The White Working Class

by: Mike Lux

Mon May 19, 2008 at 16:01


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Chris' analysis around the idea of creating a long-term progressive majority coalition made up of non-white, creative class, LGBT, non-Christian, unmarried women, and labor union members has always been one that makes sense to me. It is a realistic and numbers-based approach to a winning coalition, and as Chris points out, every one of those demographics except members of unions is a growing instead of shrinking one (and union membership is finally starting to stabilize after decades of decline). In the decades to come, that progressive coalition is going to be a dominant one in American politics.

The one thing that has always made me nervous about this kind of analysis has been amplified in recent days by some conversations I have been having with some of my friends in the wake of the Obama primary victory. There is a feeling among some of them is that since Obama won a primary against a tough candidate like Clinton without ever really expanding beyond this basic African-American, youth, and creative class coalition, that maybe we don't need to worry so much in the general election about more traditional white working class voters.

Now, the two kinds of thinking I've mentioned in paragraphs one and two are not exactly in sync, as Chris includes two heavily working class demographics in his winning coalition: labor union members and unmarried women. But both of them downplay the importance of appealing to white, married, working class families who are not in labor unions.

There have been versions of this view in Democratic politics for as long as I've been in politics (28 years full-time now), ironically one on the left and one on the DLC side of the party. The one on the left says that all we have to do to win is to register and turn out higher numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics, and the poor. The one on the right/DLC side says that who we really need to target are not those scary populist working class folks, but the "office park dads" and "security moms"- the comfortable, suburban managers and professionals who are more pro-business, pro-free trade, and uncomfortable with populist talk. I have a number of problems with this:

1. I know there will be OpenLeft.com readers who disagree with this in terms of the lefty version of this strategy, but I've seen both of these approaches tried in both national and local elections and neither of them has really worked. In terms of the mass voter registration/GOTV strategy, in both 2000 and 2004 massive amounts of money went into registration and GOTV, and millions of new voters came to the polls as a result. That was a good thing, as Gore carried the popular vote and many targeted states as a result, and we won some close Senate and House races those years as a result. But it certainly didn't give us the clear national victories we were looking for.

DLCers will argue that their approach worked for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but that's not really true either. Clinton won in 1992 because of the bad economy and the right-wing's abandonment of George H.W. Bush over the breaking of the no-new-taxes pledge- plus. If you look at Clinton's actual rhetoric and platform in 1992, it was pretty populist overall. In 1996, he broke open the Presidential race when he stood up to Gingrich on the budget in 1995, which certainly wasn't a very DLC thing to do (and which folks in the DLC were advising against).

2. There are a lot of swing voters among those white, married, working-class folks, and they tend to be concentrated in Presidential swing states. If you go back over the exit poll numbers over the last 30 years of Presidential races, virtually all of the sub-categories of white working class voters, including union members and unmarried voters, have gyrated all over the place, sometimes bouncing over 20 points difference between one election and the next. And where do the heaviest concentrations of this demographic tend to reside? States like PA, Ohio, WV, MN, MI, WI, MO- those states that always end up being Presidential swing states.

3. If we are looking to build a long-term, broad-based progressive coalition, one that we don't just squeak by with 51% and 280 electoral votes, one that consistently has more than 250 votes in the House and 55 in the Senate instead of 225 and 51, we're going to need those working class white voters in the heartland. In order to make consistent gains in the progressive agenda we are all fighting for, we have to have bigger majorities than we are currently operating with.

Some people who agree with me on the need to appeal to these kinds of voters believe that we have to move to the right to win them over. I don't believe that is true. On economic issues, they are far more populist than what passes for "centrism" in Washington, D.C. And while they are more conservative on social issues, I like to remind people that Bill Clinton in 1996- after a term where he pushed for gays in the military, enacted a ban on employment discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal government employment, vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban, and signed two gun control bills- won the highest percentage of both working class and rural voters of any Democratic Presidential candidate of the last 44 years. He won those voters by reaching out to them politically, and by speaking their language. The second best percentage among those voters in this period? Clinton in 1992.

So I'll conclude on this note: I am a big believer in a high prioritization on registration and turnout of African-American, Hispanic, young, and unmarried women voters. That's our base, and we can't win without boosting their numbers dramatically. But Barack Obama, and the rest of us progressive Democrats, can't win the general election without really working on those white working class voters. This can't be an either/or, it has got to be both. Obama is perfectly capable of doing it, he just has to have a very conscious and aggressive strategy for political outreach in that demographic: do lots of events in small towns, shake hands at factory gates, revive the bus tour idea from 1992 (which was fundamentally a rural and white working class strategy on our part), and keep talking about the real bread and butter issues that matter to hard-pressed working class voters. If he does all that and the campaign invests heavily in mobilizing base group voters, we will win this election going away.
Mike Lux :: The White Working Class

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The White Working Class | 80 comments
Several points.... (4.00 / 1)
...Larry Sabato has analyzed this in depth, and he thinks that people are making too much of the "working class white voters".  Most will never vote democratic no matter what the reason, and their numbers are diminishing in regards to hard working minorities.  So, for the future, our dominance looks bright regardless.  Even the folks at Redstate acknowledge their dying demographics...

And they are, quite literally, dying!  Most of the group that is most likely to support Hillary this time around, is going to be in the great polling booth in the sky by the time 2016 rolls around.... Ditto for most of the Reagan Democrats who betrayed this party long ago and like to flirt with us, but have never returned (and never will, even though we've tried to pander to them incessantly throughout the ages).

We also have another advantage, too... the repbulican philosophy is not only in collapse, the party is about to abandon it.  They will be attaching themselves to the "maverick" McCain at the hip, sink or swim... creating kind of a reverse-DLC strategy--make themselves as Democratic-Lite.  Looking back at the failed history of our DLC, we have to be optimistic at their soon to be failed attempts to try and be like us!  We've won the political framing war, and that makes things easier for us.

We also have a new demographic that is helping us with Obama... white hard working professionals!  The yuppie vote was always reliably Republican, but shared few of the party's values, and are now leaving in droves.  Lock them into our base for the future, and we'll never have to worry about the working class demographic again.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for white working class people to return to the party.  We've always worked for their best interests, whether they believed it or not, and we will continue to strongly represent their interests... but, they are such masochists, how do you convince them otherwise?  The door is open.  Hillary certainly panders to them.  Barack gives them the facts.  If they want to keep shooting themselves in the foot, well, we can't stop them.  Fortunately for us, their demographic is shrinking.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Sabato (4.00 / 1)
It was Alan I. Abramowitz, posting on Sabato's site:

http://www.centerforpolitics.o...

