license their drivers to a higher standard as they do for trucks over 10,000 pounds. That would get a lot of them off the road fast.

Here's the list of 2018 cars and trucks that are over 6,000 pounds, via Financial Samurai.

Audi Q7
BMW X5
BMW X6
Buick ENCLAVE
Cadillac ESCALADE AWD
Chevrolet Truck AVALANCHE 4WD
Chevrolet Truck SILVERADO
Chevrolet Truck SUBURBAN
Chevrolet Truck TAHOE 4WD
Chevrolet Truck TRAVERSE 4WD
Dodge Truck DURANGO 4WD
Ford Truck EXPEDITION 4WD
Ford Truck EXPLORER 4WD
Ford Truck F-150 4WD
Ford Truck FLEX AWD
GMC ACADIA 4WD
GMC SIERRA
GMC YUKON 4WD
GMC YUKON XL
Infiniti QX56 4WD
Jeep GRAND CHEROKEE
Land Rover RANGE ROVER
Land Rover RANGE ROVER SPT
Land Rover Discovery
Lexus GX460
Lexus LX570
Lincoln MKT AWD
Mercedes Benz G550
Mercedes Benz GL500
Nissan ARMADA 4WD
Nissan NV 1500 S V6
Nissan NVP 3500 S V6
Nissan TITAN 2WD S
Porsche CAYENNE
Toyota 4RUNNER 4WD
Toyota LANDCRUISER
Toyota SEQUOIA 4WD LTD
Toyota TUNDRA 4WD
Volkswagen TOUAREG HYBRID

All-American

I’m this tiny, this statuesque, and everywhere

in between, and everywhere in between

bony and overweight, my shadow cannot hold

one shape in Omaha, in Tuscaloosa, in Aberdeen.

My skin is mocha brown, two shades darker

than taupe, your question is racist, nutmeg, beige,

I’m not offended by your question at all.

Penis or vagina? Yes and yes. Gay or straight?

Both boxes. Bi, not bi, who cares, stop

fixating on my sex life, Jesus never leveled

his eye to a bedroom’s keyhole. I go to church

in Tempe, in Waco, the one with the exquisite

stained glass, the one with a white spire

like the tip of a Klansman’s hood. Churches

creep me out, I never step inside one,

never utter hymns, Sundays I hide my flesh

with camouflage and hunt. I don’t hunt

but wish every deer wore a bulletproof vest

and fired back. It’s cinnamon, my skin,

it’s more sandstone than any color I know.

I voted for Obama, McCain, Nader, I was too

apathetic to vote, too lazy to walk one block,

two blocks to the voting booth For or against

a women’s right to choose? Yes, for and against.

For waterboarding, for strapping detainees

with snorkels and diving masks. Against burning

fossil fuels, let’s punish all those smokestacks

for eating the ozone, bring the wrecking balls,

but build more smokestacks, we need jobs

here in Harrisburg, here in Kalamazoo. Against

gun control, for cotton bullets, for constructing

a better fence along the border, let’s raise

concrete toward the sky, why does it need

all that space to begin with? For creating

holes in the fence, adding ladders, they’re not

here to steal work from us, no one dreams

of crab walking for hours across a lettuce field

so someone could order the Caesar salad.

No one dreams of sliding a squeegee down

the cloud-mirrored windows of a high-rise,

but some of us do it. Some of us sell flowers.

Some of us cut hair. Some of us carefully

steer a mower around the cemetery grounds.

Some of us paint houses. Some of us monitor

the power grid. Some of us ring you up

while some of us crisscross a parking lot

to gather the shopping carts into one long,

rolling, clamorous and glittering backbone. 

"All-American" from Dear, Sincerely, by David Hernandez

The Morality of Framing Issues in Politics

In framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade people to agree with them. In essence, a frame is the words, images and the mental and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reason, right and wrong.

Effective frames: Effective frames are ones that are persuasive to the most number of people that can be reached and influenced. Some people aren't persuaded by anything and this tactic fails. Good political frames are characterized by simplicity, stickiness (memorability), appeal to emotion and ideology or values, implicit or explicit identification of the good guys (the framer and his argument), the bad guys (the opposition and their policy) and the victim (people abused by the bad guys and their policies).

