Sorta kinda related to the last post — Thomas Edsall wrote in the New York Times —
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
Now, if you watched the video in the last post, you saw that most of the children featured in the video are white. These are families that lost jobs and homes because of the financial crisis and prolonged unemployment and haven’t been able to get back on their feet. And while you can certainly find bad actors in both parties who contributed to the mess, ultimately our deteriorating economy is the inevitable result of 30 years of Reagonomics and the “no taxes, no regulations” hysteria promoted by Grover Norquist, “free market” conservatives, et al.
And, as we all know, the politicians that brought us this mess get elected mostly because they hoodwink white working-class Americans to vote for them.
I posted something a few days about about some New Hampshire voters who had either crashed or were hanging on to middle-class status by their fingernails, and who were planning to vote Republican next year. And you can go bang your head against a wall all day long over this stuff, but unless one has some understanding of why the economy is failing, and why Washington isn’t responding, I could see why it wouldn’t seem to make much difference which party one votes for.
And you’re not going to get that information unless you’re willing to do some reading, because it’s rarely properly explained on radio or television. And if they’re watching Faux News, they’re just plain being lied to about it.
As I said in the earlier post, for years at progressive conferences the question of how to reach these voters to explain reality to them comes up again and again, and no one has an answer. I think step one is to somehow gain their trust or sympathy so they are willing to listen, but that won’t happen overnight.
Howard Dean’s “50 state” strategy allowed the Dems to take back the House and Senate, but it also saddled us with a bunch of right-wing Blue Dogs who voted with Republicans on critical legislation (and, children, that’s what killed the public option). And in 2010, the white working class voted for Republicans in record numbers, Edsall says.
So, instead, the Obama campaign team wants to put together a center-left coalition of college-educated whites and racial minorities.
There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.â€
Demographic projections suggest that the Dems could be a “majority minority” party as early as 2020. Being cynical, I’d say eventually the Dems could dominate elections simply by making sure people living in their cars and trucks can’t register to vote.
“Being cynical, I’d say eventually the Dems could dominate elections simply by making sure people living in their cars and trucks can’t register to vote. ”
That’s about it, isn’t it?
Read Bill Moyers take on the 2 major political parties:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/bill-moyers-change-cannot-come-within
I wish there was a way to reach the parents and grandparents of those kids. But I’m afraid they’ve all been marinating in Reaganism, racism, and xenophobia for far too long, thanks to the propaganda of FOX, Reich-wing talk radio, lying Op-ed writers, and a feckless and fearful MSM. But I can’t think of one.
Does anyone else think that we may soon start to have race wars here in the USA?
The Conservatives won’t allow a class one, doing everything they can to prevent it, because they understand that they will lose.
But I wonder if they wouldn’t welcome a race war? It will redirect those class war feelings and energies back to race, and that will ‘divide and conquer’ for generations – helping them regain, and then maintain, power.
I would NOT put it past them. As a matter of fact, I may be more surprised if this isn’t a part of their short and long term planning. I mean, Hell, they LOST the last one, and still kept power over black people for almost 100+ years!
What’s to prevent them from thinking it’s a winning strategy today, or won’t be one tomorrow. Look at what they’ve done to this President., and tell me that something’s not in the works if they lose in 2012. And then to whoever the Democratic candidate might be in 2016, if they lose again. Then, with the demographics really beginning to work against them, they may, like the cornered rats they are, lash out. And why not? They’ve long shown they don’t give a rat’s ass about this country.
Maybe, but probably not while the President and Attorney General are African American.
Authoritrian followers, again! Years ago, I found the term and a related article linked on this site, for which I thank you, Maha It made sense then and does now. The game of creating those followers, so brilliantly played by the cons, looks to be intensely managed by media manipulators.
“Being cynical, I’d say eventually the Dems could dominate elections simply by making sure people living in their cars and trucks can’t register to vote.”
I think that makes more sense as “Republicans could dominate..” and I see that as an integral part of the plan. Case in point… Walker passes laws requiring ID, and closes the agencies that issue those IDd in Democratic district. A WI state employee was fired for promoting a feature of the law which gives voters access to a free ID if they don’t want to pay for a license.