I'm a little confused by the analysis.  When I have heard reference to "white working class voters" I tend to think of families making under $50,000 a year, whether they be nurses, barristas, truckers, or mail carriers.  This analysis only deals with labor types - managerial, clerical and sales, or manual.  I don't know whether an assistant manager who oversees the power tool support line at Sears is managerial or not, under these classifications.  I do know that this job classification system isn't what most polls measure, which is income.

[ Parent ]
It speaks to an old debate (0.00 / 0)
in sociology between Marxist (production-based) and Weberian (stratification-based)  approaches to thinking about social class.

I agree that thinking about income levels is what's important, and therefore Abramovitz' analysis is kind of beside the point.  The democratic party has not lost vote share among lower income voters over time, although it has lost vote share among "manual" workers.

Low income people are not decreasing in number and retaining those voters is critical to the prospects of the democratic party in the future.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Abramowitz and Teixeira Paper (4.00 / 1)
This is taken from a longer paper Abramowitz and Ruy Teixeira did for Brookings called "The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class" in which they use education and income both.  Polls often ask for educational level, and are kind of a proxy for occupation, plus they include the not-working.  They feel education is a better measure of class than income, because the "working class" would be static at a percentage of income.  (I'm simplifying a 25 page paper.)

They conclude that the traditional white working class has declined with the loss of manufacturing jobs and the increase in educational levels and growth of professional and managerial jobs plus the relative decline in the white population due to immigration.  In 1940, 86% of adults 25 and over were whites without a college degree vs 48% now.  In 1940, 82% of adults 25 and over were white with a High School diploma or less, vs 29% now.  In 1940, 74% of employed workers were whites without professional or managerial jobs vs 43% now.  In 1940, 58% of workers were whites who held manual, service or farm jobs vs 25% now.  Looking at income, in 1947, 86% of families were white with less than $60,000 (2005 dollars) in income vs 33% in 2005.  We thus now have a working class that is less white (and more racially split) and a mass upper middle class that is largely white.  

They believe the white working class will continue to shrink.  And that it has been deserting the Democratic Party, though less so outside the South, while middle and upper class Democratic white voters, though a lesser proportion to begin with, have stayed about the same.  (Their party ID data go to 2004, so this may be changing.)  However, the WWC is critical to the fall election because it is concentrated in swing states.  

To reach WWC voters they suggest stress on economic security and opportunity--safety net programs as a way to invest in your own future and get ahead, not just stave off disaster.  I.E., connect to aspirations not just anxieties.

It's an interesting paper, and the piece on Sabato's site you link to is a good synopsis.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
The numbers. (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure how you are defining working class, and there are multiple ways people use to define the term. I tend to think of it as being people who make between 20 and 75 K a year, and who work at jobs where they have to do a lot of physical labor and have a boss telling them what to do- factory jobs, restaurant workers, secretaries, nurses, construction workers, truck drivers, delivery people, retail clerks, etc. Among those kinds of folks, they are not overwhelmingly Republican at all, and in fact swing wildly from election to election in terms of the % who votes for Dems vs. Repubs.
[ Parent ]
Swing Voters (0.00 / 0)
You are talking to a lot of people on this blog who do not even know what the Term Swing Voter or Reagan Republican is Mike. I have posted a lot on the subject and the responses I get just baffle the mind. Most here are willing to write off the White Working Class vote because they think a primary is indicative of a General Election and who needs them - Obama won without them. What can you say?

As for Obama pulling off a Bill Clinton '92, '96 - not so fast. First of all even though we are only talking about 12 and 16 years ago that is really eons ago in the world of politics as it stands today. What was done in '96 is not so easy to acheive in 2008.

Additionally you forgot to mention one very important factor. And that is that Bill was one of them. An Arkansas Bubba  who spoke their language even if they were from Pennsylvania little on W. Virgina. Obama can no way match that or duplicate it. Obama is not a good old boy. He will be seen as an elitist who shops at whole foods and worries about the price a Arugula.

When those working class Whites shake Obama's hand and then shake McCains hand I have little doubt who most of them will vote for.

[ Parent ]
You just can't help yourself, can you? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Well you didn't (0.00 / 0)
disagree with a valid point I made so what is the purpose of your comment?
[ Parent ]
Points (0.00 / 0)
Every "point" you make is an assertion, and debateable, and nobody agrees with most of them here.

You seem to have fantasies that you're persuading or scoring here.  You seem to think every one of your assertions is gold, and unquestionable.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think you speak for evreryone (0.00 / 0)
At least I would hope not.

And you present no argument. You say you disagree but fail to explain why my point are not valid. Not one paragraph can you challenge the validity of.  Sorry but empty statements like you made make for an argument not.

[ Parent ]
el wrongo (4.00 / 2)
Dude, read your comment to yourself.  This is funny.  You are describing yourself.

Tell me, what's it like to be the smartest human on earth? Or, how do you find the time to post on blogs all the time?  Do you have a job? Have you ever?  Have you ever been fired?  What is your story? Because you are bizarre.

Why do you post here?  Do you think you're "winning?"  Why don't you have your own blog?  So much to know....your behavior invites a lot of questions.  It doesn't invite much respect, as you can see.  

You need to first learn what an "assertion" is.    

[ Parent ]
You talk like an adolesent (0.00 / 0)
and you still have no argument dude. Instead you do what most do here is begin with the insults because you have nothing else.

When you have something of substance to say regarding my post please do.

[ Parent ]
Nyah Nyah (4.00 / 1)
You've proven this again and again - one could say to you on a rainy day that it's raining....and you will stomp off saying how stupid people are for not seeing the sun.

You're not rational. Nobody takes you seriously here.

I'm waiting to pick a friend up at the airport, and enjoying tweaking you.   What are you like in real life? seriously? How old are you, what do you do for work?  

[ Parent ]
Nyah Nyah??????? (0.00 / 0)
ROTFLMAO.

Children!!!

[ Parent ]
boogie boogie (0.00 / 0)
ooby dooby
You smell! And I got the last word!  

Tell us, do you have a job?  A significant other?  Are you on anti depressants?  We want to know!!!!!!!
 

[ Parent ]
What is the Creative Class income bracket? (4.00 / 2)
If "Working Class" means between 20 and 75 K a year?  

It seems like you're describing the Creative Class as separate from the Working Class so I would be interested in knowing what that means in terms of dollars.  

[ Parent ]
Where to begin (4.00 / 2)
Let's start with this whopper:
Most will never vote democratic no matter what the reason
Did you know that the proportion of Democratic to Republican registered voters is about 2:1 in West Virginia and Kentucky?  These are people who are basically Democratic, but vote against national candidates like Obama who are perceived to be elitist and/or out of touch.

Next:

And they are, quite literally, dying!  Most of the group that is most likely to support Hillary this time around, is going to be in the great polling booth in the sky by the time 2016 rolls around
Obama supporters should know, since they explain away his strange emphasis on a nonexistent Social Security "crisis" that the U.S. has an aging population.  In other words, the proportion of older voters is going to increase steadily in coming years.  Some will die, but even more will be entering old age.  This is some mighty pitiful stuff...What the hell are we supposed to do until 2016?  2016!?  Whatever happened to 2008?