Practical and psychological impacts of frames: Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed

Examples of stepping into an opponent's frame include:
1. Hillary Clinton trying over and over to defend against and explain a simple emailgate frame that was held against her. It was a disaster. Despite Clinton's obvious intelligence, she never rebutted the frame on an equal biological footing by staying in that frame.
2. Trying to rebut the ‘illegal immigrant’ frame by including the phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ in the rebuttal. That just keeps reinforcing the concept ‘illegal’. Instead, the smart politician never steps into that frame and instead always refers to ‘undocumented workers’, ‘undocumented children’ or something like that.
3. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert engineers, (ii) they are constantly getting updated training, (iii) the situation is complicated and we are analyzing means for corrective action, (iv) our track record has been excellent in the past. The framer then demolishes the whole in-frame rebuttal by simply asserting: Right, your engineers are constantly getting updated training because they don't have the necessary expertise. Those four defenses provided the framer with four opportunities to blow his opponent out of the water.

Lesson: Never step into your opponent's frame. If you do, you usually lose the persuasion war.

Consequence: Political rhetoric often sounds like people talking past each other and not answering question, because they are talking past each other and avoiding the frame a question is couched in. Avoidance of stepping into an opponent's frame is extremely important.

Reframing: To avoid an opponent's frame, you need to reframe.[1]

Examples:
1. Frame: Illegal immigrants
Reframe: Illegal employers and/or undocumented workers

2. Frame: You call women bad names and are thus unfit for office
Reframe (metaframe in this case, i.e., attack the frame itself): Political correctness has run amok and that's what's causing this country to fail, so don't tell me about unfitness for office - I'm not politically correct and am proud of it because that's what this country needs (the actual dance between Megan Kelly and candidate Donald Trump is at footnote 1)

3. Frame: A politician's powerful and critically needed male ally has been found to send sexist text messages and the politician (Australia's prime minister, Julia Gillard, in this case) is accused of condoning sexism
Reframe: The prime minister's metaframe rebuttal accuses her accuser of sexism: “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man (the opposition leader making the allegation). I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever. The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. . . . .”

4. Frame: Abort a fetus
Reframe: Murder or kill a baby or person with full rights of citizens

Is framing immoral?: Here are competing visions of morality. - the idealist: framing is dangerous and a form of populism I would never resort to (is that a frame, whether idealist likes it or not?)
- the scientist (political pragmatist, not political ideologue): framing is a moral imperative to influence public opinion, e.g., about climate change, using ‘good frames’
- the conservative: calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers is immoral because it hides the truth of their illegal status
- the liberal: calling undocumented workers illegal immigrants is immoral because it hides the truth of their contributions to society and how they make our lives better
- the campaign manager: the opposition claims it is tough on crime, which implies we aren’t even though we are tougher than they are, e.g., we prosecute white collar criminals and they don’t – the moral implications of framing is irrelevant, we need a better frame and need it right now – the real moral issue is their false frame, not our framing of our true position
- the philosopher: ‘What is – and what is not – a frame? There is no such thing as objective reality. Everyone perceives things differently, so there cannot be a single criterion for determining whether or not a certain message constitutes a frame. One person’s calculated frame is another person’s principled standpoint.
- the politician: ‘Personally speaking, I am against frames, and I would not consider using them under normal circumstances. However, our opponents keep coming up with powerful frames that help them to attract voters and sway public opinion. I believe we have no choice but to participate in the game of framing of reframing.’
- the lecturer: great minds (Marx, Hobbes, etc) have used simple phrases and turns of phrase – that’s not simplicity, superficial, one-dimensional or small-minded; Marx: the rich get rich, the poor get poorer; Hobbes: a man is a wolf to man
- the journalist: a famous quote by the American journalist H.L. Mencken states: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
- the historian: Ronald Reagan once said “Facts are stupid things,” and was widely dismissed as a trivial, shallow B-movie actor. But, when Nietzsche said “There are no facts, only interpretations,” his words were hailed as a profound philosophical insight.

An example: “But then, in early 2015, the FCC jettisoned this successful, bipartisan approach to the Internet. On express orders from the previous White House, the FCC scrapped the tried-and-true, ‘light touch regulation’ of the Internet and replaced it with ‘heavy-handed micromanagement’. It decided to subject the Internet to utility-style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern Ma Bell. .... This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The Internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet is perhaps the one thing in American society we can all agree has been a stunning success.”

Ajit Pai, Trump's FCC chairman's written statement from last week in advance of an FCC vote that reversed existing net neutrality rules. Pai's frame, repeated many time in written and public statements, is ‘light touch’ regulation instead of ‘heavy-handed micromanagement’. In this case, the frame was accompanied by lies about the origin of the original FCC net neutrality rules, and the originally bipartisan nature of support for net neutrality. Embedded in this frame are at least two objectively provable lies based on a neutral reading of public records.

