What Centering The White Working Class Would Mean For Democrats

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Since Donald Trump’s Presidential win, there has been the development of a narrative that the Democrats had forgotten the white working class. The narrative goes something like this: at some point over the last several decades, Democrats stopped caring about labor, and started caring only about corporations, and the white working class noticed this and stopped voting Democratic. The solution, as the narrative goes, is for Democrats to support labor and European style socialism. The narrative proponents claim that Democratic support for universal healthcare, attacking Wall Street, and free college will instantly bring the white working class back into the Democratic fold.....

The narrative has been spread far and wide by many well-known and reputable figures in politics, business, and media. I’m here to say that the narrative is complete bullshit. These white working class voters left the Democratic Party after the party passed Civil Rights in the mid-1960s. The white working class has had no problem voting for big business Republicans that oppose free college, support Wall-Street, and oppose universal healthcare. Donald Trump is readying to appoint the richest cabinet in US history, and has already installed several Goldman Sachs executives in top posts. There has been no white working class outcry at Trump pushing “wealthy neoliberal coastal elites” in his inner circle. The white working class is not in an uprising and is not devastated by the bankers Trump installed in government. They largely don’t care. That’s why the narrative is bullshit. These white working class voters aren’t voting against elites or neoliberalism. They have been find voting for elites for decades, as long as those elites seem to oppose minority interests. According to the exits, in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin (the lionized rust belt), Clinton won voters whose number one issue was the economy. The rust belt voters focused on the economy voted Democratic. But for the rust belt voters whose number one issue was terrorism or immigration, Trump won decisively.

Centering the white working class doesn’t look like democratic socialism. It doesn’t look like Bernie Sanders. It looks like Manchin and Heitkamp, two Democrats who are friendly enough with Trump to consider joining his Administration. Centering the white working class would mean a more conservative Democratic Party which is friendly with the NRA, anti-abortion, against same-sex marriage, against climate change regulations, “strong” on national security and against immigration. It means being softer on social programs and issues of wealth redistribution. Democrats shouldn’t be focused on “becoming the party of the heartland.” It would mean sacrificing much of the party’s core values in order to become GOP-lite. The party should instead focus on opposing voter suppression and gerrymandering and boosting turnout among already established demographics: Black people, Latinos, Asian Americans, and young voters

Long read but worth it

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-centering-the-white-working-class-would-mean-for-democrats-6c4975925e4b#.wcba2o3n6

[Garrett78]

1. Yep, definitely worth reading.

No Democratic candidate has won the white vote since LBJ, so this isn't a new problem. And Clinton won among the working class. If working class whites have much different expectations than working class persons of color, one must consider why that is (hint: you shouldn't need a hint).

"The party should instead focus on opposing voter suppression and gerrymandering and boosting turnout among already established demographics: Black people, Latinos, Asian Americans, and young voters."

Yep.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. also and this might sound like a terribly dismal thing to say, but if we depend on the youth vote

we should expect to lose for every 8 years a democrat is in office.

every 8 years people who are in the age group of 18-25, and do not have a great memory of the last republican president , tend to believe that R and D are too similar. they end up voting third party to express said disapproval.

as long as we depend on the youth vote, we should factor this in.

[forjusticethunders]

5. Yeah that's a huge problem

In 2012 even, people who were 25-29 were stronger for Obama than 18-24 voters, because the former group are the ones who had to get jobs in the post crash economy.

Since GOP voters don't have as many young people in their coalition, this isn't as big a problem for them.

[Garrett78]

6. The 18-24 group tends to not have yet developed party loyality.

And they more easily buy into the notion that the 2 major parties are essentially the same, as LLP points out. Because millennials are such a large bloc at this time, some have gotten the impression that party loyalty is declining, but that isn't really the case. Plus, many fail to understand that the vast majority of "independents" are actually party loyalists (even more so than partisans were 40 years ago) who just like to call themselves "independent" (this is backed up by numerous studies).

[uponit7771]

9. Yes, we should give the youth vote a floor and anything above that is gravy ... but depending on...

... a mythical higher turnout doesn't sound like winning

[uponit7771]

8. +1, even working class whites will admit they have it better than working class blacks and Latinos

[FreakinDJ]

3. Directions to a Train Wreck

If the guy knew what he was talking about...

[LexVegas]

4. "as long as those elites seem to oppose minority interests". yep. nt

[uponit7771]

7. +1, "The party should instead focus on opposing voter suppression and gerrymandering "

[RBInMaine]

10. To ignore then entire middle of the country is STUPID. This is a deeply flawed argument! Here's why:

* In the 60's, so many of these small towns and rural areas were doing SO much better economically than today. Many are now in very dire economic straights, and Trump's message of re-opening factories and attacking bad trade deals definitely resonated. No denying it.

