Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She recently edited and contributed to “For Love and Money: Care Provision in the United States.“

One explanation of Mitt Romney’s defeat in the presidential race focuses on the growing demographic diversity of the electorate. The declining share of white men in the voting population clearly had an impact. But another underlying factor – one that reflects economic rather than demographic dynamics – also deserves consideration.

Today's Economist Perspectives from expert contributors.

The economic interests of capitalists (defined as those who earn most of their income from capital) are beginning to diverge significantly from the interests of social conservatives (defined as those who prefer traditional gender relations and oppose government efforts to promote racial and ethnic equality).

In other words, the symbolic marriage of capitalism and conservatism is showing signs of strain.

It was never an idyllic relationship. The early growth of capitalism weakened the pre-existing patriarchal feudal system. In the late 18th century, Edmund Burke, the Irish writer and member of Parliament considered one of the founders of modern conservatism, famously warned that the single-minded pursuit of economic self-interest would undermine hallowed traditions.

Yet in many ways capitalism was shaped by those traditions, as it interacted with inequalities based on gender, race, ethnicity and citizenship. For much of its history in the United States, capitalism benefited a relatively wide swath of farmers, small business people and union members – white male heads of household with considerable power over how their money would be spent in their families and how their tax dollars would be distributed in their communities.



After a rocky period during the Great Depression and an economic recovery linked to both New Deal policies and military mobilization, the United States economy enjoyed steady gains in family income. The period between 1950 and the mid-1970s is sometimes termed the Golden Age.

Many women and people of color gained new opportunities as they gradually moved into higher echelons of wage employment. Until the 21st century, however, they did not represent a significant threat to the economic or cultural hegemony of white men.

One of the most beneficial consequences of a pattern of capitalist development shaped by political democracy was a growing demand for human capital that helped members of previously disempowered groups compete effectively for economic success and political leadership.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are important icons of this economic shift. Their success, symbolizing that of many who share their demographic characteristics, has fostered resentment partly because it has come during a period of declining median family income.

But neither resentment nor recession hurt the Democratic Party as much as they might have, for three reasons. First, growing publicity about income inequality has called attention to a growing class divide that has left many social conservatives bewildered by their deteriorating position. Mr. Romney, as well as many of his most visible political donors, looked down on most of the white electorate from mountains of personal wealth.

Second, the polarization of income itself reflects the evolution of a partly denationalized form of capitalism in which our largest companies create more jobs in other countries than at home and minimize their tax payments in overseas tax shelters.

During the race for the Republican nomination, Newt Gingrich condemned Bain Capital, the firm that Mitt Romney helped build, as a form of “vulture capitalism.”

He explicitly contrasted capitalist and conservative ideals:

There’s a big difference between people who go out and create a company – even if they fail – if they try to go in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together. That’s one thing. But if someone who is very wealthy comes in and takes over your company and takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment? I think that’s not a model we want to advocate, and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.

Third, the role that the powerful banking sector played in the recession highlighted growing divisions within the business community. As Mr. Gingrich also explained:

Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street. Small businesses have always worried about big businesses. I’m very uncomfortable when I see seven or eight banks take 80 percent of the market share and crowd out small independent banks, and I think people have a natural concern when they see financiers come in from out of town, take over a company, take all the profit and then leave people unemployed behind.

Litigation over swipe fees for debit and credit cards also reflects Main Street versus Wall Street. Within the retail sector, the growth of megaretailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon has hurt prospects for many small businesses.

Conservatives are, almost by definition, resistant to change. Most still cling to their romance with an earlier, more attractive form of capitalism – that handsome, dependable breadwinner whose occasional infidelities were largely concealed from view.

But the concerns they express about the weakening of family ties apply quite clearly to concerns about the weakening of community ties. Consider what David Brooks of The New York Times recently wrote about the problem of “too many possibilities”:

People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They’re better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice – commitments to family, God, craft and country.

Couldn’t the same be said of major corporations?

Capitalists and conservatives should ask who’s committed to whom, and for how long. Not all marriages are made in heaven.