The moral landscape

Is framing moral, with or without embedded lies? Do lies convert an otherwise honest frame to something immoral? Are frames with no lies immoral because they are (i) one-dimensional, oversimplifications of reality, and/or (ii) blatant attempts to unfairly or unreasonably manipulate people?

Does a rational assessment of morality change when one considers that framing, with or without lies, (i) is constitutionally protected free speech, and (ii) absolutely will be employed by partisans on all sides, with and without lies? In other words, does the idealist set himself up to fail by not taking into account human cognitive and social biology, which is what frames are intended to manipulate or play on.

What is the difference between framing, manipulation, and honest argument? How can one know the difference?

Source materials: Most of the material for this discussion is taken from the edX online course “Framing: Creating powerful political messages”, which is available to the public at no charge. The course is short and easy to comprehend. It makes it clear why, (i) much political rhetoric is  incomprehensible because people talk past each other, and (ii) politicians frequently fail to answer straightforward questions and instead give responses having little or nothing to do with the question.

Footnote:
1. A devastating reframe: Megan Kelly asks Trump about his misogynistic views of women. Trump reframes the question by using the strategy of meta-framing: (1) He does not to enter into the frame that he is a misogynist, and (2) he rebuts the allegation with a meta-frame, i.e., the question is not whether me (Trump) is a misogynist, but that too many politicians are politically correct - Trump himself is not politically correct and that is what the country needs.

Kelly: You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs”, “dogs”, “slobs” and “disgusting animals”. Your twitter account -

Trump interrupts: Only Rosie O’Donnell. (applause, cheers, mirth)

Kelly: No it wasn’t. You twitter account- For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell. Yes, I’m sure it was. Your twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity apprentice “it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. . . . . Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? . . . .

Trump: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble, we don’t win anymore, we lose to China we lose to Mexico, both in trade and at the border, we lose to everybody. And frankly what I say, and often times it’s fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time, what I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn’t do that. But you know what, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now. (cheers and applause - crowd loves it) 

DP orig: 8/10/19; B&B orig: 12/13/17

Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate Change Now, New Paper Claims

It seems every week there's a scary new report about how man-made climate change is going to cause the collapse of the world's ice sheets, result in the extinction of up to 1 million animal species and — if that wasn't bad enough — make our beer very, very expensive. This week, a new policy paper from an Australian think tank claims that those other reports are slightly off; the risks of climate change are actually much, much worse than anyone can imagine.

According to the paper, climate change poses a "near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilization," and there's a good chance society could collapse as soon as 2050 if serious mitigation actions aren't taken in the next decade.

Published by the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne (an independent think tank focused on climate policy) and authored by a climate researcher and a former fossil fuel executive, the paper's central thesis is that climate scientists are too restrained in their predictions of how climate change will affect the planet in the near future. [Top 9 Ways the World Could End]

The current climate crisis, they say, is larger and more complex than any humans have ever dealt with before. General climate models — like the one that the United Nations' Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used in 2018 to predict that a global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) could put hundreds of millions of people at risk — fail to account for the sheer complexity of Earth's many interlinked geological processes; as such, they fail to adequately predict the scale of the potential consequences. The truth, the authors wrote, is probably far worse than any models can fathom.

How the world ends

What might an accurate worst-case picture of the planet's climate-addled future actually look like, then? The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C) by the year 2050. At this point, the world's ice sheets vanish; brutal droughts kill many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and the planet plunges into a feedback loop of ever-hotter, ever-deadlier conditions.

"Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized.

Meanwhile, droughts, floods and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees.

This mass movement of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States. Armed conflicts over resources, perhaps culminating in nuclear war, are likely.

The result, according to the new paper, is "outright chaos" and perhaps "the end of human global civilization as we know it."

How can this catastrophic vision of the future be prevented? Only with the people of the world accepting climate change for the emergency it is and getting to work — immediately. According to the paper's authors, the human race has about one decade left to mount a global movement to transition the world economy to a zero-carbon-emissions system. (Achieving zero-carbon emissions requires either not emitting carbon or balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal.) The effort required to do so "would be akin in scale to the World War II emergency mobilization," the authors wrote.

The new policy paper was endorsed with a foreword by Adm. Chris Barrie, a retired Australian defense chief and senior royal navy commander who has testified before the Australian Senate about the devastating possibilities climate change poses to national security and overall human well-being.

"I told the [Senate] Inquiry that, after nuclear war, human-induced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet," Barrie wrote in the new paper. "Human life on Earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way."

https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by-2050.html

“Designated Survivor” was the political drama conservatives needed to watch

After three seasons, the Kirkman administration has come to an end.

