POLITICS JUNE 20, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Each election cycle there occurs a tired ritual, in which pundits and reporters rediscover that yes, indeed, there are still a lot of white working class voters in America, and they represent a serious vulnerability for the Democrats. But just this once, let’s skip the period where everyone initially ignores this group and cut straight to the chase: There will be a lot of white working class voters showing up at the polls next November, and the degree to which they support (or abandon) President Obama could very well make or break his reelection.
In 2008, during his otherwise-solid election victory, Obama lost the white working class vote by 18 points. In 2010, however, things got much worse: Congressional Democrats’ experienced a catastrophic 30 point deficit among the same group. While the first number is a figure Obama could live with repeating, the second could very well prove fatal.
Indeed, if Republicans can replicate that 30 point deficit in 2012—a margin which seems increasingly possible given the recent bad news about the economy—Obama will have little to no room for error among his other constituencies. For example, even if, as expected, the share of minority voters increases from 26 to around 28 percent in the next election and Obama receives the typical 75 percent of that vote, while the share of white working class voters declines by another 3 percentage points, a 30 point hole in Obama’s white working class support would mean that the overall support he needs to win the election was teetering right on the knife’s edge. In such a scenario, Obama would have to hold essentially all of his white college graduate support from 2008 (47 percent, a historic high for Democrats) to be assured of victory.
And make no mistake about it, GOP strategy for 2012 will start with the white working class and attempt to drive up support among this group as high as possible. As an example, just take Romney’s recently declared strategy:
Romney advisers see a disconnect between the president’s announcements of real progress on the economy at a time when there is, in the words of one, “a massive disaster out there with people’s lives.” They argue that, on economic issues, Obama still has trouble connecting with voters, particularly those from the white working class.
These tactics are likely to pay big dividends both nationally and, even more importantly, in the states where the election is actually decided. Consider the case of Ohio, a state the GOP must take back to take down Obama. White working class voters could end up representing as much as 56 percent of Ohio voters in 2012, judging from Census voter supplement data. Anything close to a 30 point deficit in 2012 will almost definitely sink Obama in this state, no matter what happens with the friendlier portions of the Ohio electorate.
Or take Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, other states that are vulnerable to a white working class collapse. Florida’s 29 electoral votes would assure Obama’s re-election, assuming he manages to carry the 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, that Democrats have carried in every presidential election since 1992 (which, together, represent a total of 241 electoral votes). Compared to Ohio, Florida’s white working class is smaller (a projected 42 percent of voters in 2012), but a 30 point deficit would still torpedo Obama’s chances, putting this must-win state for the GOP firmly in their column. Nevada (42 percent white working class in 2012) and Colorado (46 percent), meanwhile, would also be put in serious doubt should Obama’s support among this group crater in 2012.
Even more alarmingly, the white working class vote provides the perfect way for the GOP to drive a wedge into those 241 electoral votes Democrats have held for five straight presidential elections. Contested states with high proportions of white working class voters like Minnesota (60 percent white working class in 2012), Wisconsin (58 percent), Pennsylvania (55 percent), and Michigan (53 percent) could easily be flipped if this group flees from Obama.
But how likely is such a white working class surge toward the GOP in 2012? From the standpoint of Obama and the Democrats, scarily so. It’s important to remember that this is the group that has been the bulwark of every GOP victory going back to Richard Nixon in 1968. And it is the group recently termed by journalist Ronald Brownstein as, “[T]he most pessimistic group in America.” In a recent Pew Economic Mobility Project poll, only one-third of working class whites thought today’s children would live better than they do, far below the levels of confidence expressed by minorities and college-educated whites. And in a recent National Journal poll, only a third of white working class voters took a positive view of recent Census findings on the country’s fast growing minority population, with 58 percent endorsing instead the pessimistic view that these trends are “happening too quickly,” and undermining fundamental American values at a time of high unemployment.
These views are obviously rooted in the bleak economic situation confronting most members of the white working class. While that’s bad enough, what’s worse is that the economy is showing no signs of the kind of progress that might take the edge off these sentiments. This should worry the Obama team greatly and encourage the so-called “pivot” to the jobs issue that the administration is considering. A deal on debt reduction, however desirable for other reasons, will be no substitute for better economic conditions, especially among this difficult demographic.
