I question if this is empirically true, at least so far: "This is because, regardless of party, upper-class voters are less likely to support important forms of economic redistribution than their working-class counterparts." Democratic politicians and Presidential Administrations still propose economically progressive measures, Biden has taken the most pro-labor stances of any administration since LBJ or possibly 2nd term FDR or Truman. Educated-class people voting for Democrats often may not have high incomes or wealth compared to their regional cost of living, and seem to tolerate progressive economic pitches, even while working class voters willing to vote Republican also seem to be more open to Republican pro free market economic arguments. The main political argument for keeping a working class coalition and denying it to the other is simple - numbers, there's more of them, more widely and politically efficiently spread in all jurisdictions. I don't see the evidence the gentrifying of the Democratic base voters has pushed Democratic economic policy thought rightward though. Perhaps it did in the years from McGovern through Clinton, but not since.
Anyway, file this under reason #69 that primaries are terrible. Both Dems and Reps are locked in a vicious cycle where the most engaged pick the candidates, and the most engaged for the Dems are the highest earners. We need to go back to smokey rooms where these arguments can be played around with!
During every election cycle, various promises are made to the Black community, and few are followed through on—failure to pass The National Voting Rights Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—no genuine efforts the repeal the filibuster rules in Congress. The Democratic Party's advertising budget allots a minuscule portion to the black press. The party makes no real effort to explain why these failures occurred and what can be done to correct these losses. All of these situations, taken together, seem to show that the Democrats take the black vote for granted. The party needs to make a concerted effort to reach out to the black community, explain these failures, and solicit input on how to rectify these problems. By organizing a grassroots effort, many of these problems could be successfully addressed, and in those cases where the problems can't be overcome, the Party needs to explain why the failures took place. After what the Party did to Bernie Sanders, it looks to an outsider as though the Party is controlled by fat, white cats who are satisfied with the status quo. In the minds of many voters, perception is reality and the Party needs to address these issues.
The four strategies listed are nearly-exclusively focused on comms, with a little bit of candidate selection thrown in. Doubtless this is important for strategists to consider when picking messages, and campaign consultants to consider when cutting commercials, but it seems to me to be missing the (very obvious) political forest by focusing on the polcomms trees.
What you want to do is *have a growing economy, with low or declining unemployment, and a wider sense that the economy is getting better rather than worse*. Comms are important but material circumstances matter more. 'Things seem to be getting better' was vital for Reagan's re-election, Clinton's re-election and Gore's perforamce after 2 Dem terms, Obama's re-election, Trump's near re-election despite being a personal shitshow.
TL/DR - I think the best way to win back working class voters is to have a good economy and no other strategy will better that one.
One thing I’ve always been curious about with the “criticize both parties” prong is whether Democrats criticizing the Democratic Party becomes a self-reinforcing thing. That is, if Democrats regularly criticize the party (and so do Republicans, of course), it may help Democrats in the short run, but does it also cement a view in the public that the Democratic Party is lousy, and then make it even more important for Democrats to criticize the party to win, but ultimately creating a big entrenched disadvantage for the party? After all, Republicans do not do this.
I know there are structural asymmetries, so maybe this is necessary regardless, but I’d love to see any analysis of this issue. Probably since most Democrats don’t actually do this, if it were helpful not to, we’d see the benefit already. OTOH, maybe the fact they don’t do it is what has stopped the party’s reputation from sliding further and creating an even more difficult environment for Democrats.
Did anyone else think this was a pretty weak article? Its main points are:
1. "Working class" voters like "working class" candidates. That must be why their favorite politician, by far, is Donald Trump- a real model "working man" if there ever was one. (!??)
2. "Working class" voters like it when "elites" are attacked. Yup.
3. "Working class" voters like politicians who talk about jobs. Unemployment is at a historical low- maybe they'll like Biden?
4. "Social Issues" are tricky- we don't really understand them-and they don't really vary between classes- but just "be careful" to keep Dem messaging "relatable" to "working class " voters.
Actually, voters without a college degree are way more animated by social issues than anything else, and their preferred candidate must come with a heavy dose of conspiracist rhetoric. The leading issue in Oklahoma GOP politics is not jobs but "trans athletes", although there may not be a trans althlete in the whole State of Oklahoma. They may say they like "working class" candidates but they are far more attracted to non-traditional populist demagogues, like reality TV stars (Trump), TV anchors (Kari Lake), billionaires (Musk, Ramaswamy). They have soured on traditional politicians, even if they have working class backgrounds.