One of the first laws passed by Scott in FL makes it much harder for a felon to get back voting privileges. The goal flies under the radar until you look at the statistics of the racial composition of felons. But its not a group any politician wants to defend. One of the finest people I ever knew was a graduate of the California penal system. If rehabilitation is a goal, the denial of basic rights is counterproductive after their ‘debt to society’ has been paid.
On the other hand, if margininalizing low-income minorities from participating in the electoral process is the goal, making them criminals in large numbers and making them second-class citizens is a brilliant strategy. Particularly since it’s political suicide for a candidate to defend the voting rights of criminals.
Yes, of course. Obviously. My point is that when most working-class white people are living in their cars, it’s going to backfire on them.
“…people living in cars and trucks…” people I knew years ago, down-and-really-out, who ‘loved’ Reagan and voted for him – something that has perplexed me for years and I am beginning to think I finally may have a reasonable take on why.
Republicans are masters at accurately assessing people’s fears (down-and-really-outters have a lot of fears, naturally) and then designing their rhetoric/political campaigns around promising to make-it-all-better. Dems still miss the boat on this one and until they get on the boat, they aren’t going to capture this constituency.
By the way, maha, thanks for pointing out that it was the Blue Dogs who defeated single-payer etc.
I just wonder what made the Dems give up Howard Dean’s strategy. Was it money – costs too much to reach this demographic? Was it tactical – we have a better chance of winning without it? Or what?
And then there’s the question of the outcome of Howard Dean’s strategy: is a blue dog better than a Republican, or is there no difference whatsover? I wish I had been privy to the discussions leading up this decision, and I wish I had the data on the blue dog vs Republican issue. My gut tells me that I’ll take a blue dog any day over a Republican, but I’d love to be convinced otherwise. What are these people thinking? is what I want to know.
I do think going after Hispanics is huge, and while this has blown up repeated in the Republicans’ faces, the Dems have also fumbled this one, which could be an almost-natural constitutency for them. Numerically, they’re a huge constituency to be won over, and their increasing numbers are the future.
I fear that by leaving out the white lower (and increasingly what’s left of the middle) class, it leaves the Dems wide open to charges of elitism at the top, and pandering to “the lazy” at the bottom, with big heaping doses of racism too. The polarization is only going to get worse with this move. This could actually work to Barack “Mr Unity”‘s favor.
I really think it was the Blue Dogs that did it. Notice most of the House Blue Dogs elected in 2008 were not re-elected in 2010. I think the Dems decided they were more trouble than they were worth.
“My gut tells me that I’ll take a blue dog any day over a Republican, but I’d love to be convinced otherwise”
All the blue dogs do is give the republicants cover for fucking over the middle-class. Every time a blue-dog votes for a tax-cut or deregulation the fascists at FAUX can report that the legislation was bi-partisan. For example you’ll hear the phrase “the democrats couldn’t pass their liberal agenda even when they controlled all three branches 2009-2011†well in fact they didn’t control the senate because of blue-dogs like Liber(Israel first)man, Bachus, Landrieu, Nelson, etc….. If the repugs are going to rape this country then they alone should be convicted of rape. That’s why I wouldn’t take a blue-dog over a republicant any day!
@twtfltrd – that helps. Thanks!
I hate to link to it, but Jonah Goldberg also commented on Edsall’s article in [the Democrats’] Courting Joe the Puppeteer.
Edsall vastly overstates the case. The Obama campaign isn’t actually abandoning efforts to appeal to working-class whites; they just know they aren’t getting a majority in that demographic. Greg Sargent’s perspective is very useful here.
OK. Let me build an analogy. In. the1860s, if you were white in the South, you supported slavery for unquestionable economic & social reasons. The economic factor was that slavery made plantations profitable. Most farmers in the South could NOT afford slaves and they struggled to survive. For dirt-poor white farmers without slaves, the institution established a permanent social position superior to any ni**er. And unlikely though it really was, the dirt-poor white farmer believed he would own slaves and have a plantation. Someday.
We are entering the New Civil War, and the Mason-Dixon line has been replaced by the Poverty Line. The dog-whistle conditioning that worked in the Civil War is working now. The working white trash are convinced that those who are in need are UNWORTHY. This distinction between us and them is crucial to the identity of the white trash conservative.