We also have a new demographic that is helping us with Obama... white hard working professionals!  The yuppie vote was always reliably Republican, but shared few of the party's values, and are now leaving in droves.  Lock them into our base for the future, and we'll never have to worry about the working class demographic again.
So we trade former Republican yuppies for hardworking but low-income Democrats?  Do you not see how this would be the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party ever?
We've always worked for their best interests, whether they believed it or not, and we will continue to strongly represent their interests... but, they are such masochists
Setting aside how elitist and presumptive this is, what would cause Democratic candidates from representing their interests if they did not have to count on their vote?  And I might remind you that the interests of "white" working class voters are the interests of all Americans who are struggling.  God, it's sad that I have to point any of this out.
[ Parent ]
Sadness (0.00 / 0)
What's sad are the rampant assumptions you make about what you think people are saying/thinking.  They're pretty much all wrong.  You don't seem to read anything written here.....either that, or you should try asking some questions.  
[ Parent ]
Garak, you fit your username well... (4.00 / 1)
...the ONLY people injecting class warfare into this whole primary race are Hillary supporters.  No one is "throwing out" lower income white voters.  In fact, it's quite clear that the policies between the two candidates are very similar in how they affect that demographic.

What I was trying to say, at least, is that if people can't find a way to vote for Barack Obama, well, we are going to have to work around it.  'Cos there is no amount of pandering he's going to be able to do to win KY and WV voters over!

We aren't throwing out Appalachia, they are throwing US out... and have been for 30 years.  We're not going to continue to beg for them to vote for us, only to have them continue to betray us at the polls as they have for a generation!

For years the Democratic party has been the beggar... asking your demographic to "please like us".  No one likes the needy kid, so they always said no.  Fine.  This year, we're not going to beg you anymore.  If you can't see through whatever superficial issues you have with Obama, then we're just going to work around it.  The facts show clearly that either candidate will provide for your best interest.  We've done all that we are going to do.  We are going to work very hard to improve your lot, in spite of you voting Republican all the time.  Eventually, actions will speak for themselves!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I want to disagree with you (4.00 / 1)
but not sure if I have the evidence to do so. However, I think white working class is a bit of a misnomer. Obama has proven himself among rural whites, southern whites, and western and mid-western whites. He lost Appalachia whites because he is black, not because he is progressive. And I also believe that many of the white working class woman who voted for Hillary will consider Obama--in CA, NH, PA, OH, NC, VA, MD, etc. Not to be crude but Obama may never win over the poor racist whites. But he can win low income whites in many parts of the country and has proven so over and over again. I think that this is a wedge issue created by the Clintons to make a point that doesn't really exist, or won't exist once we enter the general.
Some evidence of Clinton created wedge issue: (4.00 / 3)
Compare the two states today via census data. The similarities are striking.

Male median income in Oregon: $41,536; Kentucky: $39,595;

Female median income in Oregon: $32,390; Kentucky: $29,392.

Oregon is slightly more prosperous than Kentucky, but its share of blue collar jobs is not far off Kentucky's.

Its not that you work...or that you are white...or that you are low income...or that you barely graduated from high school...NONE of those things determine if you are willing to vote for Obama--NO ONE of those things are determinative.

Its personal. Its race and/or gender. Its cultural. And it varies from region to region.

White working class, as a political category, is a wedge issue--meant to divide us and meant to inject race into the picture.

[ Parent ]
As an African-American Woman (4.00 / 9)
Can I say that I'm just about sick of talk of writing off the white working class?  Can we discuss, for a minute, the fact that I (personally) don't know squat about folks in the Appalachian region, and the dismissal of these folks isn't helping anything?  Seriously - I'm dismayed, genuinely dismayed at the idea that we at this historic juncture, are discussing writing off an ethnic subculture just because it is in opposition to something we're trying to accomplish.  Either we're interested in trying to change or we're just going to create a new status quo that someone - and not just the rich and privileged - is going to protest.  It's a big country - with room enough for all of us.  How come we can't figure out how to make coalition differences REALLY about ideology and not about... people?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Agree (0.00 / 0)
Iraq and the economy is killing the GOP. I believe another factor is just as crucial - arrogance. The conservatives felt they didn't need Independents, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Well, they don't have them and now are looking at spending a good, long time in the wilderness.

It's bad politics and bad policy to write off a large segment of Americans - even if they are in decline. The 50 state strategy is good strategy and liberals have to make their economic case better as opposed to the values argument.

[ Parent ]
Thank you QueenTiye (4.00 / 1)
I feel the same way!  I live in the heart of rural Appalachia.  Yes, we have internet service providers (and running water!) here, folks.  Can someone explain to me why the Unity(R) campaign is already writing off whole portions of the Democratic base?

And yes, let's not forget, working class voters ARE the Democratic Party's natural base.  And "working class" does not necessarily mean white, or black.  That's why Hillary specified.  If we're not in this to help the little guy, we might as well just close up shop now and let the Republicans run things.  Seriously, what's the point?

[ Parent ]
paranoia (4.00 / 2)
Show us where you can prove "we" are not for the "little guy", where we have "written you off".

We're liberals here, I think I can speak for the group.  I think Obama's a liberal, too.  If you disagree, please try to prove it, and ask people here why we disagree.  

If you think wagging your finger helps dialogue, you're wrong, it doesn't do squat.  This isn't Talk Left.  

[ Parent ]
I'm not sure I have the energy to point you (0.00 / 0)
to examples. So you could write us off if you want. But nonetheless the PERCEPTION (and, I happen to believe with much cause before I stopped reading Daily Kos, the REALITY) is that Obama's campaign is about, fundamentally, what? Obama's campaign. Not Obama, mind you, but Obama's campaign ... it's a campaign for and about its supporters , and little else. In fact, that's a guiding principle of the kind of organizing he was taught in his early career, as I was: Make the words about empowering the people present, and more will come. Fundamentally, though, for those still outside, it is perceived as little more than the deployment of an arrogant, chortling mob, who couldn't care less about the needs and worries about those outside the circle, and will quickly ignore them as soon as power is obtained. Again, I'm not making any moral judgments about anyone, Obama personally or his supporters, just giving the point of view of a classic Dem base voter who is not as yet bought in. It may be based on shaky perception, but it is driven by a pretty fierce sense of being condescended to, even insulted, and it will not do to simply be photographed with a bunch of guys in overalls to overcome that sense. It has to be real. Obama has to reject the overwhelming sense of self-reference that has come to define his campaign for slightly less than half the Democratic electorate.  
[ Parent ]
we've seen all this before (0.00 / 0)
ColoDem,

Out there in the real world, from what I've seen and from looking at favorables,  the vast majority of Dems who like either BHO or HRC don't hate the other.  This is all so blown out of proportion.