This article is missing the central motif that animates the "working class" today- cultural resentment. Dressing up Dems in working class clothes and having them attack "elites" won't solve the problem.
I’m not sure I buy the authors’ conclusion as Joe Biden basically ticks 3 of the 4 boxes and yet still bled working class voters to Trump. He’s comes from a working class background, is the GOAT Jobs president, and routinely espouses economic populism. I think what it comes down to for most working class people is social issues - when elite dems start using “woke” language it sounds like Chinese to normal people and nothing else matters after that. You’ve completely lost them at that point.
I think there are some good elements of this development which run a bit counter to popularism. On one hand, I understand and frequently agree with the idea that political parties should try to pick up voters of all stripes. You have to in order to win. On the other hand - if you are able to squeak by while ignoring working class voters - you can eschew at least some populism from your platform.
So, this raises the question about what it means to be the party of the “elite.” In a sense the party of the elite would be one that continually kowtows to business interests. In another sense, it can mean that you share many elite sensibilities of educated workers. This can be a good thing for obvious reasons.
One issue is this: what if educated voters are actually crazy about plenty of things? Working class voters may represent a moderating force on the excesses of the upper class. I don’t think there is a clear answer for the populism-haters among us. There are problems with populist movements, but I’m not sure that elite values are holding up that well. Sometimes they do, but I’m not sure that they hold up well generally.
Speaking as a working-class voter...I'm confused about the "popularism for me, but not for thee" vibe here. It's bad to lose WCVs to right-wing populism, but great to pick them up by embracing left-wing populism? Similarly, it seems hard to parcel out elite preferences on social issues ("luxury beliefs") with other elite values writ large...which definitely includes, well, stances that are elitist. And pretty alienating to your average working stiff who's got no interest in college - or possibly attended and failed to get a degree, which describes a pretty good chunk of disaffected WCVs. There's something especially painful about being just smart enough to pick up ivy-tower ideas, and then watch them founder relentlessly against the rocks of reality. Actually, I think I read on a blog somewhere that demographics-as-destiny was one such major erroneous belief. There was a snazzy catchphrase for it too...I think it was "progressive mobilization delusion"?
If only there was a political ideology that centered class politics, not as a messaging sop to WCVs while being careful not to offend PMCs, but as a foundational value that recognized the pernicious influence of capital and wealth accumulation. Alas.
(nb: I don't mean to personally dunk on any particular guest authors on SB, yet...idk Matt, the track record is just not that good.)
A thing that should stop yesterday: equating contribution to GDP or to federal tax coffers with value as a voter. Who are you people? Do you realize that you’re Republicans? You bought in on “makers and takers”!
Want to go all the way and break it down by zip code rather than blue state vs red state? Are you nuts? Too caught up in winning a point on the internet or cable news to see where this road goes?
In short, Gavin Newsom needs to go govern California and stop seeming to represent Democrats writ large, and the GDP moment is when I started hoping for people to physically restrain Hillary.
“Democrats need not, and should not compromise on progressive social issues”...sorry, but this presumes their positions are coherent and sane, ala being pro-choice on abortion or in favor of marriage equality. The Ds have gone loco - police and prison abolition is a mainstream position in the party now; men can have babies and lesbians have penises now; math is racist; homeless drug addicts decide the rules of public spaces; Latinos who don’t use the term LatinX are white supremecists; Asians are “white adjacent” and therefore part of white supremacy. disagree with any of this and you are no longer a Democrat, but a fascist transphobic white supremecist who deserves to be publicly shamed, lose your job, and be silent forever. The problem is the Ds viscerally hate working people. Those of us who violate the above commandments of the Ds are to be purged.
I wouldn't exactly call these types of positions mainstream within the Democratic party any more than opposition to birth control or abolishment of social security is mainstream within the Republican party. It's just the opinions of a few fringe people on the far left.
No, it's not. It's common in my small northern New England city to hear these points from mayoral and city council candidates, state legislators, and at school board meetings. Nearby Boston metro areas seem to have the same people (we're in the greater Boston media sphere and my mom lives there.) The Democrat culture war talking points are as stupid and common as the GOP ones. It's not fringe.