To be sure, the good news for Obama is that the level of support he needs from this group of voters is not terribly high. While a 30 point deficit might sink him, he could survive pretty easily on a 23 point deficit, John Kerry’s margin in 2004. That Obama would likely win with this very large deficit, while Kerry lost, indicates just how much the demographics of the country have changed in the 8 years since Kerry’s defeat. But while the bar for Obama may be lower, he still needs to clear it, and at the moment, that’s looking like a real challenge.
Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Follow @tnr
31 comments
The absurdity of American politics continues: I don't like the fact that the demographics of the country are changing. I better vote for the GOP since they are likely to somehow increase the amount of children white people have!
- MikeB.
June 20, 2011 at 6:42am
The question is why does the white working class believe the GOP does a better job handling the economy? It would not be from past GOP performance on the economy because they've done nothing. As a matter of fact, one could argue that they are (almost) solely responsible for the economic mess we are in right now. So what could it be? Why does this group defy logic by voting against their self interest? And why do the Clintons do so well among them?
- scrubby
June 20, 2011 at 8:23am
Scrubby, the problem with white working-class types is that they don't do a whole lot of thinking about political issues. If the economy is bad, they simply blame the party in power and vote for the other party. The fact that Republicans caused all the economic problems we're experiencing doesn't matter to them, if they even remember what started it all. Most people seem to have about a three-month political memory. It's the GOP strategy to keep unemployment high among middle-class workers, regardless of what pain it causes. They see a high unemployment rate as their ticket back to power, so watch them fight against any measures that would increase the number of jobs. Of course, they'll say that they're opposed simply because such measures would increase the deficit, and we can't afford to do that.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
June 20, 2011 at 9:39am
It would take very little for Democrats to recover a substantial share of this vote in Texas. But, it would take a patriotic/populist/progressive Democratic Party here, not a decrepit patronage-chain dominated by friends of John Edwards and other lawyers at the top and self-styled identity-group hustlers at the bottom. That has been the origin of recurrent catastrophe here since 1994. But, it is the constitution of the DSCC/DCCC, hence, even of the Texas delegation at the DNC: These self-serving drones have brought the Democratic Party to ruin in Texas. We have the largest "delegation" of ex-legislators in The Lobby and a majority of them are "Democrats" representing pretty much anybody that will pay them, the rentier-class, not the working class. Duh! They have brought down every Democratic President since FDR in their zeal to protect the last remnants of what were their lucrative concession-tending fees over the course of the Great, World, and Cold War. But, by building a mobilization-type party with actual discipline on the ground in Texas, the GOP -- led by ex-Democrats like Rick Perry -- is eating away the market share of "Democratic Lobbyists" in Washington. The GOP is ruling this state today with only about 30% of the voters out of a generally depressed and demoralized electorate with a potential, but usually non-voting, Democratic majority. So long as sycophancy flows up in return for increasingly petty patronage flowing down from Washington into the "Speaker's Claque" in Austin (w/ no Democratic Speaker) and Local Chapters of the DSCC/DCCC in any Texas city w/ a "nationally recognized firm of bond-lawyers", there is simply no reason that the working-class, regardless of race, religion, or gender, should vote for a party run by would-be Gregory Peck types practicing clientism as politics while living in a nostalgic world of legally-correct but fundamentally corrupt, condescending, and cringing liberalism. The clerical establishment of the Texas Party -- white, male, lawyers almost exclusively -- think they are in a movie: To Kill a Mockingbird, but it is really just a Grisham novel, The Appeal.