You are generalizing out the wazoo based on a tiny sample - political junkies who write on blogs.

How about the condescension in reverse?  The anti-intellectualism?  The anti coastalism?  

HRC partisans on the web are acting like Dean partisans on the web in 2004.    

[ Parent ]
I disagree with who you consider the "base"... (0.00 / 0)
...the "base" you describe has been voting Republican for 30 years.  No wonder the DLC failed for so many years... the "foundation" was made of sand...

No one is "writing you off", but we're also not going to beg for your vote anymore, either... not with the history of the region.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand 'writing off' (0.00 / 0)
I don't think anybody is making the case that we should economically screw over rural Appalachians because they didn't vote for Obama. The debate is over whether they're going to be part of the coalition that gives us the government that can help them.

For the record, I'd say that they'll play a role, but at the end of the day we'll still likely lose WV and should perhaps be looking to make them part of our coalition for 2012.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I don't think I'm misunderstanding (0.00 / 0)
and lord_mike's comments illustrate the problem.

One thing that I give John McCain credit for is his party building efforts.  There's NO way he's going to get the black  vote this year - unless the DNC hands Hillary Clinton the nomination.  AND, he's a poor spokesman for the task.  But he did go around talking to Blacks, and that's a start.  

Similarly - someone ought to make it a point to get out to Appalachia and talk to folks.  Clearly they see the world differently from lots of other constituencies.  I personally feel sad that I haven't a clue what it is they see differently, and I'd genuinely like to know.  I don't believe that the whole difference is that they are Baptists - but if that's really the case - where are our intellectual elites to analyze just what that means (or are we too above all of that to deal with it as anything other than sneer-worthy?)

How about the fierce independent tradition of baptists?  Anyone want to talk about the way baptist churches are organized - and make the connection between those movements and the movement of Dr. Martin Luther King who ALSO was baptist?  Maybe there's some deep personality connection we can make - if we wanted to... and as is said. Maybe it doesn't pay off this cycle, but talking about writing them off during ANY cycle doesn't help.

The beauty of the Obama campaign is the 50-state strategy that says every state is important.  The sadness of the DNC structure is the district level allocation strategy.  If we do proportional representation - it should be straight percentage of popular vote, NOT by district. Why? Because the persistent stratification of districts amounts to the same elitist bs the DNC is trying to overcome with the 50-state strategy!  Obama, as much as I adore his campaign - succeeded largely by playing to his strengths - including running up numbers in urban centers.  That's always going to be good strategy, as the majority of Americans (or soon to be majority, I forget which) now live in urban centers.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't expose a fundamental weakness in the candidacy, that it built the best and strongest organizations upon the same flawed and divisive model of the former big-state strategy... now we have the big district strategy.  

And finally - hearing what the folks in Appalachia have to say may yield policy ideas that we just aren't thinking about because we just haven't really invested in hearing them out.  How can the platform be complete without fully hearing all of the people - including those that aren't in our corner?

Argh.  I am sure that I rambled my way out of coherence on some of this post, for which I apologize.  But anyway - I just want everyone reading this post to step back from the electioneering and think about the people.  We've got a knowledge gap that is getting wider.  I don't believe the Appalachians require us to toss back whiskey and play Annie go get your gun.  I think there's other ways to find common ground - which we'd know if we took the time to get to know them.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I am very uncomfortable with (4.00 / 1)
what I perceived as the intent of the article/piece.  I hope I am mistaken, but my impression was that the article was an attempt to focus 'progressives' on the need to find a way to persuade the working-class (key phrase for uneducated, blue-collar, white voter) voters to become progressives so that the future of the progressives becomes entrenched, just like those 'other' groups that the progressives rally against.

Isn't this exactly what we find so disgusting about today's politicians and their support bases?  

Many people (sometimes, myself included!) view progressives as ultra-liberal.  It connotes an extremism that is the mirrored image of the neo-cons on the extreme right.  This isn't something that can ever be successfully marketed to more moderate and centrist voters.  Sure, from time to time there will appear an exceptional candidate (Sen. Obama or Gov. Clinton) that captures moderates imagination and instills in these voters a sense of hope and promise for a better future, but these electable-moments are fleeting.  They do not represent the primary truth about what progressives are and provide the justification for the moderate voter to become an ultra-liberal.

An additional point that I think should be made is that the more we compartmentalize and slice-and-dice the voting blocks the more we become estranged from the founding beliefs and principles of these voting blocks.  The fact is if we really want to know what/how a person thinks we should start out with our commonalities.  We are, first of all, all of us: human beings.  We can differentiate further into gender.  We can even look study the differences between those individuals who are raising a family and those who do not (not, as I often see: families vs. non-families----ALL of us have family!).  My point is, we can fractionalize and dissect as much as we want, but it doesn't mean such efforts will produce any insight into the 'nature of' one person's viewpoint and belief vs. anothers.  We run the risk of getting lost in a sea of data.

Just my three cents worth.

[ Parent ]
the best way to win working class voters (4.00 / 2)
is to use labor institutions.  which conservatives understand which is why they implicitly or explicitly oppose organizing.  labor unions and other labor organizing can take up the role rightwing churches play if the structural impediments to the right to organize are removed.
The best way to win any voters (4.00 / 1)
is not to "use" anything or anyone. It's to authentically represent and talk to people's fears and hopes.  
[ Parent ]
What Exactly Do You Think That Labor Institutions Do? (4.00 / 2)
They "authentically represent and talk to people's fears and hopes."  That's why Republicans hate them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
i was going to make a bad pun on diction here (0.00 / 0)
but I agree with your point.  i'll  just apologize for my poor choice of words and the underlying premises.  I'm a social science trainee with all the baggage that comes from not having thoroughly enough delved into subject / object etc.  I'm working on it, and I hope you'll give me the space to do so :)
[ Parent ]
Can we still use phones? (0.00 / 0)
Toilets? And how about music? If we can't dance ...
[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton's elections (0.00 / 0)
He'd have never won if the Republicans had been able to stifle Ross Perot. Clinton had a lesser percentage of the vote than Gore or Kerry.
Scary, really (0.00 / 0)
the Republican dominance of the Presidency.

If it weren't for Perot and a recession, Clinton might not have had a prayer.  Today, after the Iraq debacle, a failing economy, Katrina, and numerous scandals, McCain is still competitive despite his huge financial disadvantage.

