The real reason Trump won: Misogyny

In an attempt to make sense of the current state of the democracy, Former President Barak Obama returned to the political spotlight in full force last month and made this comment about the current administration:

It’s not conservative. It sure isn’t normal. It’s radical.

(Watch the full speech here). It has been 648 days, 6 hours, and 28 minutes (but who’s counting?) of this circus that is the current political climate and, unfortunately, things are only getting stranger. Take, for example, Trump’s outlandish suggestion that he can abolish the existing right to citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Clearly, our current president has not read the Constitution. This truly bothersome when recalling that Trump’s predecessor was a Harvard educated professor of constitutional law. So, where did our country go wrong?

The media likes to blame the outcome of the recent election on the Democrats’ loss of the white-working-class ("WWC"). The former President, however, disagrees:

You know, this whole notion that has sprung up recently about Democrats need to choose between trying to appeal to the white working class voters, or voters of color, and women and LGBT Americans, that’s nonsense. I don’t buy that. I got votes from every demographic. We won by reaching out to everybody and competing everywhere and by fighting for every vote.

If Obama is right, where does that put commenters like Esdall and Teixeira who fervently claim the lack of appeal to working-class whites is where Democrats went wrong? Maybe our former President is too optimistic or simply denounces identity politics, or even wants to build coalitions so this has to be part of his "party line." Whatever his angle, however, he is technically correct—the last administration’s strategy of appealing to all voters was successful for two terms. So, where did the Democrats go wrong?

Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, suggests that the Democrats’ failure to appeal to the forgotten American underclass was the primary issue. The Atlantic opined that fear of societal change and immigration policies motivated the WWC to support Trump. Senator Tom Cotton blames the loss of WWC voters on the media’s criticism of Trump’s WWC-esque characteristics (like eating McDonalds). I don’t buy it. Rather, I think the WWC’s support of Trump (and the Republican Party in general) is revenge based. To them, Hillary represented a liberal, highly educated, New York dwelling, feminist elite. Could the WWC get behind a Black president so long as he goes to church and has a family in the traditional sense? Yes. But a powerful, pantsuit donning woman? Absolutely not. Simply, the white-working-class and America in general was not ready for a female commander in chief.

But don’t take my word for it. From what I have gathered through notable WWC scholars such as Matthew Schmitz and Joan C. Williams, the WWC support traditional family values: e.g., where men are the bread winners and women are the caregivers. Clearly, Hillary is a threat to these values. Although she is married in the biblical sense (i.e., to a man), her marriage has been anything but traditional. And, in my opinion, running for president 8 years after her husband’s term is the most feminist revenge on Bill (for his infidelities) that Hill could procure. Not to mention she was appointed Secretary of State following her tenure as first lady and made a political name for herself separate from her husband.

Yet, Hillary’s successes are often used against her. As feminist legal scholar Joan C. Williams comments:

Hillary Clinton […] epitomizes the dorky arrogance and smugness of the professional elite. The dorkiness: the pantsuits. The arrogance: the email server. The smugness: the basket of deplorables. Worse, her mere presence rubs it in that even women from her class can treat working-class men with disrespect. Look at how she condescends to Trump as unfit to hold the office of the presidency and dismisses his supporters as racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic.

Just like that we are back to subjectively judging women based on their clothes. Hillary’s affinity for pantsuits, common practice use of a personal server, and criticisms of Trump are powerful moves which would all be justified—if only she were a man. Yet, the fact that she is a woman puts a certain spin on otherwise neutral factors. How is challenging Trump’s fitness for office “condescending” yet calling Hillary a “nasty woman” is not? It is clear that this country’s problems with sex, gender, and male-female relations are worsening, and I believe they played a much larger role in the recent election than many think.

A perspective on immigration and the white working class

President Donald Trump has often offered rhetoric opposing immigration and calling for a tightening of laws against immigration to the United States of America. Most recently, Trump has escalated his attacks on a migrant caravan originating in Central America and making its way through Mexico  towards the United States. Trump has declared the situation a national emergency and insisted that "criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in." Reports from journalists familiar with the caravan have concluded that Trump's assertion is not substantiated by any evidence, and that the caravan consists of families wishing to escape violence and turmoil in Honduras and Nicaragua.