- JRBehrman
June 20, 2011 at 9:49am
Scrubby writes: " As a matter of fact, one could argue that they are (almost) solely responsible for the economic mess we are in right now." Except, after two years, Obama himself says that he "owns" the economy. And he's done nothing to get it going (except for shoveling a few hundred billion to unions). The rest of the world is emerging from their recession. We usually lead the exit, but Asia and parts of Europe are killing us right now. Why is that? You could also argue that were it not for Obama's efforts, this housing-fueled blip would not have been so deep and so long. In other words, had someone else been at the helm, this would have looked like the 9/11 recession: A brief hiccup from which we quickly recovered. In retrospect, it's amazing that 9/11 wasn't a deeper and wider recession. A $1T attack on our economy, with experts assuring us that more were to come. They'd come like clockwork on malls and subways. And yet it was the smallest of economic mishaps. Why was that? Make no mistake, if any other president were in charge the 2008 recession would have been over a while ago.
- seattleeng
June 20, 2011 at 11:06am
Then it seems Romney is in a poor position to capitalize on working class white disaffection. Hard to imagine a country-club Republican who opposed the auto bailouts and made his money laying off people could mobilize this base.
- polcereal
June 20, 2011 at 11:12am
Contrary to what Scrubby writes, Clinton didn't do all that spectacularly well with the white working-class in general elections. Though, of course, Hilary did better with them in Democratic primaries against a black man. Go figure. JRBehrman rants against lawyers, lobbyists and corporate interests and I share his distaste, but the idea that white working class voters in Texas would support a more populist Democrat on the basis of her economic platform rather than his cultural appeal (and their sense of connection with him) is projection to the point of delusion. The big, religious 6'2" white guy with the drawl and the macho stance will beat the Latina economic populist amongst those Texan voters every time. And will for as long as they are alive. DavedD nails it when he says the white working-class votes largely votes on the basis of the economy. For a fine example of this phenomena as well as the gross ignorance that many of these voters harbor (when it comes to Obama) you couldn't do much better than look at Seattleeng's charmingly bonkers post.
- mtinora@me.com
June 20, 2011 at 11:40am
Seattle, I would imagine that the 2008 recession would be a lot worse if President McCain was following the neo-Hooverite urgings of his advisers for the economy to find its natural bottom and rapidly accelerating deficit-cutting by laying off tens of thousands of Federal workers and discontinuing all aid to states and the unemployed -- but who knows? That course of action didn't work in 1929-32, but it could work today, right? After all, it's worked in other countries in the midst of massive demand-driven recessions ... except that I can't think of one at the moment. I'm sure it will come to me one of these days. Oh, and we're the only ones in recession today (even if we're technically not in recession, but who's counting)? Care to ask anyone in the UK if they are not in recession, though their government is busy slashing public funding and holding to a tight monetary policy so that credit confidence will return? I won't even mention Japan or practically every country in Europe outside Germany, whose growth is based mostly on a weakened Euro and consequent strong exports to developing countries. As for Obama and the white working class, it seems that something needs to be said for the age breakdown here. Working-age white working-class voters are likely to blame the party in power for economic misery without thinking too much about the ultimate cause, as has been their wont for many years -- though I agree that a guy like Romney is a poor candidate to flip their votes. In an Obama-Romney matchup, many of these voters would just sit out the election or vote for a third-party candidate if a major one materializes (maybe Donald Trump or someone like him). On the flip side, white working-class voters who are retired still consider overall economic conditions, but their own Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which pays for their nursing homes and home health care) are also huge factors. This is where Republicans have actually hurt themselves by passing and continuing to embrace the Ryan budget, as these voters perceive quite rationally that the Medicare/Medicaid cuts are aimed at them and people like them. That alone might be enough to flip a fair amount of retired white working-class voters to Obama, or at least away from a Republican who continues to beat the drum for Ryancare.
- wildboy
June 20, 2011 at 11:44am
I've been a member of the UAW, the Teamsters (Jimmy Hoffa's Local 299 in Detroit), and the SEIU, and I noticed as early as the Sixties that white working-class people vote mostly Republican because they are resentful of certain classes of people, a resentment that the Republicans gleefully exploit. Plus, working-class whites fancy themselves as landlords. I knew a guy in Morgantown, West Virginia who delivered furniture with me. He made a little over $2 an hour and was part owner of a rental house where he stuck students with high rents. Mean-spirited resentments and greed are why people vote Republican. Blaming Obama for a slow economic recovery is beyond ridiculous. Business is BOOMING in America under a so-called socialist President. Corporate America made ALL-TIME RECORD PROFITS in 2010. Plus interest rates can't go any lower. This is a Republican formula for an explosion of job growth. But corporate America, while paying almost no taxes and feeding at the government subsidy trough themselves, refuse to hire American workers, including the working-class whites who vote for them. Any member of the working class who votes Republican is literally cutting his own throat, but mean-spiritedness trumps intelligence every time. The problem for America is that the mean-spirited can bring down others around them.
