In 2018, people mostly fit into two groups: those who have no interest in "relitigating" 2016 and those who feel we still have much to learn. But if you vote Democrat and want to win in 2020, 2016's events are far from irrelevant. One major lesson to be learned: why did the white working class reject the Democratic ticket?
Focusing on the white working class is not to reject or minimize discussing other conditions that explain the election results. America is still a very racist and sexist country nearly two decades into the 21st Century. A primary challenger put Clinton's policies under the microscope, and many could never unsee her flaws. And to a vastly overstated degree, there was foreign influence in the election. It's impossible to quantity a single condition's influence on an election outcome.
Still, Donald Trump appealed to the white working class, a group that's been hurting for decades thanks to centrist liberal economic policy and conservatism in all forms. It didn't matter that Trump's form of populism was mere conservatism without any shame of its trademark racism and sexism. It also didn't matter that conservatism calls for lower wages, less safety regulations, longer hours, and less collective rights. A break from centrism and establishment politics led the white working class to embrace a candidate whose policies would likely make their lives worse. To many Americans, Trump's politics were the same old conservativism. To his voters, it was something different.
Rather than embrace something different, i.e. leftist economic populism, Democrats continue to punch left and alienate those critical of the centrist status quo.
Imagine for a second that the Democratic Party abandoned its hubris and embraced true leftist ideologies. Imagine even the most exaggerated caricature of a white working class voter: racist, uneducated, and conservative. Would this person choose party loyalty over higher wages? Greater job security? A greater social safety net that is vital for a future where automation will replace many jobs? Free healthcare and a longer, healthier life? All the above?
Republicans have not had to deal with true leftist ideology in decades and are wholly unprepared to combat the rising popularity of leftist politics. How many more years do Republicans have to call Obama a socialist before we realize that they have no idea what leftist politics actually look like? And if they don't know what true leftist politics are, how can they defend against them?
In sum, Democrats need to adopt the economic populism of the Sanders wing. Centrism is unpopular, but proper promotion of leftist politics will ensure the entire working class votes Democrat. At a certain point, a party's message must be more than 1990s economics and less racism and homophobia.
The parties resistance to adopting the economic populism of the Sander's wing arguably cost it the election. But it seems that the Democratic party is still not ready to embrace this new ideology or any other new ideology. We Democrats simply talk about forming coalitions to resist Trump's policies, we are not doing anything proactive to attract a larger base. Its been a year since Trump was elected to the White House and I have not seen a cohesive policy platform on which the Democratic party plans to challenge the Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections. Hopefully another political loss is not necessary for major changes to occur within the party.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post! As your post implies, both Republicans and the Democrats have done a disservice to the poor and the working class—it’s more a question of degree and method. As a progressive liberal, I favor economic policies that ensure all Americans have a dependable safety net. It’s astonishing and shameful that children still go hungry in this country, and that individuals struggle to or cannot secure the medical care they need. [https://www.nokidhungry.org/who-we-are/hunger-facts] That said, if “economic populism” is to gain traction, it seems to me that it needs to be furthered developed.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don’t think there’s a clear definition of what “economic populism” is. On its face, it appears to be an economic program that favors the economic interests of the largest group of persons within a capitalist economy—the working class, over others. Conceived as such, “economic populism” is really a euphemism for socialism. But if that’s the case, why not call it what it is? Is it a question of political strategy: is “economic populism” more palatable than socialism? If “economic populism” is distinct from socialism, however, it remains largely undertheorized. And folks should elucidate on its position vis-à-vis capitalism: Is it supposed to work in tandem with capitalism (and globalization) or does it seek to displace capitalism altogether? Further, what is its relation to the State?
Moving forward it will behoove progressives to not pussyfoot around reality. If some form of democratic socialism is the goal, then call it what it is. After all, it seems that part of the problem in the last election was Trump’s nationalist—arguably racist—version of populism, which could easily be mistaken for “economic populism.”
As someone who opposes economic populism, I must admit this is a scary proposition for me. I agree that if Democrats focused more on progressive economics, like higher wages and protecting American jobs, they would have performed better in the 2016 election.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think it might be oversimplifying matters to say that the entire white working class would vote Democrat if they simply embraced economic populism. I think that any move in that direction would be a net positive for Democrats but they still will need to capitulate or at least deemphasize social issues if they want to win back a large percentage of the working class.
Open borders are never going to be a winning issue with the white working class. They might support Dreamers, but they will never support free trade and lax border security. It makes sense from their self interest. They are competing for jobs with citizens of third world country due to outsourcing. American workers cannot be expected to compete with labor from nations where wages are considerably lower than our minimum wage. Although many in the white working class are unwilling to do the jobs that Latin American immigrants often perform, having greater competition for limited jobs is never a good thing.
Further, identity politics will always divide the white working class from Democratic Party policy positions. Poor whites do not want to be told they are "privileged" and have an inherent advantage over other poor people. People in these communities simply do not believe this and never will, so trumpeting White privilege and racial bias as core to the platform will hinder Democrats with the white working class regardless of the Democrat Party’s economic message.
As long as the white working class is called "racist" for questioning the extent of systemic racial bias, "homophobic" for opposing transgender bathrooms, and "nativist" for supporting border control, I'm not sure that any economic message can dramatically swing white working class voters.
The culture war rages on in our country between the coasts and the fly over states. And one side is telling people they are morally corrupt if they disagree. It will be hard to ever forge a coalition amongst two groups when one is telling the other they are morally inferior.