[ Parent ]
The Perot myth. (4.00 / 4)
The myth that Clinton would not have won without Perot in the race has been successfully promulgated by Republicans so much that many Dems like yourself now believe it. But it's bullshit. Bill Clinton was 20 points ahead when Perot got back in the race, and the race would have tightened, but not that much. And exit polls were very clear that the Perot vote would have split down the middle, leaving Clinton the strong victor.
[ Parent ]
One Thing That Skews That (4.00 / 3)
Is that the GOP did successfully woo the Perotistas after 1992.  The "Contract with America" was specifically crafted for them, for example, with none of the Christian Right agenda in it, which would have turned the Perotistas off.  Although the Constract itself was not directly responsible for the GOP win in 1994 (most voters never heard of it), it did help them unify their message around issues that Perot voters cared about.  (This is covered in detail in the book, Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence by Walter Stone and Ronald Rapoport.)

Thing is, the GOP really didn't care all that much about those things--especially term limits!  (And they did care a whole lot about the Christian Right.) But it's taken some time for the Perotistas to figure this out.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
I've seen analyses that come out the exact opposite. Guess the old line about lies, damn lies, and statistics ...
[ Parent ]
Yes, really (0.00 / 0)
Exit polling showed the Perot voters who would have voted for Bush would not have swayed enough states to carry the EC for him.

A great many perot voters were people who don't usually vote too, which is why the 1992 turn out is so much higher than 1988.

Clinton won 1992 out and out with no asterix.

[ Parent ]
Perot drew GOP votes (4.00 / 2)
Of course, Perot had already essentially donated his votes to Clinton by dropping out on the last day of the NY DNC convention, right, Mike?  That's where the 20-point lead came from.
Teixeira & Judis show pretty convincingly that Perot's votes split directly from Bush '88.
[ Parent ]
This is the key point (4.00 / 1)

If we are looking to build a long-term, broad-based progressive coalition, one that we don't just squeak by with 51% and 280 electoral votes, one that consistently has more than 250 votes in the House and 55 in the Senate instead of 225 and 51, we're going to need those working class white voters in the heartland. In order to make consistent gains in the progressive agenda we are all fighting for, we have to have bigger majorities than we are currently operating with.

It requires a clean break with the Clinton/Bush/Carville/Rove politics of the past.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

How can anyone (4.00 / 1)
take you seriously if you consider Carville and Rove to be at all comparable?
[ Parent ]
With Carville's opposition (4.00 / 2)
To Howard Dean's 50-state strategy, I feel comfortable in linking both Carville and Rove to the 50%+1 mentality.  Instead, we should expand Dean's 50-state strategy into what I think of as the 50-demographic strategy, with a willingness to actively reach out to all sorts of groups, even those that lean Republican, rather than concentrating mainly on the key swing states demographics.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
The 50-state strategy (0.00 / 0)
is great for Congressional races, local offices, gubernatorial races, and judicial elections.

However, the Obama '50-state strategy' is not the same thing.  What he's saying is he doesn't have to win WV, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc because he can make up for it in other states that will suddenly become competitive.  The problem is, all of the states he could conceivable compete in do not add up to enough electoral votes to matter whatsoever.

Obama is the next Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, or Kerry.  Actually, he doesn't even reach that level because these candidates at least held onto a good portion of the Democratic base.  If Obama does get the nomination I predict that the party will fracture, perhaps permanently.

Remember people, Hillary is still in this.  There's still time.

[ Parent ]
foreknowledge (4.00 / 2)
Wow, you know that Obama is the next Humphrey?

Can I go to the track with you sometime?

You talk here as if people are stupid.  Obama is not going to NOT contest Ohio, Fl and MI.  

I find it strange that you assume that Hillary could win WV. Why? Can't be because of her spouse's performance there.  She's not her spouse.  This is 2008.  

Try www.talkleft.com.  Lot of people saying exactly what you're saying...over and over and over again, ignoring any possible different interpretations.  

[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
To my knowledge, Carville didn't advocate a 50% +1 strategy or one that was based on narrow margins of victory by leveraging small pockets of voters.  Carville and Clinton were facing an electoral map of decisive electoral defeats for Mondale and Dukakis, and reached out to moderate, conservative, and Southern voters.  Look at the 1998 map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Carville, Clinton, et al, changed the map so that the parties were engaged in an electoral deadlock instead of a series of Republican landslides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

This was a remarkable strategy that gave us what is essentially the map that Bush, Gore, Rove, and Kerry played.

Clinton, with Carville's help, fundamentally realigned electoral politics.  They didn't INTEND to have a 50% + 1 result - they expanded as much as they could, which was a tremendous victory.  (There are many who fear that Obama is going to set it back, not forward, and bring us back to the demographics of Republican victories).

Rove took the map that Clinton and Carville created, and tried to game it on the margins. Rove engineered a 50% + 1 strategy.

Carville's disagreement with Dean doesn't make him Rove.  There simply isn't any comparison between them.  

[ Parent ]
how about when he used sexism to try to undermine obama (0.00 / 0)
against the first viable female candidate for president?  or when he referred to Bill Richardson as Judas?  Or simply that he's comfortable enough separating politics and personal life that he can be married to Mary Matalin?

I don't know the guy, but he doesn't seem all that concerned with building a lasting progressive (as opposed to Democratic) majority.

[ Parent ]
Try to follow (0.00 / 0)
The question we were discussing was not whether Carville or his wife are candidates for sainthood.  The question was whether his strategies were in any way comparable to Rove, whether he could be lumped together as "old politics."

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by a "progressive" as opposed to "Democratic" majority.  Progressives are almost definitionally a subset of the Democratic party.  The only majority that can be configured on the electoral map is one that reaches out to people who don't identify with an across the board progressive stance.

[ Parent ]
don't be condescending (0.00 / 0)
i specifically referenced tactics in a campaign in which he's currently participating, tactics which included emasculation. he's also so ensconced in political operative culture that he's married to someone who works for the other party, which sort of shows that the game is more important to him than what it's supposed to stand for.  if that's not old politics, i don't know what is.

anyway, yes, carville is not the same as rove.  i think the point is more generally that some of us are quite fed up with his style of politics as well (at least what he presents us with publicly, today).

i would encourage you to explore the word "almost" in your comments on the distinction between progressives and democracts.  there are wondrous things there--like noam chomsky, emma goldman, and malcolm x.

[ Parent ]
I agree with your take on this (0.00 / 0)
...Carville is not Rove.  That it seems necessary to point that out here and actually demonstrate why is a little unsettling.  Carville is a shrewd operator, so is Rove, but Rove is a criminal and a miserable human being.  Is that too complicated for people to understand?
[ Parent ]
i didn't have a problem taking them seriously (4.00 / 1)
political operatives
[ Parent ]
Exclusive versus Exclusion (4.00 / 2)
One of the problems when discussing "ethnic whites" is similar to the problem one sometimes has with discussing religion with conservative Christians.  Sometimes they don't get the difference between no longer being the exclusive end-all and being excluded.