- magboy47.
June 20, 2011 at 12:05pm
If their concern's center around the economy, why not bang them over the head over and over again with David Stockman's statement about austerity making the jobs situation worse, “Yes, the scenario is pretty grim.” and about his own prediction of another decade of double-digit unemployment. “It sounds like very harsh medicine, but it happens to be a very harsh reality.” Air it on the show they watch. Run it in the magazines they read. Thank Stockman for his honesty in refusing to buy into the fantasy that austerity promotes growth, then ask the Republicans if they endorse Stockman's shock therapy or prefer the fantasies about the confidence fairy.
- sighthnd
June 20, 2011 at 12:11pm
Srubby asks "The question is why does the white working class believe the GOP does a better job handling the economy?" I asked why on earth someone would invent white chocolate then I realized that there are people out there that just can't bring themselves to try real chocolate in all of its varieties. It is just too foreign and strange to them despite all of the goodness that is real chocolate. White chocolate gloms onto the word 'chocolate' to pass itself off as an alternative to chocolate without having any thing to do with chocolate. The GOP is the white chocolate of the political world and thought. The GOP usurps words that the working class can relate to - like jobs, morals, "American Values", economic freedom, entitlements like medicare and SS, support of corporate (cough welfare cough) subsidies like ethanol, oil & gas, and massive upper bracket tax cuts disguised as middle class tax reform and then covers them all in a pale, bland, fat-filled, tooth decaying, slightly-off-tasting concoction called white chocolate while telling you that bitter, semi-sweet, milk or spicy chocolate are not the real deal.
- singlspeed
June 20, 2011 at 12:13pm
Grimes, you're probably right about the Latina economic populist lacking for white-working class votes. So run someone like Jim Webb, instead. Problem solved.
- Curran1
June 20, 2011 at 1:32pm
I for one would not envy the Romney campaign strategist who has to figure out how to sell Romney's opposition the auto bailout in Ohio or Michigan. Hmmm, we saved GM and Chrysler directly, Ford indirectly (be preventing thier parts suppliers from sinking along with GM and Chrysler). And that nasty US government made money on the deal. Maybe the table is set for Obama to defy Barnum's aphorism that you can never lose by understimating the intelligence of the American public. Maybe.
- gwcross
June 20, 2011 at 1:35pm
I really do think there is a class resentment element in the white working class vote. Bill and Hillary capture some of the chaotic elements of a working class marriage. Bill, in particular, is really believable when he says he shares their pain. Here's a guy who grew up working class, his Mom liked to go to Vegas, he smoked dope and went to school on scholarship. So what if he slept around? He earned it and then he married this rich chick from the other side of the tracks. It's like a working guy's dream career. Obama, on the other hand, is this law school professor from Harvard who grew up with a bunch of hippies. As far as I can tell he never did a day of physical labor in his life. He is supported by either these do gooder rich types like Kerry or Gates or those weird identity politics types like feminists, gay rights activists and other "community organizers." The result is a set of policies that are Republican lite. My guess is that working class voters figure they'll get screwed either way so why not screw the Democrats who basically traitors to their class. That is why the Democrats should model their future candidates less of the model of JFK (who barely beat Nixon anyhow) and more on the model of Truman and Lyndon Johnson who for all their faults were obviously real men.
- poldpf
June 20, 2011 at 2:09pm
pold... Reading your comment makes me wonder if you actually realize that the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) are decidedly NOT working class. Bill went to Georgetown, was a Rhodes scholar to Oxford, he wears custom suits and makes bundles of cash doing speaking gigs. Sure his mom left him with his grandparents while she went to nursing school, sure she went to Vegas but that doesn't prove Slick Willy was/is more "working class" than Obama. Obama's mother raised him singlehanded more or less with help her parents as well. The issue is "working class" white people see a half-black guy that got "all the free breaks" they didn't but think they deserve despite all of their hard working bona fides. I supported Obama and I'm certainly no do-gooder rich person with weird identity politics. I'm a white guy that grew up a very middle-class household and put myself through college.