Just checking in from rural Wisconsin. Your analysis is interesting but Democrats aren’t even asking for my vote. I got a daily postcard from rightist Ron Johnson, 2-3 times a week from rightist Tom Tiffany, weekly from the rightist state senate and state assembly candidates, plus more than every other week from some other rightist running for sheriff, school board, county supervisor, town board, school board, etc. Meanwhile, the lowest office Dems even fielded a candidate was state assembly and I had to google it to find out who the candidate was. Even the state supreme court race which the moderate thankfully won, I got daily postcards from the rightist supporters and one or two from Justice Janet.
I crossed over into the Republican primary to vote for the least offensive, least Rump-kissing rightist because most of the races had no Democrat at all.
Traditionally, sending campaign mail to rural Democrats also required sending the same campaign mail to all the rural Republican neighbors. Not only is it not cost effective, but can also directly hurt the campaign. Campaign mail doesn't change voters preferences, it just reminds people that there's an election going on and reinforces their preferences by reminding them just how obnoxious the other side is. Just as sending a bunch of Trump postcards to everybody in Milwaukee would undoubtedly boost Democrats, sending a bunch of postcards for Democrats to everybody in rural Wisconsin would just help the Republicans.
Now, in the modern world with hyper-targeted voter lists, it is actually possible to send postcards to rural Democrats without also sending them to rural Republicans and I'm sure the well-run campaigns are in fact doing this. But, lots of campaigns are not well-run and aren't.
I question if this is empirically true, at least so far: "This is because, regardless of party, upper-class voters are less likely to support important forms of economic redistribution than their working-class counterparts." Democratic politicians and Presidential Administrations still propose economically progressive measures, Biden has taken the most pro-labor stances of any administration since LBJ or possibly 2nd term FDR or Truman. Educated-class people voting for Democrats often may not have high incomes or wealth compared to their regional cost of living, and seem to tolerate progressive economic pitches, even while working class voters willing to vote Republican also seem to be more open to Republican pro free market economic arguments. The main political argument for keeping a working class coalition and denying it to the other is simple - numbers, there's more of them, more widely and politically efficiently spread in all jurisdictions. I don't see the evidence the gentrifying of the Democratic base voters has pushed Democratic economic policy thought rightward though. Perhaps it did in the years from McGovern through Clinton, but not since.
My virtue signal: I have some quibbles
Anyway, file this under reason #69 that primaries are terrible. Both Dems and Reps are locked in a vicious cycle where the most engaged pick the candidates, and the most engaged for the Dems are the highest earners. We need to go back to smokey rooms where these arguments can be played around with!
During every election cycle, various promises are made to the Black community, and few are followed through on—failure to pass The National Voting Rights Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—no genuine efforts the repeal the filibuster rules in Congress. The Democratic Party's advertising budget allots a minuscule portion to the black press. The party makes no real effort to explain why these failures occurred and what can be done to correct these losses. All of these situations, taken together, seem to show that the Democrats take the black vote for granted. The party needs to make a concerted effort to reach out to the black community, explain these failures, and solicit input on how to rectify these problems. By organizing a grassroots effort, many of these problems could be successfully addressed, and in those cases where the problems can't be overcome, the Party needs to explain why the failures took place. After what the Party did to Bernie Sanders, it looks to an outsider as though the Party is controlled by fat, white cats who are satisfied with the status quo. In the minds of many voters, perception is reality and the Party needs to address these issues.
Social Issues That Hurt Democrats With The White Working Class
Medical fascism
Mandated DEI training
Rule by HR: anti-white, anti-male
LGBTQIA+
Gender affirmation surgery for boys and girls
Sex ed for kindergarteners
Unlimited illegal immigration
Reparations for slavery
Men playing women’s sports
Affirmative action
Hiring quotas: no white males
Gay marriage and adoption
Gays and transgenders in the military
Dylan Mulvaney
Pride Month
Juneteenth
Multiple genders
The white working class is deplorable
Climate fascism
Antipatriotism
Antibusiness
Controlled by teachers unions
School closures
LGBTQ indictrination in all schools
CRT: teaching white children to be guilty
Hostile to small businesses
Shutting down the entire oil, gas and coal industries
Antinuclear
Mandating and subsidizing electric cars that don’t work
Banning gas stoves
Hostile to boys (toxic masculinity)
The four strategies listed are nearly-exclusively focused on comms, with a little bit of candidate selection thrown in. Doubtless this is important for strategists to consider when picking messages, and campaign consultants to consider when cutting commercials, but it seems to me to be missing the (very obvious) political forest by focusing on the polcomms trees.