It used to be the working-class white voter was really the only place to go for votes, there just wasn't enough of anyone else to worry about.  Old habits die hard and some believe it should stay that way.

So the question isn't whether we should exclude them; most certainly we should not.  The question is how do we make them feel like they are a part of something bigger.

Good point (0.00 / 0)
See the statistics I laid out above from Abramowitz & Teixiera on the decline of the white working class however it is measured.  I think you are right, and it fits with their suggestion to connect to people's aspirations not just their anxieties.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
Why does it seem so easy and natural to objectify working class white voters as "them"? As opposed to "us." It wouldn't be a matter of excluding or including "them" if this whole conversation weren't taking place among a whole bunch of people concentrated in one tiny corner of the Democratic Party base.
[ Parent ]
Them (4.00 / 1)
I'm not a working class white, so the term "us" wouldn't work in this context.  The correct pronoun would thus be "them".  It's pretty much as simple as that.

But I think you explain well why it is hard to bring the working class white into a larger demographic.  If I can't honestly call myself one of them than I can be a part of the same group.  I guess when you are stuck in an "us versus them" mindset, "them" must be really bad.  Personally, I'd rather break out of that mindset altogether.

BTW, I also call Latinos, African-Americans, Women, children, and extremely wealthy as "them".  Cause, you know, I'm not in any of those categories, "us" would be lying.

[ Parent ]
Easier Said Than Done! (4.00 / 4)
So the question isn't whether we should exclude them; most certainly we should not.  The question is how do we make them feel like they are a part of something bigger.

This has always been the thing with this voting block--not those who are still with us on a class basis, but those who identify more with being "white" than being working class.  Those folks have always had the attitdue that either their needs come first, foremost and forever, or else you're a n$gger lover, and they will have nothing to do with you.

The language has mellowed considerably over the years, but the core attitude remains, and it is nowhere close to a rational matter.  This is what I was talking about in my diary yesterday, "When Facts And Fascism Collide: Battle-Lines of the 2008 Election", regarding Kathleen Parker's column, "A full-blooded American."

In particular, it goes to the early childhood roots and the subsequent socialization, that I quote psychoanlast Robert Young regarding.  First paragraph goes to the "all or nothing" attitude, and the second goest to where it comes from:

Where I grew up in Texas in the 1950s, the Ku Klux Klan was still active as it is again. I unknowingly worked with members - sharecroppers whose farms were uneconomic and who had gone to work in Ford factory in order to hold onto their homes. They seemed decent people until one of them saw me in friendly conversation with a black janitor, a preacher with a Masters Degree who was trying to keep his church going, a situation parallel to the sharecroppers. The man who worked most closely with me carefully lowering car bodies onto chassis said, 'Don't never speak to me again. I don't want to have nothing to do with no nigger-lover'. And he never uttered another word to me.

These people, like racists everywhere, acquired their horrid social attitudes by a process of tacit social learning, whereby their infantile psychotic anxieties, feelings all babies have, got channelled into particular channels. I do not think that those rednecks working at the Ford factory were mad or psychopathic, any more than I think my racist father and (rather more genteel) racist mother and sister were evil. As Hannah Arendt has shown us in the case of Adolf Eichmann, it is more banal than that (Arendt, 1963). They were just socialised into the values of that part of the world - just as I was.

It's a whole lot more low-key now--and these people were never the beneficiaries of these sick attitudes.  But the us/them mindset is still there, and if the white man don't come first, then he doesn't come at all.  That's the mindset we are up against.

Let me be clear--I agree with your sentiment. I just want to stress that it's not a straightforward problem, just because you can present it in a straightforward way.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Mike .. (4.00 / 1)
The one on the right/DLC side says that who we really need to target are not those scary populist working class folks, but the "office park dads" and "security moms"- the comfortable, suburban managers and professionals who are more pro-business, pro-free trade, and uncomfortable with populist talk.

What exactly does the DLC think is "pro-business"?  I have never heard that defined.  What exactly is it supposed to mean?  Does it mean subsidizing rich businessmen to build sports stadiums(like DLC'er Rendell was in favor of in Philly)?  Or how 80% of Pittsburgh voters voted to not use public money for stadiums for the Pirates and Steelers .. yet Murphy(before he passed) overrode the voters .. and gave the money to the teams anyway? .. obviously there are other examples .. I am just using those two .. does being pro-business mean Bush style regulations(meaning businesses are free to break laws .. and will have lax, if any oversight)?  I don't think most people are that kind of "pro-business".  I once read an article that Daley(the Chicago mayor) said that Dems had to be more "pro-business" ... and he never said what he meant by that .. and the writer never followed up .. because I don't think there is a Dem out there that is anti-business .. it comes down to what one defines as "pro-business" .. and I think the DLC is guilty of being disingenuous on that .. after all ... corporations have a responsibility too .. whether they admit it or not

Rendell (0.00 / 0)
And so pro-business, I guess, includes selling the Pennsylvania Turnpike for $12.8 Billion? Truly spectacular!
[ Parent ]
Has some one wrote into the Inky today .. (0.00 / 0)
which Chris can attest to(if he reads the dead tree version .. and I don't know if they have the letters online) .. the state runs the alcohol business here in PA ... they are state stores .. if Rendell is looking to raise money .. why not privatize the state stores .. and Rendell is fast becoming as popular as Mitch Daniels in IN .. for much the same reason it seems
[ Parent ]
my definition of pro-business (4.00 / 3)
It's really anti-anti-business. And a helping of language.

I think it helps to be perfectly clear that liberals believe in a free market economy that encourages innovation but also has a strong government that will intervene in the market to ensure that the interest of citizens are paramount, especially in the case of market failures.  

This means health care for all, a safety net for the least fortunate, a strong public education system and clean environment -- all of which enables freedom of opportunity.  And we welcome partnerships with business whenever it's clear that they can contribute to outcomes, not merely profit.

[ Parent ]
pro-business (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, there is a tendency inside the beltway, at the DLC and elsewhere, to define pro-business as pro-big business.
[ Parent ]
therein lies the problem ... (0.00 / 0)
does Al From & Co. think the credit/housing bust could have been avoided(because it it did have to blow up like it did)? .. is From okay with media consolidation? ...  that's the crux ..  some people(Republicans in DC at the least) .. believe in free markets .. and letting companies do whatever they want(and then ask for bailouts when the going get tough) .. and some of us .. think smart and sensible regulation is the way to go .. people like me aren't anti-business .. just that certain rules need to be followed .. you don't want your water ways or skys choked with pollution .. do you(Do you ever check out James Fallows pictures from Beijing)?
[ Parent ]
Or pro-donor (4.00 / 1)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
if republicans could build a coalition of jesus + finance capital (4.00 / 4)
i'm sure that democrats can (again) accomplish this:

I am a big believer in a high prioritization on registration and turnout of African-American, Hispanic, young, and unmarried women voters. That's our base, and we can't win without boosting their numbers dramatically. But Barack Obama, and the rest of us progressive Democrats, can't win the general election without really working on those white working class voters. This can't be an either/or, it has got to be both.

