Summary Of Nicholas Carnes 'Cash Ceiling'

In The Cash Ceiling: Why Only the Rich Run for Office and What We Can Do About It, Nicholas Carnes constructs an argument that seeks to answer the question as to why rich people run the American political system and why working class Americans do not hold political office. Carnes utilizes various studies and surveys to address the numerous components that play into the decision making process of running for office, as well as the characteristics voters look for in candidates. His argument first addresses the fact that the qualities voters view as important in political candidates do not vary to the extent that they would cause the discrepancy in descriptive representation. Using public perception surveys, working class individuals and elites

After presenting evidence to support his argument, Carnes proposes some reform efforts that he considers to be “empty promises” and explains why they fail to tackle the root causes of this disparity. Carnes also highlighted the solutions that he believes will be effective at combating the issue. One of Carnes’ major strengths throughout this entire novel is responding to potential counterarguments and previous lines of thought. He spends a great deal of time breaking down previously understood theories, like EXAMPLE THEORY NAME and why they do not necessarily hold true when examining the core reasons why workers do not engage in political office (Carnes pg number). The Cash Ceiling is incredibly compelling, clearly well researched, and compiled very effectively. Carnes includes an abundance of data to help support his argument and structures the data and analysis in a manner very accessible to the reader. Carnes’ argument is well developed throughout the novel and easy to

The third reform area Carnes targets is expanding access to higher education, claiming that this reform is not responsive to the barriers that actually prevent workers from pursuing office (Carnes 167). However, he only addresses the fact that education would change the qualifications of the individuals, which many people who were surveyed did not consider to be the problem preventing workers from engaging in politics. Carnes largely fails to consider the fact that a college degree opens individuals up to many more employment pathways and other opportunities to become involved in politics that they do not have in the status quo. The purpose of education is not just to strengthen the qualities that voters find important, but rather to give individuals access to the resources they need to be able to run for office in the first place. One of the major barriers Carnes addresses is the fact that working class individuals frequently lack access to politically powerful people who would recruit them to run for political office (Carnes pg