What you want to do is *have a growing economy, with low or declining unemployment, and a wider sense that the economy is getting better rather than worse*. Comms are important but material circumstances matter more. 'Things seem to be getting better' was vital for Reagan's re-election, Clinton's re-election and Gore's perforamce after 2 Dem terms, Obama's re-election, Trump's near re-election despite being a personal shitshow.
TL/DR - I think the best way to win back working class voters is to have a good economy and no other strategy will better that one.
The elites of both parties have rigged the game to such extremes that working class folks have very little hope and a lot of anger. Brendan Ballou's "Plunder: Private Equity's Plan to Pillage America" is illustrative but other examples abound. https://www.amazon.com/Plunder-Private-Equitys-Pillage-America-ebook/dp/B0BH4XK8WG
One thing I’ve always been curious about with the “criticize both parties” prong is whether Democrats criticizing the Democratic Party becomes a self-reinforcing thing. That is, if Democrats regularly criticize the party (and so do Republicans, of course), it may help Democrats in the short run, but does it also cement a view in the public that the Democratic Party is lousy, and then make it even more important for Democrats to criticize the party to win, but ultimately creating a big entrenched disadvantage for the party? After all, Republicans do not do this.
I know there are structural asymmetries, so maybe this is necessary regardless, but I’d love to see any analysis of this issue. Probably since most Democrats don’t actually do this, if it were helpful not to, we’d see the benefit already. OTOH, maybe the fact they don’t do it is what has stopped the party’s reputation from sliding further and creating an even more difficult environment for Democrats.
Did anyone else think this was a pretty weak article? Its main points are:
1. "Working class" voters like "working class" candidates. That must be why their favorite politician, by far, is Donald Trump- a real model "working man" if there ever was one. (!??)
2. "Working class" voters like it when "elites" are attacked. Yup.
3. "Working class" voters like politicians who talk about jobs. Unemployment is at a historical low- maybe they'll like Biden?
4. "Social Issues" are tricky- we don't really understand them-and they don't really vary between classes- but just "be careful" to keep Dem messaging "relatable" to "working class " voters.
Actually, voters without a college degree are way more animated by social issues than anything else, and their preferred candidate must come with a heavy dose of conspiracist rhetoric. The leading issue in Oklahoma GOP politics is not jobs but "trans athletes", although there may not be a trans althlete in the whole State of Oklahoma. They may say they like "working class" candidates but they are far more attracted to non-traditional populist demagogues, like reality TV stars (Trump), TV anchors (Kari Lake), billionaires (Musk, Ramaswamy). They have soured on traditional politicians, even if they have working class backgrounds.
This article is missing the central motif that animates the "working class" today- cultural resentment. Dressing up Dems in working class clothes and having them attack "elites" won't solve the problem.
I’m not sure I buy the authors’ conclusion as Joe Biden basically ticks 3 of the 4 boxes and yet still bled working class voters to Trump. He’s comes from a working class background, is the GOAT Jobs president, and routinely espouses economic populism. I think what it comes down to for most working class people is social issues - when elite dems start using “woke” language it sounds like Chinese to normal people and nothing else matters after that. You’ve completely lost them at that point.
I think there are some good elements of this development which run a bit counter to popularism. On one hand, I understand and frequently agree with the idea that political parties should try to pick up voters of all stripes. You have to in order to win. On the other hand - if you are able to squeak by while ignoring working class voters - you can eschew at least some populism from your platform.
So, this raises the question about what it means to be the party of the “elite.” In a sense the party of the elite would be one that continually kowtows to business interests. In another sense, it can mean that you share many elite sensibilities of educated workers. This can be a good thing for obvious reasons.
One issue is this: what if educated voters are actually crazy about plenty of things? Working class voters may represent a moderating force on the excesses of the upper class. I don’t think there is a clear answer for the populism-haters among us. There are problems with populist movements, but I’m not sure that elite values are holding up that well. Sometimes they do, but I’m not sure that they hold up well generally.