It's, in fact, not really that hard, to imagine conceptually.  You could run a campaign with economic policies benefiting the bottom 70% of the population and social policies that oppose classism/racism/sexism/etc.  

The way to f@#k up is by failing to reconcile the two things, because the interests can obviously diverge and conflict in various ways, by being short-sighted, and by not doing anything to structurally entrench the politics behind this.  

the organizing challenge is how to make people understand the ways that economics (capitalism) and social hierarchies operate in tandem.  which is why you need social movements that build to a party with a unified agenda, rather than trying to impose the agenda from the top down, without doing enough of the hardwork of convincing godfearing christians and transgeder people, the wealthy children of immigrants and white working class people that they all should be supporting the same political party and then call them all backwards (i.e. what republicans used to successfully invoke as "liberal elitism").  the reason you get a 50+1 philosophy is when you haven't done that hard work or you've forgotten that it's necessary (e.g. if you just tie up with finance capital and support the hegemony = DLC ;)

On a sidenote, I highly recommend Wages of Whiteness by David Roediger - it's  about the intersection of race and class in the formation of the White working class in the 19th century.

Precisely! (0.00 / 0)
Blindingly obvious.  Yet, somehow, almost totally ignored.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Outreach (4.00 / 2)
How about: vote Dem or vote stupid.

Seriously I think they are worth little more than having it putting it straight to them that they have been voting against their own interests for 25 years. If they like how the last 25 years have gone, well more power to them, vote for McIdiot. If not, then its time to grow up.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

i know you're speaking out of frustration (0.00 / 0)
but, think of it this way:  In 1996 or later, implementing your strategy would have been to continue to talk down to people and allow the rightwing social and political movement to continue to build until it achieved so much power that it could destroy three societies (u.s., iraq, and afghanistan) and wreak havoc on countless others, undermine poor people in the u.s. and around the world, etc etc?  this is the stuff that makes "limousine liberalism" and "elitism" ring true with some people, rightly or wrongly.

whereas strategies like the stamford project probably do more to build.

[ Parent ]
Will's comment is a tad blunt (4.00 / 2)
But I agree with it generally.  The thing is, public opinion polling from reliable sources (like Pew) shows that 70-80% of Americans support the "liberal" agenda.  Why not just harp on health care, tax fairness, rebuilding infrastructure, labeling food (for origin, GMOs, chemical fertizers/pesticides/additives, bovine growth hormone, factory farming, etc.), diplomacy vs. war, and other issues which resonate with the majority, remind them that MOST people want the same thing, and then ask:  which party can you count on to enact this agenda?
People aren't stupid, but they are misinformed (thanks to the constant din of corporate/plutocratic propaganda).  Give them the simple facts and a simple choice.  I think most (or enough, anyway) will choose the right course.
Because while we're talking (0.00 / 0)
about food labeling and rGBH, our worthy opponents are explaining exactly how we're going to let the Hordes of Arabee swarm over the border to rape our children, Barack Hussein Mustafa Quadafi O-s-bama was taught in a madrassa to hide his true Jihado-nazism until winning the White House, which he'll immediately rename the Black House, and how the Democratic educational plan is 'ebonics, not phonics.'

If facts were sufficient, we'd never lose.

[ Parent ]
Adding: (0.00 / 0)
Mike's suggestions are:

1) Small towns events,
2) Shake hands at factory gates,
3) Bus tours!
4) Talk about bread and butter issues that matter to hard-pressed working class voters.

If that's all this is gonna take, we're already won.

But do we really think that's all this is gonna take?

[ Parent ]
always read your posts with interest (4.00 / 1)
I have a particular interest in older (60+ or 65+) voters and did several months of volunteer work with older voters in an early State for Obama during 2007.  

As you know, Obama has been getting killed in the primary with older (65 and older) voters (19% overall Obama/Clinton gap among all older voters; 33% overall Obama/Clinton gap among all White older voters).  This is true for many reasons including the appeal of Clinton to older women who numerically dominate the older voter group and the Obama campaign's general lack of attention to this demographic.   Although I am a long time Obama die-hard, I would say that the Obama campaign's weakest outreach to date during the primary has been to Latinos and older voters.  

If a Democratic coalition does not include some portions of older voters, it will have trouble being achieved and sustained.  The oldest Baby Boomer turned 65 this year and old Boomers are going to comprise a very large and growing portion of the electorate for the next 20 years as they age.  

Check out these stats for 60+ age and older voters:

          % of Total
            Voters

1992     18%         Clinton- 47%; Bush- 39%
1996     24%         Clinton- 48%; Dole- 44%
2000     22%         Gore- 51%; Bush- 47%
2004     24%         Bush- 54%; Kerry- 46%  

Storm clouds for Obama and the Democratic Party.
 

Clinton Won With A Broad Coalition (4.00 / 1)
"...I am a big believer in a high prioritization on registration and turnout of African-American, Hispanic, young, and unmarried women voters. That's our base, and we can't win without boosting their numbers dramatically. But Barack Obama, and the rest of us progressive Democrats, can't win the general election without really working on those white working class voters. This can't be an either/or, it has got to be both."

You keep narrowing the coalition. Even though you now want to expand it to include "white working class" voters (and, BTW: this is really disrespectful: why can't you go back to the "blue-collar, working class voters" description, or "working class" - which includes a broad swath of people: white, Black, Asian, Latino, women, seniors?)

I notice that "other" women are being completely left out of your "metric". Why is this? Women alone constitute close to 60% of the Democratic Party regardless of their "class."

As long as the left continues to marginalize the BIG TENT Democrats you/they/us won't win. AAs, the young and the creative class (whatever the hell that actually is) are not enough to win an election, much less form a governing coalition. And as long as you continue to focus on these groups while you slice and dice other demographics, it will be a losing proposition.

And if you think you can get along without "women of a certain age," you can't.

I am trying to figure out what the salve is for these people... (4.00 / 3)
People seem to ignore what the post is saying.  It is not about excluding anyone it is about getting people to vote for you and how do you achieve it.  This wouldn't be a problem if people from certain demographics seem reluctant to vote for the party's nominee.  If the exit polls from these latest primaries showed that everyone would be happy with either candidate we wouldn't need to have this conversation.  

It is the fact that large swaths of whites in the working class and amongst seniors seem unwilling to vote for Obama in the general that makes Democrats have to consider another path for victory.  It there was broad non-racial spectrum of voters decidedly against Obama we would define them as such.  The reason why we are talking about 'white working class' and 'white senior' voters is because these groups seems strident in their opposition to Obama.  Black and Latino working class and seniors and white white-collar voters, even those who supported Clinton, don't seem unwilling to vote for Obama in the exit polls.  