- singlspeed
June 20, 2011 at 2:50pm
Singls, I agree with you to a certain extent. But in politics, especially in appealing to people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics, (after all, they have bigger fish to fry) perception is reality. Clinton did have this common man touch (and let's face it, the common man isn't all goodness and light). He's not running for anything now and living the high life. Consequently, I'm not sure he could win another general election. But when he did run, he was one of us. As far as Obama is concerned, of course I support Obama, and I'm not from the strata of Mr. Heinz Ketchup or Andrea Dworkin. Obama can play all the basketball he wants but the fact remains that he's a really smart college professor whose only callus comes from playing golf. I honestly don't think he can overcome that problem or should even try. But it does make him vulnerable to rejection by people who don't think when they vote but feel. And they don't feel as if he's one of them. I get the sense you are a policy voter, so am I. And even though Obama is hardly my perfect candidate, he's better than the alternative and that's how I vote. But I'm a political junkie and so, I expect, are you. We can't impute to the white working class attributes that we ourselves have, but they do not.
- poldpf
June 20, 2011 at 3:46pm
"But it does make him vulnerable to rejection by people who don't think when they vote but feel. " Amen to that statement. Although I cringe when I think about it. The fact that so many people vote with how they feel versus thinking. I voted for Obama because he was one of the only candidates at the time that even talked about enacting policies that addressed the long-term goals and needs of the nation. Infrastructure, education, environment, etc. and said it was going to take more than 4 years to fix what has taken 40 years to screw up. I agree with you that he won't be able to overcome the feelings that people have about him being too aloof or detached. But that versus an angry, spittle-flying, madman at the helm, I'll take Obama's professorial tone and approach any day. It's funny that you mention imputing the white working class attributes. I have co-workers that are convinced I came from some well-heeled background of country clubs and yacht racing simply because I follow politics, read books, don't watch NASCAR and won't eat fried foods if I can help it. Ah well...the only thing you and I can do is keep on truckin' and try our best to softly guide our fellow working class stiffs towards the enlightened light. I find a case of Miller Lite and bait fishing does the trick to help lubricate the mind. Which reminds me, time to embrace my inner-redneck and plan a fishing trip soon.
- singlspeed
June 20, 2011 at 4:02pm
As Teixeira says, it's "looking like a real challenge". But it's a challenge O should take up. I think Ruy is just advocating trying to buy white workers off with some rhetoric about jobs. That seems specious and condescending to me. Obama will not pass anything that will meaningfully effect the unemployment number by November 2012. That cake is baked. Pretending otherwise will only confirm white workers' fears that Obama is engaged in creating more government programs for them and their kids to pay for rather than jobs they can get. On the other hand, treating white workers like adults with some results in terms of addressing our current fiscal priorities would go a long way towards reinforcing their natural tendency to vote for The President.
- Robert Powell
June 20, 2011 at 5:46pm
It is worth recalling that this group was at the center of the old Roosevelt coalition. Until there is serious analysis of why the switch has occurred, it is likely that Democrats will continue to do poorly with that group. I would suggest three factors (not an inclusive list): 1. The patronizing tone many liberals take towards them (especially those liberals who attempt to explain their behavior). For example the claim that working class whites vote Republican because they are too stupid to know their own interest. 2. The fallacy, that because some whites are doing well, working class whites are less deserving of help than members of other groups. Just because Bill Gates is in my group does not mean I am a multimillionaire. 3. The decline of union enrollment means that a steadily larger portion of working class whites don't feel that unions are acting in their interest.
- brthompson
June 20, 2011 at 5:53pm
Great comment, Brthompson--and tremendously important. singlspeed: "I agree with you that he won't be able to overcome the feelings that people have about him being too aloof or detached. But that versus an angry, spittle-flying, madman at the helm" This is a false dichotomy. One doesn't have to be an upper middle class rational liberal not to be a spittle-flying madman. There's plenty of space for intelligent, rational politicians on the left who nevertheless have some working class affinity, and who might even get their blood pressure up when thinking about jobs and wages for the lower-middle and working classes.