Speaking as a working-class voter...I'm confused about the "popularism for me, but not for thee" vibe here. It's bad to lose WCVs to right-wing populism, but great to pick them up by embracing left-wing populism? Similarly, it seems hard to parcel out elite preferences on social issues ("luxury beliefs") with other elite values writ large...which definitely includes, well, stances that are elitist. And pretty alienating to your average working stiff who's got no interest in college - or possibly attended and failed to get a degree, which describes a pretty good chunk of disaffected WCVs. There's something especially painful about being just smart enough to pick up ivy-tower ideas, and then watch them founder relentlessly against the rocks of reality. Actually, I think I read on a blog somewhere that demographics-as-destiny was one such major erroneous belief. There was a snazzy catchphrase for it too...I think it was "progressive mobilization delusion"?
If only there was a political ideology that centered class politics, not as a messaging sop to WCVs while being careful not to offend PMCs, but as a foundational value that recognized the pernicious influence of capital and wealth accumulation. Alas.
(nb: I don't mean to personally dunk on any particular guest authors on SB, yet...idk Matt, the track record is just not that good.)
Anyone bemoaning job creation is either biased or working from the 2012 book.
Oh, and publicize the hell out of this:
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/06/16/texas-heat-wave-water-break-construction-workers/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
Go even further and mandate a 10 minute break every 2 hours for workers who earn an hourly wage.
A thing that should stop yesterday: equating contribution to GDP or to federal tax coffers with value as a voter. Who are you people? Do you realize that you’re Republicans? You bought in on “makers and takers”!
Want to go all the way and break it down by zip code rather than blue state vs red state? Are you nuts? Too caught up in winning a point on the internet or cable news to see where this road goes?
In short, Gavin Newsom needs to go govern California and stop seeming to represent Democrats writ large, and the GDP moment is when I started hoping for people to physically restrain Hillary.
“Democrats need not, and should not compromise on progressive social issues”...sorry, but this presumes their positions are coherent and sane, ala being pro-choice on abortion or in favor of marriage equality. The Ds have gone loco - police and prison abolition is a mainstream position in the party now; men can have babies and lesbians have penises now; math is racist; homeless drug addicts decide the rules of public spaces; Latinos who don’t use the term LatinX are white supremecists; Asians are “white adjacent” and therefore part of white supremacy. disagree with any of this and you are no longer a Democrat, but a fascist transphobic white supremecist who deserves to be publicly shamed, lose your job, and be silent forever. The problem is the Ds viscerally hate working people. Those of us who violate the above commandments of the Ds are to be purged.
I wouldn't exactly call these types of positions mainstream within the Democratic party any more than opposition to birth control or abolishment of social security is mainstream within the Republican party. It's just the opinions of a few fringe people on the far left.
No, it's not. It's common in my small northern New England city to hear these points from mayoral and city council candidates, state legislators, and at school board meetings. Nearby Boston metro areas seem to have the same people (we're in the greater Boston media sphere and my mom lives there.) The Democrat culture war talking points are as stupid and common as the GOP ones. It's not fringe.
In Portland, and Oregon - these believers aren’t fringe; they hold power.
Just checking in from rural Wisconsin. Your analysis is interesting but Democrats aren’t even asking for my vote. I got a daily postcard from rightist Ron Johnson, 2-3 times a week from rightist Tom Tiffany, weekly from the rightist state senate and state assembly candidates, plus more than every other week from some other rightist running for sheriff, school board, county supervisor, town board, school board, etc. Meanwhile, the lowest office Dems even fielded a candidate was state assembly and I had to google it to find out who the candidate was. Even the state supreme court race which the moderate thankfully won, I got daily postcards from the rightist supporters and one or two from Justice Janet.
I crossed over into the Republican primary to vote for the least offensive, least Rump-kissing rightist because most of the races had no Democrat at all.
Traditionally, sending campaign mail to rural Democrats also required sending the same campaign mail to all the rural Republican neighbors. Not only is it not cost effective, but can also directly hurt the campaign. Campaign mail doesn't change voters preferences, it just reminds people that there's an election going on and reinforces their preferences by reminding them just how obnoxious the other side is. Just as sending a bunch of Trump postcards to everybody in Milwaukee would undoubtedly boost Democrats, sending a bunch of postcards for Democrats to everybody in rural Wisconsin would just help the Republicans.
Now, in the modern world with hyper-targeted voter lists, it is actually possible to send postcards to rural Democrats without also sending them to rural Republicans and I'm sure the well-run campaigns are in fact doing this. But, lots of campaigns are not well-run and aren't.