The call for a tightening of immigration laws may be a tactic by Trump to stoke fear and anger in his voting base before the upcoming November midterm elections. Regardless of Trump's tactics, however dubious they may be, the issue of immigration may explain more about the current plight of the white working class (WWC) than found at fist glance. In a recent interview, (that can be found here) Marisa Abrajano, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, posits a theory that the WWC may feel three distinct threats to their livelihood. First, a cultural threat, exemplified by a commentator saying "if you don't speak english and don't contribute, get out." Second, an economic threat, outlined by fear of joblessness and the familiar idea that immigrants are "stealing jobs" from the ordinary WWC citizen. Third, a political threat, which can be explained as the difficulty in comprehending policies that pose a threat to the WWC and to the country regarding immigration.

The threats perceived by the WWC are not without merit, but may be overstated through politcal rhetoric. A changing culture may create fear of loss and security to all classes and racial groups alike. The New York Times article "Trump's 'Purple' Family Values" helps to explain this commonly perceived threat. Many of the WWC identify closely with their family values and see change and interruption as a threat. Cultural identities are deeply rooted in generations of family values and religion. Immigrants arrive with differing religious beliefs and values, but should not be seen as an outright threat to the WWC as some rhetoric may suggest. In many respects, this is opportunity to learn through diversity and to create growth throughout the country. The fact of the matter is that legal immigrants will continue to come to the United States and change the cultural makeup of all areas in the country. This may be a fear to some, but should be put into perspective that culture evolves continuously and can be beneficial rather than threatening.

The threat of economic woes may be more precarious. Economists have long supported immigration and offered evidence that immigration often boosts native-born Americans up the economic ladder. Immigrant workers often contribute to the lowest rungs of jobs on the economic latter, and provide opportunity for upward mobility to current working class citizens. The economic reality is that immigration boosts supply in the work force with new unskilled laborers who can create growth in many markets as the labor force. Additionally, immigrant workers increase demand in the economy because they become consumers that American workers can turn into customers. This is not to say the some in the WWC may lose jobs to immigrant unskilled laborers. Although, the current economic climate does little to justify such fears. The United States boasts some of the lowest unemployment rates in history. Is it possible that an immigration fueled economic threat is largely a political and rhetorical tactic to divide the voting population rather than to disseminate factual information to voters? I am sure arguments can be made for either side, but the WWC appears to be the most susceptible voting group to perceive this as a real if not already present threat to their livelihood, regardless of evidence to support this threat.

The political threat to the WWC may be the most pronounced in today's media and voting trends. With a partisan government, the Republican party has clearly been responding more to the plight of the WWC voter when concerns regarding immigration arise. The Republicans are able to capture the multiple factors and threats affecting the WWC, build a centralized theme around those factors and mobilize voters to their side. Examples include the "build a wall" movement, and the consistent rhetoric regarding "boarder security." The Democratic party, although dominating the vote of minority groups in the United States, have failed to create a centralized theme that can bring voters together, especially when concerning the WWC voter and immigration.

This partisan divide has only further opened the Democratic and Republican fissure on the issue of immigration. The recent news story of an Iowan murder victim and her family from a WWC background quickly spread because the assailant was an immigrant. Some conservative voices on social media quickly latched on to this story. They created a spectacle around immigration and boasted white nationalist ideals. The victim's family called for a stop to the media comments, saying in an interview:

Our family has been blessed to be surrounded by love, friendship, and support throughout this entire ordeal by friends from all different nations and races. Commenters do not get use use this to inaccurately promote your 'permanently separated' hyperbole.

Furthermore, the article expounds that in a highly rural and working class community, the unemployment rate is only 2.5% and "it would be hard to argue that immigrants were 'stealing' native-born American's jobs. The problem of low, stagnant wages is one Trump has yet to address."

It is widely evident that the WWC and many outside the top 20% are experiencing wage stagnation. This economic woe may explain some of the fear of immigrant fueled economic threat. Still, correlation between immigration and the economic woes of the WWC are largely unsubstantiated, and have often been proven to the contrary by economists. Studies have shown that immigrants actually have lower crime rates than native-born citizens. This could suggest that Trump and his rhetoric may be useful only to stoke fear in the hearts of the WWC to vote Republican. Regardless of Trump's tactics, the Democrats have done a poor job of sending the WWC a comprehensive and centralized message regarding immigration and to put some of the perceived threats of immigration at ease. Although the WWC is struggling to earn a decent wage, the rhetoric regarding immigrants and immigration policy will likely not solve any of their economic woes. Let us hope future policies, whether Democrat or Republican, will address the WWC and the need for wage growth, rather than polarize and divide the voting population.

