Democrats lost the White working class. Their Party left them.
Republicans lost the White college educated. Their Party left them, too.
Like a lot of things in American politics, it goes back to the 1960's and the culture war.
Commentary, including this blog, has examined the dismay of Democrats. In past decades Democrats did not just lose the "Solid South;" they lost the White working class in the North. Youth agitation in opposition to the Vietnam War triggered backlash from blue collar voters of the WW2 generation. It wasn't about money or share of national income. Economically, this was the best of times for America's blue collar workers. Working class Americans were angry about style and attitude. It was hardhats vs. hippies and anti-war protesters. It was the opening salvos of a culture war that is still going on.
Marketers labeled it the "Generation Gap." Jefferson Airplane sang "One generation got old; One generation got soul." The young seemed disrespectful, unpatriotic, rebellious--and it was intentional. Jefferson Airplane, again:
"We are obscene, lawless, hideous, dangerous, dirty, violent----and young."
Those "hardhat" Democrats felt out of place in the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton was a clean cut establishment version of the unpatriotic, disrespectful youth generation, but he was one of them. Non-college construction workers and truck drivers and blue collar workers, especially the men, didn't like the company Democrats kept inside the party--Blacks, women, gays, the unchurched all calling for social change--and somehow accusing those White men for being part of the problem. Democratic officeholders didn't call them out for condemnation, not well enough. Oh, there was a Sister Soulja moment here and there, but day in and day out, Democratic leaders seemed actually to agree with the aspirations of those groups. The White working class wanted out.
Meanwhile, Republicans.
Nixon succeeded politically by choosing the side of the "Silent Majority" in that fight, but the real spokesman for culture war was George Wallace. His political heir was Republican Pat Buchanan, who lost to George HW Bush, but whose cause of old fashioned patriotic and cultural indignation festered. John McCain used Joe the Plumber as the symbol of the resentment, but it was Sarah Palin who exemplified working class populism fully. She did not know much, but she was proudly who she was, and she knew that she disliked experts and liberal, latte-sipping snobs. That led to Donald Trump.
Once again, some voters are uncomfortable with the company they are keeping--this time Republicans. College classmate Jeffrey Lauranti drew my attention to the political cost of the GOP becoming a populist party. The people up for grabs in 2020 aren't really those "suburban housewives" afraid that Cory Booker might move into their neighborhoods. It is the nonvoters among the White working class. They are Trump's people, which means those college educated suburbanites are not.
After college, Jeff Laurenti studied international relations and public policy at Princeton and then had a long career doing foreign policy analysis and advocacy. He was a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation.
Guest Post by Jeffrey Laurenti
"There are surely a number of factors whose confluence has produced the suddenly yawning gap after 2012 in voting preferences between white college graduates and non-graduates. Looking at the Pew data, the decisive lurch toward Republicans among white voters without a college degree occurred in 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration -- certainly not a time of great economic distress. Indeed, in Democratic circles there was much self-congratulation about having successfully turned the tables on the old Republican issue of fiscal deficits, since Clinton was running federal budget surpluses.
One might conclude that this large chunk of the electorate, however, was unimpressed by "New Democrat" economics: Democrats have made little headway among whites without a college degree in any of the 21st century presidential elections, losing this demographic by some 20 to 25 percentage points each time around after holding a narrow lead in the 1990s. Or maybe it had nothing to do with economics at all.
Perhaps this headlong rush of the non-college educated into the open arms of the Republican Party perversely may itself have contributed to the astonishing spike in Democratic voting preferences among the college-educated since 2015. I have long thought that John McCain's 2008 selection of Sarah Palin as his choice for vice-president, plus his elevation of "Joe the Plumber" in October of that year as the totem of his target voter, would prove the watershed moment in the re-branding of the Republican Party. Till then it had been the party of successful people, of people the upwardly aspiring college-educated middle classes could admire and want to emulate--people like George Bush, John McCain, and even Richard Cheney.
Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Veep were not cut from this cloth. Their face of the Republican Party became more visible in the 2010 "Tea Party" insurgency, and while old-school Mitt Romney contained them in 2012, they were still stewing in their own bile waiting for their moment. The GOP's post-Romney "autopsy" identified an urgent need to reach out to the new demographics if the Party was not to be consigned nationally to the dustbin of history the way it had been in California and the Northeast; the Party's low-education base would have none of it, and found its champion in Donald Trump.
While Trump has largely placated the plutocratic imperatives of the Party's donor class, there is no doubt that he has embraced the Party's lower-education voters as its core. You have to wonder whether the gun-carrying, MAGA-cap wearing brawlers whom the public sees flocking to Trump rallies have become the know-nothing face of today's Republican Party -- and whether they are not themselves a big part of what is propelling the college-educated middle classes to the Democrats."
5 comments:
I covered most of this in my Ashland Tidings Op Ed of August 24. Although my friend John Marciano has provided me some evidence that the backlash from blue collar workers against student protests was not as prevalent as often reported (See Hard Hat Riot, May 8, 1970 in New York).