- Curran1
June 20, 2011 at 9:33pm
seattleeng: "after two years, Obama himself says that he 'owns' the economy." Yes, he "owns" it in the sense that a lot of people will associate him with the results, regardless of whether any other course of action would have made things better or worse. That's just the way many people allocate responsibility, whether there's actual causation or not. And to compare this recession to the one during 9/11 is just wrong. The popping of the tech bubble and a terrorist attack, while tragic, was simply not the economic equivalent of a huge housing market bubble fueled by severely overleveraged banks suddenly burdened with vast amounts of debt which nearly seized up the entire global credit system. Moreover, the Republican response to the Bush recession was...stimulus, in the form of tax cuts. They argued that the tax cuts kept the recession from becoming even worse. And the biggest portion of the most recent stimulus? Tax cuts. But now they argue that stimulus doesn't work...not that that doesn't keep them from pushing for still more tax cuts. Basic coherence is all I ask (for starters, anyway).
- dsimon
June 21, 2011 at 1:46am
"Real men?" Since when does being a "real man" have anything to do with callouses? What about women? Fact: ALL forms of labor need to be respected. People of all colors including colorless need to be respected and to respect each other. I cannot believe, in 2011, that we are discussing COLOR or the lack thereof - have we made no progress at all? I feel nauseous reading this. And, all workers need to read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html
- Sophia
June 21, 2011 at 4:01am
Ditto brthompson. The principal reason for the decline in support for Democrats among this group is that they see many of the party's standard platform issues as opposed to their own and the larger nation's interests. Concluding that the problem is not "the message", but the fact that working-class voters are too stupid and/or racist to understand it is diagnostic. The only Democrat administration to really understand this was, coincidentally, the most successful one since the New Deal--that of Bill Clinton.
- Robert Powell
June 21, 2011 at 4:59am
The GOP is great at marketing the "American Dream" to the white working class. Somehow if we just bust the unions and deport all the illegals, then everything will be OK and everyone will get rich. Quite frankly, living here in PA, it really IS guns and god. The American dream is dead and that's not just cynicism. It's fact. Yet the WWC is convinced that the rich are rich because that's what god wants, and the less we regulate Wall Street, the better it's going to be for everyone. It's the victory of fairy tales over evidence and common sense.
- bpuharic
June 21, 2011 at 10:27am
When the steel industry was collapsing in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio auto-workers in Michigan voted for Reagan. Obama saved a million autoworker jobs and every day I talk to the children of former steelworkers who hate Obama and parrot what they hear on Fox and talk radio. Helping working-class whites gets you little points unless it has a direct impact on the particular voter and then even then not always (see universal health care.) Cultural connections (is he a big white guy who's macho and religious and hasn't been been the victim of a talk-radio campaign of propaganda and caricature?) count for much more. Sad but true. The fact that the Democratic party is now a party of Eisenhower bond-market-protecting Republicans is depressing, but it is not the reason the white working class has deserted them. Race and gullibility are however huge factors. Ugly fact - deal with it. To pretend that the white working class is disgusted with the Democrats moves center (including on trade and economic interests that hurt them) or that people named Clinton did phenomenally well with working-class whites when they were running against white Republican men in general elections (rather than black men in Democratic primaries) is delusion. It's not backed up by facts. It's really interesting how many commentators on this thread want to believe the Clintons did phenomenally well with white working-class voters (in cases other than Democratic primaries against black men). They didn't.