Trying to win working class white voters in the California midterm elections

Since the Presidential election in 2016, much has been written about what motivates the working-class white voter. One line of argument is that those who voted for Trump were propelled by economic frustration or, relatedly, by the economic impacts of deindustrialization and the resulting social decay and despair. On the other hand, some have argued that white Americans voted for Trump because they feel threatened by the advances made by racial minorities and are anxious that they will lose their place in this country. Or perhaps it’s a culture war between the liberal coasts and the rest of America. The midterm elections offer the first major opportunity to test those theories. After all the ink spilled and all the theories advanced, what strategies are candidates using to attract working-class white voters?

In testing these theories, one particular California race has caught my attention: the race for the U.S. Congressional Representative from California’s 10th Congressional District. The District is centered on the city of Modesto and includes Manteca, Tracy, and Turlock. Ninety-one percent of the land area of the District is rural according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This is one of the most hotly contested races in the nation, and it is one of the the races predicted to affect which party controls Congress after the midterms.

The 10th District has a substantial number of working-class white voters. The 10th District is 74% white (one race), according to the Census Bureau. Given that the Census Bureau asks separately about race and ethnicity and 44% of the 10th District is Hispanic or Latinx, the percent of the population which is “white – not Hispanic or Latinx” is likely somewhat less than 74% but would still constitute the dominant racial group. Moreover, most of the District is working-class. Eighty-two percent of the population of the 10th District over the age of 25 holds less than a bachelor’s degree, which is one important standard for being working class. Another way class is defined is by income. There is less consensus about what income level makes one working-class, with the upper bound seemingly set somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000. In the 10th District, this would capture between 40% (income $50,000 or less) and 71% ($100,000 or less) of the population. The median household income is $63,223.

How are the candidates of the 10th District attempting to win these working-class majority-white voters? Jeff Denham (R, incumbent) and Josh Harder (D) have engaged in fairly extensive television ad campaigns. The ads mention big political issues, such as abortion, healthcare, and trade, but there is more going on. As several articles have noted, including one in the Modesto Bee, one of the biggest points debated in these ads is whether Harder is truly “from here.” While I was unable to find most of the ads online, this anti-Harder video by the Congressional Leadership Fund contains many of the key points: Harder is a “Bay Area liberal” with “San Francisco values.” Denham repeats these concepts in ad after ad; in fact, I just saw a new one last night. Harder responds with ads which highlight the fact that he grew up in the 10th District (unfortunately, I couldn’t find these online) and depict him as pro-Central Valley, out on the campaign trail among the walnut trees.

It seems that, at least as Denham and Harder see it, the most important issue to white working-class voters is that their representative understands them, that he or she is “one of us.” Harder and Denham’s ads mention but don’t dwell on economic frustration, and they don’t touch on race. They seem focused on the culture war: is Harder on the Valley’s side of the war, or is he a liberal coastal invader trying to “steal our Congressional seat”? (That’s a quote from a Denham ad I saw but couldn’t find online.)

Of course, given the unique political geography of California, the fact that Harder and Denham focus on the culture war over other factors may not reflect the country as a whole. But these two candidates are so convinced of the importance of this issue that they’re spending a significant portion of their ad money (this is reportedly a $6 million race) trying to establish who is on which side of the culture war.

UPDATE: For those of you who are interested, Harder won by the very slim margin of 50.9% to 49.1%

"Sparse country" at Harvard as derision of rurality and conflation with whiteness

Prof. Jeannie Suk Gersen writes in the New Yorker this week under the headline, "At Trial, Harvard's Asian Problem and a Preference for White Students from Sparse Country."  She is writing about the same landmark affirmative action case I wrote about a few days ago here.  And, as I predicted in that post would soon happen among commentators, Professor Gersen conflates rurality with whiteness.