Instead of a social order dependant on complexion, the Any Rand social structure is purely economic. Rich people are rich because they are better. Poor people are poor because they are inferior. Money replaces complexion as proof of quality. I think the Civil War white-trash was convinced that the blacks would take his property. Today, working white trash is equally convinced that minorities are going to take what he has.
There’s a flaw with the new social order. If you are born black, you stay black. (Michael Jackson excepted). If you are a worker in America, your economic status is not assured. The narrative breaks down when your friend (or you) become unemployed, loose their home, live with family, or out of their car. The safety net you despised for the unworthy looks different when its your life that will be saved by that net. This flaw has to be central to the message, that any of the 99% might need that safety net. When voters see he’s we are in this together, the plantation owners will fail to set us against each other. We must refuse to be manipulated that way again.
What a dumb article! (Edsall’s).
“Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters.”
That’s because the GOP took the racist vote– Southern whites. Why would you expect the curve to continue? They GOT the racists, misogynists, and homophobes ALREADY, the GOP.
center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of …….professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”
That’s a pretty ad hoc, motley collection there! Who’s left– white males who fling burgers for a living? The guy is REALLY stretching to meet an op/ed deadline here. This is wacko stuff.
“Money replaces complexion as proof of quality”
Nice line, though the white trash narrative is a bit much.
“There’s a flaw with the new social order. If you are born black, you stay black. (Michael Jackson excepted)”
Inter4esting that. Color has transformed bigotry, only the market matters, today’s racist just assumes the house nigger will come home. What if Dr. Murrey had been a white establishment cardiologist, would he have got 4 years for showing up at the end of a fifty year long suicide? Hell no, in fact if Dr. Murry had no accent, he and his lawyer would be sittin at home tonight. In my mind MJ killed himself, he was raised to fail. MJ’s parents should be sitting in jail tonight, they are the ones that fucked him up beyond his repair.
Interesting
I’m sorry, Doug, but, even though I work for a family that espouses the views that you discuss – and I hate these views – I would never think of them as “white trash”. That’s just disgusting. And would never, ever do anything to help change their views.
twtfltrd,
In the House, the majority party sets the agenda and controls everything. That is the only reason that Blue Dog Dems have any value.
Chief,
I knew there had to be at least one reason for even having Red Dogs Dems in the House, and now you reminded me. Thanks.
As I recall, the DCCC was very big on supporting Blue Dog candidates over more progressive candidates right through 2010. And Rahm Emanuel was a big backer of Blue Dog candidates in his role as and as. Even. I suppose supporting Lieberman might give one pause.
With Rahm now gone, the White House and the DCCC will back away from supporting Blue Dogs in favor of more progressive candidates? That would be a welcome development, but I’d like to see the evidence.
This would be the same Howard Dean who was roundly mocked by progressives for daring to suggest that Democrats might want to engage with “people who drive pickups with gunracks on the back”, right? Go read Joe Bageant’s “Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches From America’s Class War”—Bageant is a working-class Appalachian Democrat who has a deep understanding of why the white working class votes Republican, and a big part of it is the utter contempt with which they are treated by most progressives/Democrats.
When you’re continually dismissed as “trash” (trailer or otherwise), “rednecks”, “racists”, “uneducated”, etc., ad nauseam, by one political party, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that you’re not falling all over yourselves to vote for them. The fact that the Democrats now are explicitly rejecting the white working class (which helped build the Democratic Party, but who remembers that?) will merely confirm to many members of that class that they are right to reject the Democrats, as many of us working-class people learn early not to go where we’re clearly not wanted.
As I remember, most of us here in blogland were solidly behind Dean. I’m not sure what progressives you are talking about.
I did read that book. FYI, I grew up in a little mining town in the Ozarks. My people have been hillbillies since there were hillbillies.
Which Democratic politicians are doing that? Name one, with links. You see that in blog comments, yeah, and I don’t always agree or think it’s appropriate. But what DEMOCRAT is saying that?
That’s a lie (click on link for explanation), but thanks for showing us how gullible you are.
Your problems isn’t with Democrats, or progressives. It’s with the fact that you obviously are getting your information from right-wing sources, and those people lie as fast as they can flap your lips. Wake up and pay attention to reality. Thanks much.