- mtinora@me.com
June 21, 2011 at 10:59am
brthompson said "1. The patronizing tone many liberals take towards them (especially those liberals who attempt to explain their behavior). For example the claim that working class whites vote Republican because they are too stupid to know their own interest. 2. The fallacy, that because some whites are doing well, working class whites are less deserving of help than members of other groups. Just because Bill Gates is in my group does not mean I am a multimillionaire. 3. The decline of union enrollment means that a steadily larger portion of working class whites don't feel that unions are acting in their interest." 1. Patronizing is what the GOP does to America every day. But I think your point that liberals are patronizing to the WWC because of the claim that the WWC are too stupid for voting for the GOP is a little off the mark. My criticism of the WWC is for having become low-information voters who rely on closed-loop information (aka Fox, Beck, etc). Again, based on past results, both polling and voting, there is a consistency among some voters to vote against their economic interests because the "guns and god" card played by the GOP. Telling folks they need to be more engaged and informed about the issues isn't patronizing. Telling folks falsehoods and claiming they don't need to seek the truth out when Beck tells them so is patronizing. Why do you think the GOP makes social issues such a recurring theme? It acts as a distraction to their supply-side economics that truly decimates the working-class voters. You get someone, who might actually vote for tax increases on coal companies to off-set the impact of tailings on their water source, to vote against it by claiming that "Libruls" will take away your guns and make abortion free to poor blacks. 2. I don't think any liberal assumes that all white people are doing well. I think liberals assume that all working class and the working poor (regardless of race) deserve some level of help. Whereas the GOP patronizes the WWC by telling them that anyone else (regardless of social-economic status) is less deserving. Such that the GOP can convince the white working class that the black or hispanic working class is "stealing" jobs, healthcare, or any form of government help from them. The GOP successfully convinced the working class that somehow a person making $250K a year wasn't "rich" but was really some poor working schlub that barely made ends meet when making those monthly payments on the BMW and gated community McMansion they have to live with. I know a ton of folks that would be happy to make three-months worth of that poor rich person's salary. 3. The decline of union enrollment is a result of a continuous push by the Chamber of Commerce and the GOP for 30+ years to enact 'right to work' legislation in many of the states to preclude unions from operating or severely limiting their ability to operate. The remaining unions that do successfully negotiate for equal steady pay and benefits in certain business sectors are seen as some sort of threat to democracy because the GOP have, quite successfully, sold the working class on the false notion that unions "steal" from taxpayers and crush the freedom loving captains of industry under their socialist heels. The last time a political candidate came out and expressly said what is on the minds of every politician (GOP and Democrat) with regards to the WWC was when Obama said that there are many who are rightly bitter about what has economically happened to them as result of America's modernization and that the remaining solace for some really are "guns and god". The issue isn't being patronized by liberals, but not being patronized by liberals in the same way that the GOP patronizes to the WWC. The GOP have people convinced that they'll someday be a millionaire too so voting against your future, fantasy tax-bracket is tantamount to being unAmerican and class warfare. And voting for social issues that benefit everyone, including "them" is immoral, unethical and unAmerican. I guess if folks want to believe that crap more power to them but many of these folks shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along and bursts those fantasy bubbles.
- singlspeed
June 21, 2011 at 2:48pm
Bravo.
- Sophia
June 21, 2011 at 6:23pm
Singlspeed: "2: ... I think that liberals assume that all working class and the working poor (regardless of race) deserve some level of help." Sadly, this isn't true. I work in an English department at a university. Most of its members are liberals, and most of those concerned with politics care deeply about the plight of the discriminated-against-minority, the excluded: GLBT, blacks, American Indians, hispanics, etc. To be blunt, none of them gives a damn about the white working class, except in passing. They devote no energy or passion to it, are only an adjunct concern and are, frankly in the eyes of many of these people, to blame for the exclusion of minority groups. As for 1 and 3, much of what you say is quite correct, but it doesn't take away from the fact that both of those issues would be largely taken care of if the party showed some passion in advocating for the working class--white or otherwise--publicly. The union decline is because of a sustained assault by the Chamber of Commerce and the GOP? True! Good thing Clinton and Carter mounted vigorous counter-assaults defending the rights and interests of working Americans and educating the public about how the unions were on their side, and not public enemies. Oh, wait... ...In fact, Carter, not Reagan, began (in a small way), the move against unions, back in the seventies... Everything you say about the GOP being patronizing distortionists is true. Expect that. They're fighting for their side. But much of what BrThompson says is valid, as well, and Dems simply haven't consistently fought for the working class since 1968 or so. The reason GOP lies and smears and distortions about Dems on the issues work is that those smears have some distant basis in truth. Best, CA