Prof. Gersen, of Harvard Law, repeatedly uses the phrase "Sparse Country," capitalized even (perhaps for emphasis?  Is there a whiff of disdain--or more than whiff--here?) to refer to the 20 states from which Harvard makes a particular effort to recruit students.  (I want to know what 20 states constitute "sparse country" but Gersen does not list them; elsewhere the New York Times listed a few of them, including Montana and Alabama).

In his testimony, William Fitzsimmons, the dean of admissions, who has worked in the admissions office since before Bakke, reminisced about his Harvard roommate in the nineteen-sixties, who was “a great ambassador” for South Dakota. He also testified about the letters Harvard sends to high-school students in Sparse Country who have P.S.A.T. scores of at least 1310, encouraging them to apply. The only Sparse Country students with such scores who do not get the letter are Asians; to receive it, an Asian male must score at least 1380. An attorney for the plaintiff asked why a white boy in, say, immigrant-rich Las Vegas with a score of 1310 would get the letter, while his Asian classmate with a 1370 would not. Fitzsimmons responded with generalities about the need to recruit from a broad array of states to achieve diversity.

The quotation marks around "great ambassador" suggest to me Gersen's derision of the rural experience and the notion that kids from rural places might have anything to teach urban kids, who are no doubt the Harvard student body default. 

When asked whether Harvard “put a thumb on the scale for white students” from Sparse Country, Fitzsimmons contrasted students who “have only lived in the Sparse Country state for a year or two” with those who “have lived there for their entire lives under very different settings.” Perhaps he meant that whites are more likely to be “farm boys” or “great ambassadors,” like his South Dakotan roommate. Or perhaps he meant that Asians are more likely than whites to apply to Harvard, less likely to be accepted, and more likely to enroll if accepted, so Harvard saves itself postage costs by reducing its recruiting of Asians. But the exchange highlighted a key question of the trial: whether the Harvard admissions process treats white racial identity as an asset, relative to Asian identity (or treats Asian identity as a drawback, relative to white identity).

This explanation of Harvard's desire to attract students from "Sparse Country" suggests another meaning of the phrase--that the sparseness refers to the dearth of applicants from these places, not necessarily to the low density of the population.

As for Prof. Gersen's conflation of whiteness with rurality, it is arguably supported by Fitzsimmons' distinction between students who have not been in Sparse Country for very long and those who have been there all their lives.  That is, immigrants are moving into "Sparse Country" (as I have written about here and my colleague Michele Statz has written about here), and I would hope that Harvard would not devalue those immigrants simply because they have not lived in rural America for very long.  Indeed, those immigrants are probably valued by Harvard because they represent racial and ethnic groups generally underrepresented at Harvard--regardless of whether they are admitted to Harvard from rural or urban places.

One issue that is not explicit in Prof. Gersen's musings is the distinction between "Sparse Country" as rural and "Sparse Country" as urban.  This gets at the issue of scale:  Is the scale of the "state" helpful if we want rural voices at Harvard and similarly situated institutions?   I have often argued (in conversation, though perhaps not explicitly in my publications) that admitting the children of doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers and such from Billings or Missoula or Bozeman Montana (or, Salt Lake City or Albuquerque or even Rapid City or Sioux City) is really nothing like admitting the real "farm boy"--or, more importantly, farm girl--from one of these states.  So if Harvard sees "Sparse Country" as 20 states, it's missing out on the complexity of the dramatic variations within those states.

The best seller Educated, a memoir by Tara Westover, helps to make my point.  Tara was raised by fundamentalist Latter Day Saint parents in southern Idaho--which is NOTHING like being raised by wealthy retirees in, say, Sun Valley, or even as the daughter of physicians in Boise.  Do we really want to look at issues like diversity of lived experience at the level of the state?  Or do we need to look to a lower scale to achieve more authentic diversity?  Doesn't the phenomenally successful Educated help us to see that distinction quite clearly?

Cross-Posted to Legal Ruralism.

A path forward in the war on drugs

The documentary Meth Storm follows an impoverished family of meth addicts in rural Arkansas who are struggling to manage their addiction and stay out of prison. The son, Teddy, has found religion during his sixth stint in prison in the past ten years, and he promises the mother of his children that he will get sober and get his life back on track. Teddy’s mother said this commitment to sobriety was unlikely to last. She says her son has merely found “jailhouse religion” and will be back on meth shortly after he gets out. Disappointingly, Teddy’s mother is right. A few months later Teddy is arrested again for possession and finds himself in prison for a seventh time.