Late last month, Netflix confirmed the cancellation of Designated Survivor, a political drama starring Kiefer Sutherland as US president Tom Kirkman. The streaming giant had briefly revived the series after it was originally axed by ABC in May 2018.

At the outset, the show’s premise was straightforward, if sensational. When a terrorist attack kills the sitting president and his cabinet, Kirkman—the secretary of Housing and Urban Development—is the highest-ranking government official left alive. In an instant, he is thrust into the nation’s highest office, and drafted to rebuild a country crumbling before his bespectacled eyes.

On ABC, the show’s first season commanded a strong audience—the premiere even set a record with more than 17 million viewers in its first week. But as Variety explains, Designated Survivor dipped from an average of 12.1 million viewers during season one to 8.6 million during season two. (After all, it’s hard to top the first season’s opener: blowing up the US Capitol building.) ABC decided not to renew.

While ABC’s two seasons—43 episodes in total—wove together breathless conspiracy theories ripe for broadcast television, Netflix charted a new course with season three (10 episodes). Ahead of the third season’s release, showrunner Neal Bae said Designated Survivor would become “more cable-oriented,” meaning producers wouldn’t need to worry as much about offending viewers.

“When I pitched these [new] characters to ABC, they kind of looked at me like, ‘Whoa.’ And when I pitched to Netflix, they were like, ‘Oh, tell me more,'” Baer told TVLine. “You can go much further, deeper, darker, edgier, and be more realistic, and that was great for us.”

Though short, Netflix’s season three confronted issues that matter deeply to groups who are often underrepresented on screen. The show introduced Sasha, president Kirkman’s (previously unmentioned) sister-in-law, who is transgender. While Designated Survivor could be accused of making gender identity a spectacle, it did so by mirroring political theater. Sasha’s emergence—and the conservative backlash against her—was jarring, as it was in 2015 when the national spotlight fell on Gavin Grimm, a transgender student barred from using the boys’ bathroom at his high school. By making LGBTQ concerns White House concerns, and directly so, Designated Survivor 2.0 approached social divisions (and biases) with the seriousness they demand.

Throughout season three, the show exhibited a similar sensitivity toward Dontae Evans, a social media strategist on Kirkman’s campaign staff. The relationship (and specifically, a steamy sex scene) between Evans—an HIV-positive, gay black man—and Troy, a Secret Service agent, caught viewers off guard. But as Phillip Zonkel wrote for QVoiceNews, Designated Survivor became one of the first shows “to debunk the misinformation about what it means to be HIV positive and undetectable.”

By paying attention to the LGBTQ community, the show’s third season welcomed differences, and paid homage to human decency. Designated Survivor also acknowledged that many Americans are still wrestling with these issues. Asked by his sister-in-law about accepting her transition, Kirkman admits: “Honestly, I’d have to say that viscerally, I’m still a work in progress.”

Throughout season three, Kirkman’s social agenda demonstrates that what affirms people’s dignity isn’t necessarily politically palatable. In addition to addressing LGBTQ issues and racism, he contends with hot-button issues that include fake news, assisted suicide, opioid addiction, and immigration. In the season’s sixth episode, a Guatemalan family arrives illegally in the US in the hopes of securing a kidney transplant for their young son. The Kirkman administration carefully explores the ramifications of allowing the child medical care. Helping little Mateo is the right thing to do but, as Kirkman notes, allowing the family to remain in the US could signal a broader willingness to help anybody with medical problems who crosses the border.

Ultimately, Designated Survivor‘s greatest success (and perhaps a reason for its cancellation) is that it got too close to real politics. However brief, Netflix’s experiment helped give a voice to marginalized people—often of color—living under the presidency of a white man. In doing so, Designated Survivor nodded to America’s changing electorate, and it served as a powerful reminder that a president should serve all people.

https://qz.com/quartzy/1675121/conservatives-should-watch-netflixs-designated-survivor/

Wealth Distribution in the Pre-Civil War South

Wealth was not well distributed and most whites were poor. Nonetheless, there were minimal class tensions in the South among whites because they were united by racism. One source writes:

The South prospered, but its wealth was very unequally distributed. Upward social mobility did not exist for the millions of slaves who produced a good portion of the nation’s wealth, while poor southern whites envisioned a day when they might rise enough in the world to own slaves of their own. Because of the cotton boom, there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River Valley by 1860 than anywhere else in the United States. However, in that same year, only 3 percent of whites owned more than fifty slaves, and two-thirds of white households in the South did not own any slaves at all. Distribution of wealth in the South became less democratic over time; fewer whites owned slaves in 1860 than in 1840.