There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the current "aisle." Clinton and the neoliberals do NOT get a pass in my view. He alienated millions of voters with the passage of NAFTA, the abandonment of unions, deregulation, and the removal of Glass-Steagall, etc., not to mention shennigans in the White House. The backlash of the Tea Party was inevitable but it got coopted by the Tumpsters. Now, all it seems we can do is adopt either/or positions: either it's climate change or mismanagement of the forests...not possibly both. Any liberal or conservative who paints with a broad brush based on the actions of a minority from the "other side" contributes to the fiction (eg. all protesters are "looters;" all Trump supporters are "gun totin' ignoramuses").
Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms are the containers for the fuel and many of their "contributors" are pathetically eager to provide the match. Sadly, we have lost our way and will likely suffer for that because, while class struggle is high, class consciousness is low. Sans Sanders' populism, both "sides" have been stuck with supporting leaders who are best at lining the pockets of their wealthy contributors at the expense of we the people. And, yeah, I'm voting for Biden and, yeah, I plan on being a thorn in his POTUS behind, until the next generation can (hopefully) clean up the mess we've left them.
Andy Seles
Undecided voters will probably decide the election this year, but that phrase means something new in 2020. There are probably not that many voters left who are having trouble choosing between Biden and Trump, so "undecided" means whether they will decide to vote or not.
Trump voters have been reported to be very enthusiastic about voting for him. Biden does not generate that level of excitement, but many voters are very enthusiastic about voting against Trump. I think that the balance between those enthusiasms will determine the outcome of the election.
I will repeat yet again for the benefit of people who read Andy Seles carefully, that the fault is not with Clinton, nor with moderates, nor with centrists, nor with neo-liberals that we have baby steps of progress that seem to progressives to be merely "lining the pockets of contributors" and part of the problem. The problem is that leftist progressives have failed to make their case. They sabotage themselves and therefore the public. They are tone deaf to majority feeling.
Some of their loudest spokespeople justify arson, calling it long overdue body language of the oppressed. They decry capitalism and say we need socialism and confiscation of wealth because property is theft. They scare people. They manage to pull together a visible and angry niche of college town socialists and get themselves on TV and serve as the ideal opponent for their own worst opponents. They make progressive change harder.
Once again, I urge progressive readers of this blog to get real. Run for office. Find out where the majority tipping point of opinion is and be to the left of it. Make a difference on the side of progress. If Americans actually wanted a workers paradise of wealth confiscation they would vote for it. If progressives think that is really a great idea, then sell it. Create the majority you seek.
I am happy that Andy says he will vote for Biden, but since he and like minded people have not yet sold those ideas to the public he creates possibly dozens of people who will vote for Trump, or for Republican state and federal representative offices, because socialist activists have convinced them that the left will take away their money, their guns, their freedom.
Bottom line: if progressives have failed to sell their ideas to something close to a majority, then quit complaining about leftist politicians who want actually to get a majority of the votes. Sabotage them if you insist--I cannot stop you--but I can describe it for what it is: being a tool of your opponents.
Prove me wrong: run for something, persuade a majority of people to vote for you. And please don't complain about donors and money being the problem. Bernie had more money than anyone else. He got his niche, his minority, Good for him. I wish he had persuaded more people with all the money he had to spend. But he didn't..
The problem is, you are towards the pragmatic end of a scale that has idealism at its other end. I am towards the pragmatic end also, so what you are saying makes sense to me.
Statements that rioting and arson are "the language of the oppressed" sound like a threat to many people. Threaten enough people in this manner, and you are well on the way to repeating the 1968 "law and order" campaign and reelecting Donald Trump.
But people who are more towards the idealistic end of the scale will not be moved by arguments like this. In my experience, they will tend to think that they haven't expressed themselves loudly or clearly enough. So when riots and arson do not produce the results they want, some of them will look for alternatives that are clearer and louder, and will produce an even larger backlash against their movement.
Peter said regarding the Left: "They are tone deaf to majority feeling." I think you, Peter, mean the majority of Democrats' feelings...not the majority of Americans. My personal experience with this is the traction I got on the Bernie campaign in 2012 with Independents and Conservatives (Hillary liberals actually slammed the door in my face). Whatever happened to the ability of Democrats to embrace nuance? Too complicated I guess in these polarized times. If you don't go tribal, you risk being called a "mole," "too idealistic" or "not a team player."
Rather than blaming Bernie for failing to win the nomination to the THIRD PLACE CANDIDATE why don't you stop blaming the victim and devote a little tome to research the rigging within the Democratic Party, starting with Wasserman-Shultz, Donna Brazile, the "damn emails" and up through the undemocratic selection of party insider Perez for DNC chair and the blacklisting of vendors and consultants by the DCCC and DSCC who work for truly progressive incumbent challengers. (Of course, Pelosi changed her mind on that rule when it came to Ed Markey and the Green New Deal.) Harris and Buttigeig's "Monday night massacre? Nothing to see here, folks. And then the hypocrites wonder why the Party keeps shedding members. I have an idea: stop poking the bear.
And, I wish you'd drop the "why don't you run for office" schtick, Peter. Jackson County is in for a big surprise this November. I'm 73 and not in any position to run for office but there is a whole generation of younger folks being mentored by us so-called "socialists." BTW, you know darn well that FDR saved capitalism (after it metastisized) with a good dose of socialism; hell, Hillary even owned that fact.
Andy Seles
Post a Comment