On the other side of the drug war, DEA agent Johnny Sowell acknowledges that every time they arrest a drug dealer, a replacement springs up shortly thereafter. Still, he hopes that this latest round of arrests of low-level drug dealers, dubbed Operation Ice Storm, will lead to the source of the super-potent meth coming in from Mexico. Johnny busts as many low-level dealers as he can, for selling as little as a gram of meth. He pumps them for information until he finally catches a direct connection to the cartel in a dangerous high speed chase. The connection refuses to snitch. If he does, the connection’s entire family in Mexico will be killed. Another dead end in the drug war.

Teddy and Johnny have something in common besides their decaying town. They both keep doing the same things they have always done, in futile hope of a better result. Teddy keeps trying to turn his life around, but always goes back to drugs. Johnny keeps arresting people like Teddy to stop the flow of drugs, but he never gets any closer to the source. Like characters in a modern Greek tragedy, it is impossible for anybody in this community to avoid the cruelty of their own fate. The war on drugs rages on, regardless of the participants efforts to resist.

So what is to be done for communities ravaged by drugs like the one in Meth Storm and their urban counterparts? What is needed is compassion in the law for addicts and drug users, one that recognizes their humanity and decouples it from race or income level.

But what does this compassion look like in policy terms? To start, we must create avenues for drug users to course correct before they are trapped in the cycle of addiction and incarceration. For example, drug courts which emphasize treatment instead of just punishment have shown promising drops in rates of recidivism among drug users. Well maintained and funded pretrial diversion programs are also effective in preventing users from being rearrested.

We also need to reform how we treat drug users who find themselves incarcerated. A study from 2002 indicated that over half of all prisoners in the US met the criteria for a diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence, but only 15 to 20 percent of those who would benefit from treatment received it. Part of the reason is that the current criminal justice system focuses on punishment, rather than treating addiction as a disease. When prisons spend their resources in accordance with this assumption, the inevitable result is that many of the incarcerated do not get the help they need. Every addict who goes to prison should receive treatment for their addiction, otherwise it is only a matter of time before many will return.

Another reform that has been gaining traction is ending mandatory minimums that were a result of the tough-on-crime stances of the 1980s and 1990s. Although the end of the racially tinged 100:1 ratio in sentencing for crack cocaine versus cocaine was a welcome reform, this was a band-aid policy for a specific drug and not a permanent solution. The law still maintains a grossly unfair 18:1 sentencing ratio between crack cocaine and cocaine, and the vast majority of mandatory minimums have not been addressed. For example, the mandatory federal minimum sentence for distribution of five grams of methamphetamine is five years, even though that amount could be as little as a week’s supply to a heavy user.

In addition to ending mandatory minimums, we must go further to ensure that there is something worth returning home to after former dealers and users have served their sentences. We need to invest in job training for prisoners and provide opportunities for these returning individuals to work in their communities and become contributing members of society.

Another consideration is that sentences for using or selling even a small amount of drugs can last much longer than the period of incarceration or parole, because hiring managers discriminate against those with drug convictions. We must destigmatize non-violent drug convictions in hiring and allow rehabilitated drug offenders to have their slate wiped clean. Without these reforms, the reality is that in an area with no jobs like Faulkner County, Arkansas in Meth Storm, the only way the formerly incarcerated can make money is in the drug trade, which will further ingratiate themselves into the cycle of addition and incarceration.

So how do we obtain the political capital to get these policy outcomes in place? We need to humanize drug users and, yes, even low-level drug dealers. The first step is to encourage the positive trends of humanizing opioid users. For people of color whose communities have been criminalized for decades as a result of the war on drugs, it may be difficult for many to square the injustice of only granting compassion to wealthier and whiter opioid users. However, the reality is that many Americans continue to otherize drug users, by saying drug use is something that only poor whites, Latinos, or Black folks do.