* Obama won MANY of these working class voters that now went for Trump. So MANY do vote primarily on economics. We can't win all white working class voters back, but we can win many back with the right economic arguments and respect of their culture.

* The "either/or" argument is a load of horse shit. We are talking about boosting economic populism, not abandoning social progressivism. And, just because saying you agree with the right of legal and safe gun owners to hunt and target shoot is not abandoning progressive ideals in any way, shape, or form. A bleeding heart liberal can also be an avid hunter.

* We MUST return to our working class roots and stop being the party of corporate-lite!! And we need to be more than a party of liberal social issues. Those issues are important, but people MAINLY vote on ECONOMICS, not social issues. Any survey will tell you that JOBS AND THE ECONOMY is always the number one issue. People want something tangible for their vote.

* If we are to be the "party of the people" that means ALL the people EVERYWHERE, not only certain groups. Yes, we need to embrace all people and value all people, but that sure as heck doesn't mean ABANDONING white working class or ANY voters. Just writing them off is STUPID.

* This OP is a death knell for our party! It is this very kind of thinking which has hollowed us out at the state and local levels and has now led us to being the minority in the national government too.

* Sure we need to go after gerrymandering, but we can't do that without winning state majorities and that means we need a message for small town and rural voters too. We also need to bolster our traditional voting blocks including young people, and we do that with a powerful JOBS message too. We can not just win on identity politics and liberal social issues. We need a strong, compelling, CLEAR, working and middle class economic message too that we put FRONT AND CENTER!!

[Yurovsky]

11. While I agree with some elements of the OP, your last point is on point...

we have a huge problem outside of large cities, coastal areas, and college towns. In many of these states where the gerrymandering is at it worst, we can't hope to run the same candidates we run in NYC or Seattle or Miami, we have to run candidates that are as progressive as the local political climate - at present - will allow. That doesn't mean we get a pro-choice Klan member to run in Pigsnuckle, Arkansas, but it does mean that we may have to compromise on some finer points until such time that the locals realize progressives aren't the agents of Satan and we're actually going to HELP them. Once you start filling up the state houses with Democrats - some of them possibly at odds with certain DNC positions but fundamentally progessive in terms of government's role in improving the lives of those in need - well, then we can not only enact laws and policies that make a difference in average people's lives, but we can end the gerrymandering fiascos that have helped the GOP seize power with less than half the population's support.

Over time, the less progressive elected officials will either evolve or be replaced by more progressive party members. But we have to start someplace, and we can't expect the folks in Jesusland to jump from 1860 to 2016 overnight. It may take a decade or more, but we need to get to work. Some of them are just too stupid to evolve on their own. We can help. Some of them will fight. We should be prepared for that as well.

[Garrett78]

12. And among those for whom the economy is the top issue, Clinton won.

Clinton and Democrats already campaign on economics...to a far more substantial degree than Trump did. Trump spewed lies and vague gobbledygook. "We're looking at jobs--big league jobs." Um, okay.

Clinton campaigned on universal early childhood education, expansion of health insurance, 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, generating "enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term," a substantial increase to the federal minimum wage, equal pay for women, debt-free and more affordable college, free community college, "a $25 billion fund will support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions," the development of new green industries, massive infrastructure investment, etc.

And Clinton won among the working class. If some (not all) white working class voters have much different expectations than the working class overall, it's not difficult to determine why.

[kcr]

14. Yes. Your last sentence in particular is important.

Only a segment of the working class actually votes for Trump. He does not have the entire working class vote in his pocket. And that segment does so because they're racist. They cannot be won back, certainly not with an economic message. They aren't the reason we lose. It is a fool's errand to chase after them. Trump has them solidly in his corner. He has them along with all the rest of the GOP voters, including a lot of rich elites, the vast majority of whom are racists.

That isn't to say that Dems don't need to strengthen their economic message, but the reason isn't to win back these mythical voters we lost. They were never ours to begin with. The GOP, with Reagan destroyed our middle class. The Dems didn't do that. The vast majority of people in that class still vote Dem the way they always have. It's the same racists who vote GOP who always have. We shift to the right in a misguided attempt to win them, we damage our party.

[Garrett78]

15. Yep.

I don't know why that's so difficult for some to grasp.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. the post never said to ignore. said don't center your policy stances around this

we are already the people of the working class, there is nothing to return to

[betsuni]

16. K&R