- Curran1
June 21, 2011 at 8:59pm
Curran, what you've said is absolutely true. White working-class types don't see the Democrats as being concerned about their problems. So there are many working-class people who, presumably, are willing to vote against their own economic best interests because they don't think Democratic policies will help them. I think perhaps many of them don't love the Republicans as much as they hate the Democrats. To them, the Democratic Party remains the party of minorities, feminists, gays, and pinko college professors. It has nothing to do with them. Therefore, they're willing to believe GOP lies and vote for Republicans, who have absolutely no interest in helping them. In fact, ironically, it is by NOT helping them that the Republicans get their continued support. They simply have to keep convincing these people that their unending woes are being caused by those pointy-headed, irreligious, America-hating Democrats. And they get plenty of help from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in getting that message across. I have long thought that the Democrats should jettison affirmative action and replace it with something that reaches out to disenfranchised whites, perhaps giving it a name like Helping Hand. But the Dems are too afraid of alienating minorities to do that, even though it would probably win them millions of white blue-collar votes. So they also have themselves to blame—not just GOP lies—for their problems in attracting support from the white working class.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
June 23, 2011 at 10:25am
Curran, I've also experienced, indirectly, the University syndrome. "Most of its members are liberals, and most of those concerned with politics care deeply about the plight of the discriminated-against-minority, the excluded: GLBT, blacks, American Indians, hispanics, etc. " I think what colors many of the liberal minds in University settings is the perception, right or wrong, of the historical subjugation of the world by 'Old, White Men.' This of course was in the 90s, so I suspect those "students" are now the adjunct professors teaching Millennials. I ran across this with female friends entrenched in womens' studies, I ran across this outside of University in the working environment with hispanics that thought I, simply being white and male, was rich, racist and hated anyone who wasn't like me. So far from the truth. However, I am somewhat optimistic that the younger generations, that I have both worked with and mentored, see the world differently than those so steeped in the identity politics that so heavily infected academia in the 90s. As someone who was raised working class, understands what it means to have a menial job and make ends meet, work through university and reach the economic level of mediocrity we refer to as "middle class" I get frustrated when liberals still seem so entrenched in identity / justice politics. I think this is also a direct affect of aging hold-overs from the 70s, 80s and early 90s that have chosen to ignore the realities of the younger generations that see beyond that crap. Today's younger generations are far more integrated culturally than even my generation was/is. What frustrates me so much is that it appears conservatives literally and figuratively are practically a mono-bloc movement. Who know lemmings could be such a force in the world.
- singlspeed
June 24, 2011 at 7:52pm
Curran, I've also experienced, indirectly, the University syndrome. "Most of its members are liberals, and most of those concerned with politics care deeply about the plight of the discriminated-against-minority, the excluded: GLBT, blacks, American Indians, hispanics, etc. " I think what colors many of the liberal minds in University settings is the perception, right or wrong, of the historical subjugation of the world by 'Old, White Men.' This of course was in the 90s, so I suspect those "students" are now the adjunct professors teaching Millennials. I ran across this with female friends entrenched in womens' studies, I ran across this outside of University in the working environment with hispanics that thought I, simply being white and male, was rich, racist and hated anyone who wasn't like me. So far from the truth. However, I am somewhat optimistic that the younger generations, that I have both worked with and mentored, see the world differently than those so steeped in the identity politics that so heavily infected academia in the 90s. As someone who was raised working class, understands what it means to have a menial job and make ends meet, work through university and reach the economic level of mediocrity we refer to as "middle class" I get frustrated when liberals still seem so entrenched in identity / justice politics. I think this is also a direct affect of aging hold-overs from the 70s, 80s and early 90s that have chosen to ignore the realities of the younger generations that see beyond that crap. Today's younger generations are far more integrated culturally than even my generation was/is. What frustrates me so much is that it appears conservatives literally and figuratively are practically a mono-bloc movement. Who know lemmings could be such a force in the world.
- singlspeed
June 24, 2011 at 7:52pm