In order to help build a broader coalition of support, we need the public to believe that addiction can affect their own family and friends, so any humanizing narratives about drug use and addiction are helpful. For example, when rockstar and drug addict Tom Petty died of an accidental overdose, there was an outpouring of support and much credit given to his family for making his cause of death public. However, when a poor addict like Teddy dies in rural Arkansas, its doubtful that there will be similarly affectionate support. It will just be another sad statistic in the war on drugs. With greater recognition that drug use is not attributable to someone’s characteristics of being poor or a racial minority, we can enact policies that will change the fates of people like Johnny and Teddy in Meth Storm.

Rural gets mention in lawsuit faulting Harvard's admission policies, but is it just a proxy for whiteness?

This story has been making big headlines all week, but today was the first day I noticed multiple mentions of rural students--specifically rurality as an aspect of the much sought-after diversity in higher education.  The headline in the NY Times today is "Harvard's Admissions Process, Once Secret, is Unveiled in Federal Court."   One of the secrets, apparently, is that being from a "rural" place still matters.  I say "still" because back when UC Regents v. Bakke was decided 40 years ago, Justice Powell wrote, citing Harvard's admission policy (as a model for what would be appropriate for public universities):

In practice, this new definition of diversity has meant that race has been a factor in some admission decisions. When the Committee on Admissions reviews the large middle group of applicants who are ‘admissible’ and deemed capable of doing good work in their courses, the race of an applicant may tip the balance in his favor just as geographic origin or a life spent on a farm may tip the balance in other candidates’ cases. A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.  (emphasis added)

Bakke, at 316-17.  While the word "rural" is not used here; "farm" is a proxy for that characteristic, that life experience.  Read more analysis of how rurality plays in college admissions more recently, from my 2015 law review article here.

This quote from today's NYTimes story recounts what happened at the trial in Boston this week:

There is the longtime dean of admissions, William Fitzsimmons (Harvard Class of 1967), on the stand, grilled on whether rural students receive a leg up over urban students. They do.

Something tells me that the observers are likely to invoke rurality as a proxy for whiteness, urbanicity for blackness, as happened with another controversy over the favoring of rural folks earlier this year, that one regarding SNAP work requirements.  That conflation of rurality with whiteness is unfortunate because, among other reasons, it misleads:  many of the poorest rural folks in the nation are Latinx, American Indian, and African American.  Just check out the nation's persistent poverty map.

Back to the NYTimes story, later comes this, following a comparison of Harvard's admissions standards to the secret formula for Coca-Cola:

Some, but not all, of the secrets have buttressed Harvard’s elite reputation. 

It casts a wide net for students, aggressively recruiting those in “sparse country,” predominantly rural areas that yield few applications. It considers a dizzying array of factors, from SAT scores (the higher the better) to athletic ability (recruited athletes receive a big advantage) to interviews (be “effervescent,” “fun,” but “mature”) and more. A lack of deep pockets won’t hinder a hopeful and might even help one’s chances, testimony showed.  (emphasis added)

I can't help wonder if geography--and rurality in particular--will be noted in the outcome of this present case--as it was in Bakke--even though rurality was not a characteristic that loomed large in the pleadings by either side.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.  

If the white working class won’t support Ocasio-Cortez because of a $3,000 suit, why did they elect Trump?

After winning an upset victory against Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could make history as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. So, of course it is only fitting that there is major controversy over her clothes. Yes, you read that correctly: her clothes.

For some background, Ocasio-Cortez is a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist with aspirations

to create an America that works for all of us—not just the wealthiest few,

according to her campaign page. Ocasio-Cortez runs on a platform that prioritizes the needs of working families and seeks to implement pro-working-class-policies such as Medicare-for-all, free public universities, and a guaranteed job program. The young politician frequently describes her own background as working-class—pointing to her Bronx upbringing, her mother’s occupation as a housekeeper, and her immigrant family’s economic troubles.

Ocasio-Cortez could be the working-class leader the Democratic Party needs to finally appeal to white-working-class ("WWC") voters, but an outfit choice has apparently aligned her with privileged elites instead. In a photo-op with Interview Mag last month accompanying a conversation with an editor, Ocasio-Cortez is shown wearing a sharp emerald blazer (Gabriela Hearst $1,990), matching trousers (Gabriela Hearst $890), and black pointed-toe heels (Monolo Blahnik $625). Photos of Ocasio-Cortez in the roughly $3,500 suit standing next to New York construction workers quickly prompted an uproar in the conservative web-space, many naming her a hypocrite.

These commenters appear from their profiles to be of the WWC demographic:

Is Ocasio-Cortez more of a limousine liberal than a socialist? . . . She’s wearing a more than a month’s salary for most Americans…and she’s going to lecture us about income inequality and why we should trust her and her ilk with our money. No—hell no. - Matt Vespa, Town hall

[S]ocialists looooove money. . . . Same goes for the hot new socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's everywhere now as she runs for a New York seat in the U.S. House. And with that comes money — and bling. - Joseph Curl, Daily Wire

No, she's a real socialist. This is what socialism is. You tell the people that they deserve more, and those stinky 'rich' people aren't paying their fair share. Then you join the ranks of the elite, bu[y] expensive clothes, lake houses, Audis, etc., and you're set. This is socialism. This is literally what it is. America First, Reddit

Popular conservative activist Charlie Kirk questioned Ocasio-Cortez's allegiance to the working-class on Twitter:

a) The alt-right doesn’t seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots

b) You don’t get to keep the clothes, duh

c) I don’t “pretend” to fight for a Living Wage & Medicare for All. I do it.

d) Get used to me slaying lewks because I am an excellent thrift shopper pic.twitter.com/Nd2m6WoCxF

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) September 15, 2018

Kirk's tweet received 16,105 retweets and 37,677 likes, and although he does not purport to speak for the WWC, many may find Kirk's argument compelling. Ocasio-Cortez's outfit choice was also critiqued on prime time television. In a segment on Fox News show Fox and Friends, hosts Katie Pavlich and Pete Hegseth mocked Ocasio-Cortez for her 'expensive tastes.'

Pavlich started by saying: The rising star of the Democratic Party has expensive tastes for a socialist. For a photo shoot for Interview Magazine. Her pant suit — appropriate — retailing more than $2,800 alone. And the shoes $600 bucks.

As the studio gasped in shock and awe, Hegseth chimed in: It's tough being a socialist. It really is.

Pavlich then added: I mean I want a pair of $600 shoes. I think she should redistribute…hypocrisy at its best.

As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out in her response to Kirk, however, the clothes weren’t even hers—as with all magazine shoots, the outfit was borrowed from the designer for publicity purposes. But viewers of Fox News—who are primarily white and many working-class, CNN reports—will probably stop the inquiry at was was aired on Fox and Friends and align her with privileged elites.

Ocsasio-Cortez—who almost lost her family home to foreclosure after her father’s death, went to college on student loans, and currently lives in the Bronx on a working class salary—should certainly be considered working-class. Like members of the WWC, Ocsasio-Cortez

grew up seeing how the zip code one is born in determines much of their opportunity.

She has more in common with the WWC than any wealthy Republican politician, but it seems that the commentators above will look for any minuscule reason to disregard Ocsasio-Cortez as a privileged liberal. By bringing attention to Ocasio-Cortez's expensive clothes (which, again, were borrowed), conservative media paints the self proclaimed working-class champion as someone who, instead, cannot possibly relate to the WWC.

Instead (and oddly enough), it seems that the WWC identifies more soundly with Republican figures like Donald Trump. Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, claims that when the liberal media makes fun of Trump's hair, his orange glow, the way he talks, his long tie, and his taste for McDonalds, the WWC somehow sees this as insulting them.

What I don’t think they realize is that out here in Arkansas and the heartland and the places that made a difference in that election, like Michigan and Wisconsin, when we hear that kind of ridicule, we hear them making fun of the way we look, and the way we talk, and the way we think.

Apparently the WWC are quick to overlook Trump's taste for $17,000 Brioni suits and the fact that he has never been and never will be working-class (See Trump's $413 million inheritance from his father here). Although Trump may pretend to understand the struggles of the working-class, his policies have certainly done nothing to alleviate them.

Unfortunately, the divide between the Democratic party and the white-working-class is larger than ever. It is this animosity that pushes the WWC toward uber-wealthy real estate moguls and away from candidates, like Ocsasio-Cortez, who understand their plight.

For a discussion on the role of gender in the animosity between the WWC and Democratic party, see a related blog post here.

Do legal employers recruit class diversity?

When employers recruit for “diversity”, what are they looking for? Joan Williams, professor of law at U.C. Hastings, argues that class diversity should be one of the metrics employers pursue. You can read her September 2018 article in the Harvard Business Review here. As I read Williams’ article, I wondered to what extent employers already use class as a measure of beneficial diversity in hiring.

Because I’m a law student, I explored this by analyzing the diversity recruiting posts circulated at my school in the 2017-2018 school year. The law is not known as a particularly diverse profession, and it is becoming aware of the need to address that reputation. Big firms now often offer “diversity fellowships,” “diversity clerkships,” or “diversity scholarships.” These are paid internships at the firm, between the first and second years of law school, that are only available to “diverse” students. There are few other positions available in that first summer which are paid.

If these internships are only available to “diverse” students, how do the firms define diversity? I looked at 25 postings for internships of this type available to me in my first year of law school.

I found three approaches: the first approach was to list categories. This was the dominant mode. Of the 25 listings I analyzed, thirteen used this strategy and all thirteen explicitly mentioned racial or ethnic diversity. Nine discussed sexual orientation or being LGBTQ; seven included disability; seven listed socioeconomic status or economic disadvantage; four mentioned women or gender; two postings touched on religious diversity; two listed veteran status; and one included status as being the first in the family to attend college or purse an advanced degree. Of the seven that listed economic disadvantage, one firm considered that factor as a “boost” to the resume of an otherwise-diverse candidate, not a basis of diversity in and of itself. Finally, six postings included broad, “catch-all” language at the end of their enumerated lists, such as “…or others of diverse backgrounds.”

Is class, then, a category that recruiters seek? It depends on how “class” is defined. Education at the level of less than a college degree is perhaps the most common way to define the working class; by that metric, only one job posting is recruiting students from working-class backgrounds. If class is defined by income or socioeconomic disadvantage, however, class diversity is widely recruited. More than half of job posts listed socioeconomic disadvantage, making it one of the top four traits named. There is still, however, the question of perception: given that race is listed in every post, will white working-class students assume that “diversity” requires racial diversity as a prerequisite? Will they read far enough into the post to see the call for students of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and believe that they qualify on those grounds?

The second approach was to avoid defining diversity at all. Five posts used this tactic. These five used broad language like “underrepresented in the legal profession.” While this is an accurate description of the goals of diversity recruiting and is inclusive of a wide variety of experiences, it is extremely vague. It doesn’t help a job applicant know if they qualify for the position. Given the prevalence of the first approach, it seems likely that many law students will assume that these undefined listings intend to signal the same categories outlined above, of which race is dominant. Unless class migrants are aware that they qualify as “underrepresented in the legal profession,” believe that the employer will think so as well, and are able to articulate that with confidence, such broad language will not be effective in recruiting class migrants. This is especially true for white class migrants who will not qualify on racial or ethnic grounds.

In the final approach I saw in the job postings, diversity seemed not to reflect who the candidate is but rather what the candidate does. A few firms combined this approach with the enumerated categories described above, but many used this as a stand-alone tactic. A total of ten listings used some form of this tactic. These firms required the candidate to show a “commitment to diversity,” “efforts that promote diversity,” or even “involvement in diversity organizations.” One firm required that the candidate “[p]ossess an understanding of the importance of diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.”

This approach seems unhelpful. Surely the point of having separate “diversity recruitment” is not simply to get people who believe in or work for diversity; that could be accomplished in the normal recruiting process. Moreover, this approach seems likely to work against class migrants. The sorts of organizations that “promote diversity” are normally non-profits which cannot pay their volunteers. People from a working-class background are less likely to have had the option to work without pay and add such organizations to their resume. I also wonder whether there exist sufficient organizations promoting class diversity for such experience to be widespread on the resumes of class migrants.

Based on this limited and admittedly not randomized sample, it seems that Williams is only partially correct, at least as to legal employers. While law firm diversity recruitment does not seem to prioritize class migrants, the firms arguably put some effort towards increasing class diversity. Slightly less than a third of posts discussed socioeconomic disadvantage or listed a background of less education. Personally, however, I am not convinced that, in the context of all the other posts, this recruitment will be as effective in recruiting class migrants as it could be.