At the top of southern white society stood the planter elite, which comprised two groups. In the Upper South, an aristocratic gentry, generation upon generation of whom had grown up with slavery, held a privileged place. In the Deep South, an elite group of slaveholders gained new wealth from cotton. Some members of this group hailed from established families in the eastern states (Virginia and the Carolinas), while others came from humbler backgrounds. South Carolinian Nathaniel Heyward, a wealthy rice planter and member of the aristocratic gentry, came from an established family and sat atop the pyramid of southern slaveholders. He amassed an enormous estate; in 1850, he owned more than eighteen hundred slaves. When he died in 1851, he left an estate worth more than $2 million (approximately $63 million in 2014 dollars).

Wealthy plantation owners like Edward Lloyd came close to forming an American ruling class in the years before the Civil War. They helped shape foreign and domestic policy with one goal in view: to expand the power and reach of the cotton kingdom of the South. Socially, they cultivated a refined manner and believed whites, especially members of their class, should not perform manual labor. Rather, they created an identity for themselves based on a world of leisure in which horse racing and entertainment mattered greatly, and where the enslavement of others was the bedrock of civilization.

Below the wealthy planters were the yeoman farmers, or small landowners. Below yeomen were poor, landless whites, who made up the majority of whites in the South. These landless white men dreamed of owning land and slaves and served as slave overseers, drivers, and traders in the southern economy. In fact, owning land and slaves provided one of the only opportunities for upward social and economic mobility. In the South, living the American dream meant possessing slaves, producing cotton, and owning land.

Despite this unequal distribution of wealth, non-slaveholding whites shared with white planters a common set of values, most notably a belief in white supremacy. Whites, whether rich or poor, were bound together by racism. Slavery defused class tensions among them, because no matter how poor they were, white southerners had race in common with the mighty plantation owners. Non-slaveholders accepted the rule of the planters as defenders of their shared interest in maintaining a racial hierarchy. Significantly, all whites were also bound together by the constant, prevailing fear of slave uprisings.

Because race bound all whites together as members of the master race, non-slaveholding whites took part in civil duties. They served on juries and voted. They also engaged in the daily rounds of maintaining slavery by serving on neighborhood patrols to ensure that slaves did not escape and that rebellions did not occur. The practical consequence of such activities was that the institution of slavery, and its perpetuation, became a source of commonality among different economic and social tiers that otherwise were separated by a gulf of difference.

Southern planters exerted a powerful influence on the federal government. Seven of the first eleven presidents owned slaves, and more than half of the Supreme Court justices who served on the court from its inception to the Civil War came from slaveholding states. However, southern white yeoman farmers generally did not support an active federal government. They were suspicious of the state bank and supported President Jackson’s dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States. They also did not support taxes to create internal improvements such as canals and railroads; to them, government involvement in the economic life of the nation disrupted what they perceived as the natural workings of the economy. They also feared a strong national government might tamper with slavery.

With the rise of democracy during the Jacksonian era in the 1830s, slaveholders worried about the power of the majority. If political power went to a majority that was hostile to slavery, the South—and the honor of white southerners—would be imperiled. White southerners keen on preserving the institution of slavery bristled at what they perceived to be northern attempts to deprive them of their livelihood. Powerful southerners like South Carolinian John C. Calhoun highlighted laws like the Tariff of 1828 as evidence of the North’s desire to destroy the southern economy and, by extension, its culture. Such a tariff, he and others concluded, would disproportionately harm the South, which relied heavily on imports, and benefit the North, which would receive protections for its manufacturing centers. The tariff appeared to open the door for other federal initiatives, including the abolition of slavery. Because of this perceived threat to southern society, Calhoun argued that states could nullify federal laws. This belief illustrated the importance of the states’ rights argument to the southern states. It also showed slaveholders’ willingness to unite against the federal government when they believed it acted unjustly against their interests.

Although slavery is gone, remnants of the old elitist mindset are still common. For example, many people in the South still fear and strongly oppose a strong national government and its defense of civil liberties. They prefer authoritarian autocrats to exert power and shape society. The unequal wealth distribution of the pre-war South looks rather like the wealth distribution of today. Some things just don't seem to change much.

Based on 2010 survey data

Footnote:
Recent research suggests (summarized here) that the standard of living for most whites was higher than previous accounts from some writers who visited the Antebellum South in the 1840s through the pre-war 1860s. One observer wrote in 1863 that “for all practical purposes we may still regard Southern society as consisting of aristocratic planters and ‘white trash’”.