I don't understand the talk of 'marginalization'.  Who is being marginalized and how?  The two candidates have almost identical policies.  There is so little between them that the major populist in the campaign and his wife split their endorsements between the two.  The only discernible reason most of us can see is that there must be some identity aspect to this entrenched attitude.  We can't put Obama in white face and change his last name to Jones.  What are we supposed to do to get the votes of people who say they are voting on racial identity?

The attitude expressed here is that Obama must be dropped for Clinton.  If there were rational and important policy differences between the two I imagine everyone here would be pulling for the person who was more progressive, but neither candidate fits that bill on the broad spectrum.  Obama is more progressive on media and foreign policy.  Clinton is marginally better on health care.  I just don't understand how the Big Tent gets bigger by making this move to appease racial biases in certain demographics.

[ Parent ]
This "BIG TENT" Claim Is BS (0.00 / 0)
Ricky's respondse to this is extremely thoughtful and entirely on point.  I just want to add a little highlighing of this claim:

As long as the left continues to marginalize the BIG TENT Democrats you/they/us won't win. AAs, the young and the creative class (whatever the hell that actually is) are not enough to win an election, much less form a governing coalition. And as long as you continue to focus on these groups while you slice and dice other demographics, it will be a losing proposition.

And if you think you can get along without "women of a certain age," you can't.

The so-called "Big Tent" rarionale is routinely deployed to marginalized the Democratic base, and the party activists who do the vast majority of the shit work.  The beneficiaries of such rhetoric are not the poor "forgotten" voters in the middle (who ever thinks of them?), but rather the wealthy elites who dominate the upper reaches of both parties.

It's quite telling that this comment as a whole is in no way responsive to what Mike is saying in this diary.  It is, rather, an expression of this mindset, nurtured over many election cycles, by the elite forces who dominate the party from the top.  Ricky very adeptly explains the logic of Mike's approach.

People like mabelle55 in this comment (and I have no idea how typical or deep-seated this is for her, so I don't want to beat up on her personally) are feeling a very legitimate sense of grievance, but they are misdiagnosing the nature, the cause and the source of it.  This is a classic example of how displacement works as a defense mechanism protecting the conservative establishment order. This has been going on as a well-organized process in this country at least since the 1600s, as I noted in my diary "Fox's Faux Populism vs A Shadow Elite--Pt. 1 ":

 Roger Wilkin's book, Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism contains an instructive account of the origins of Virginia's social order, centered around Bacon's Rebellion (1676), which in turn has a central place in shaping the whole nation's racial order.

Prior to this brief uprising, Virginia was still a rather fluid society, whose upper echelon had only recently clawed its way to the top.  When a variety of factors led to open rebellion, with Nathaniel Bacon at its head, there was a broad alliance of those left out of power--freemen with poor prospects, indentured servants and slaves, all of whom were relatively close in social standing, since slavery was neither permanent, hereditary, nor identical with being black.  Bacon's rebellion fizzled out after Bacon died of dysentary,  but the elite was justifiably shaken, and undertook a two-fold strategy to prevent a recurrence.  

On the one hand, it sought to culturally define itself as superior, by adopting a culture oriented around classical Greece and Rome, requiring either tutors imported from England, or else the transport of young men to England for their education there.  By itself, this would only serve to intensify the sense of difference and stoke populist hostility.  The other side, however, had the opposite effect: blacks were utterly shut out of the white social order, condemned to permanent slavery as a hereditary condition. By marking the black as totally others, totally beyond the pale, the elites could now portray themselves as quintessentially white, and therefore necessarily immune to populist hatred, since hating them meant hating yourself as a white person.

Blaming anyone other the white conservative patriarhcal establishment for this state of affairs is simply a way of falling into their trap.

Finally, it really irks me to have people fall for Clinton as a standin for "women of a certain age," especially given that she big-footed Congresswoman Nita Lowy out of the New York Senate race in 2000.  Yes, she was publicly humilitated by her husband, and that was a bad thing. It still doesn't make her a real life champion of anyone.  It only makes her a symbolic one.

And symbolism is not enough.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The point is to not wait around for the so-called Big (0.00 / 0)
tent (which means basically conservative white voters since apparently the rest of us don't count under this frame) but instead to see how many can we bring along with the rest of us.
[ Parent ]
Some thoughts from Salon.com (0.00 / 0)
So I'll conclude on this note: I am a big believer in a high prioritization on registration and turnout of African-American, Hispanic, young, and unmarried women voters. That's our base, and we can't win without boosting their numbers dramatically. But Barack Obama, and the rest of us progressive Democrats, can't win the general election without really working on those white working class voters. This can't be an either/or, it has got to be both. Obama is perfectly capable of doing it, he just has to have a very conscious and aggressive strategy for political outreach in that demographic: do lots of events in small towns, shake hands at factory gates, revive the bus tour idea from 1992 (which was fundamentally a rural and white working class strategy on our part), and keep talking about the real bread and butter issues that matter to hard-pressed working class voters. If he does all that and the campaign invests heavily in mobilizing base group voters, we will win this election going away.

Just wanted to come back here and respond to this paragraph, which I gave short-shrift to before.  I agree with this paragraph wholeheartedly.  Especially I am looking forward to a very BALANCED coalition going into the general election.  But to achieve balance, requires reaching out across the board.

Here's an article from Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Neither Dems Nor GOP Represent White Working Class (0.00 / 0)
Since the same Wall Street folks and Big Media gatekeepers that used to always bankroll and promote the campaigns of GOP presidential candidates are now backing Democratic presidential candidates like Obama (check out his Penny Pritzker link, for instance), the class interests of U.S. white working class people would actually not be represented in either a GOP McCain Administration or a Corporate Democratic-Promoted Obama Administration in 2009.  The majority of white working class people in the United States have long understood that the Corporate and Big Media-manipulated U.S. electoral system is rigged to produce a U.S. government that only represents the special interests of the global corporations and the U.S. plutocrats.  That's why the majority of U.S. white working class people don't vote in U.S. elections.

Under a Democratic Obama Administration, the economic inequality in the United States between the Ultra-rich folks and U.S. white working class family that increased dramatically under the Democratic Clintons' Administration between 1993 and 2001, will continue to increase. But if the U.S. white working class people whose economic class interests will be ignored under the Patriarchal Democratic Obama Administration align themselves politically with anti-war feminist women and anti-war African-American working-class people (whose economic interests will also be ignored under a Militaristic and Patriarchal Democratic Obama Administration), they might be able to eventually develop a U.S. pacifist political alternative to both the GOP and the Dems that actually ends the suffering of U.S. white working class people in the 21st-century USA, in this current era of "bipartisan militarism" and globalized wage-cutting.  

The White Working Class | 80 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox