« Good Dean / Bad Dean | Main | Tunnel Vision »
What's Wrong With New Democrats
Fascinating post by Ruy Teixeira on Democrats and the white working class. With regard to recent discussions here and elsewhere regarding What's Wrong With Kansas, it's worth noting that the dread Bill Clinton who allegedly cast off populism and is therefore allegedly responsible for the failure of the Democrats to win the white working class vote did, in fact, win the white working class vote, albeit narrowly. It's also worth noting that Clinton not only did better than George H.W. Bush with the white working class, but he outperformed the two previous Democratic nominees in this category, getting a higher percentage than Mondale or Dukakis. In other words, Clinton's narrow wins among this group were not solely a result of defections from the GOP to Ross Perot.
I will gladly admit, however, that Clinton's support for free trade was not a good way to attract white working class voters. Nevertheless, the Clintonian gestalt played well among the white working class, even if not in Kansas per se. (Clinton trade policies, though, which combined free exchange of manufactured good with protectionism for agriculture should have been good for the Kansas economy).
July 26, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83459e9ce69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's Wrong With New Democrats:
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 9:56:03 PM
Comments
As I wrote over there, it is all about anger. The constituency is easy to label as "white working class" which might as well just be called "ignorant Fox-news-limbaugh fed sheep."
Their common attributes are not that they are white and they have work, but that they are angry at things they would not be angry at if they knew better. They think things like how social services (outside of SS and medicare) bankrupt the federal budget and tax-and-spend liberals are to blame. Or that environmental protections are the reason they have a hard time finding work.
So they have all this dis-satisfaction -- what happens when it is redirected at the party that depends on it being directed elsewhere? We will see if enough of it is really placed against Bush come November.
Personally, the only way I could be more disgusted with Bush is I were ever a Bush supporter.
Posted by: Alan | Jul 26, 2004 2:49:32 PM
The Dems lost the House under Bill Clinton, so whatever strength he had with the white working class did not move down ticket.
Posted by: Bill | Jul 26, 2004 3:16:06 PM
Alan--
Maybe we're angry at being called "ignorant Fox-news-limbaugh fed sheep."
Just one of those rare thoughts that rattle around my empty, white, working-class cranium...
Posted by: Anon | Jul 26, 2004 3:18:57 PM
Their common attributes are not that they are white and they have work, but that they are angry at things they would not be angry at if they knew better.
I completely agree, "white working class" - what a silly classification. What does their whiteness have to do with anything? And "working class"? Let's call them what they are: ignorant hicks, rednecks, hillbillies, good ole boys. AKA: Republican party base. The solution is not to lure them into the Democratic party, but to pull them out of the swamp where they dwell and into the cities. Poor stupid bastards.
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 26, 2004 3:34:37 PM
By Jove, I believe you've got it, Abb1!
It is indeed enjoyable to watch the Party of Tolerance heap scorn on the "poor stupid bastards," AKA "ignorant hicks, rednecks, hillbillies, good ole boys."
Keep it coming, Abb1!
Posted by: Anon | Jul 26, 2004 3:50:37 PM
Woah, guys! Let's dial it down a notch. Some of my best friends are broke white guys.
I fear sometimes that the (admirable) decision by the left to champion social issues has alienated it from its more traditional role as champion of the working class. I swear if it wasn't for blacks and hispanics, many Dems wouldn't have anything to do with the poor.
This is a darn shame, as the primary goal of the left - in my opinion - is to champion the cause of the working man.
Posted by: WillieStyle | Jul 26, 2004 4:03:48 PM
Sure, stick around.
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 26, 2004 4:03:57 PM
WillieStyle--
Thanks for the boost, bro. I'd love to see the return of my father's Democratic party, as you describe it in part. Looks like a long way off, though--at least to us here in the swamps.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 26, 2004 4:08:31 PM
I gotta say this...the vast majority of the white working class I think of when someone refers to "white working class" (and I'm one of 'em) doesn't have a clue as to what the Free Trade Agreement was all about and how it makes life better or worse for them.
Posted by: monabona | Jul 26, 2004 4:36:00 PM
OT:A political history question: How many vice-presidents have gone on to become presidents? Just wondering. Perhaps nominating the former vice-president is a bad idea, too closely associated with the old admin yet not fully able to take advantage of its good reputation ( if it has any left )?
Posted by: WeSaferThemHealthier | Jul 26, 2004 4:55:55 PM
Anon, please tell us some more about what you would like to see. I think it is exactly the discussion we all need to have - not what's wrong with Kansas but what can we do to make things right again for Kansas, and even for those folks in the swamps. I really hope that's what we're going to start hearing about in this election year.
As much as I've disliked Bush's policies, I'm a lot more afraid of Walmart America. I think the issues of addressing health care and wages for the working class is probably the most important thing we need to do right now. The distraction of the parties in throwing out social values, etc. is really just that - a distraction.
Clinton addressed the economic needs of the country, and did it very successfully. Instead of praising him, the Republicans turned it all into a battle over Clinton's cock. The Democrats have gotten distracted over all the social issues, and even the great War on Terrah, and forgotten that it really is The Economy, stupid. That's what needs to be talked about.
Posted by: donna | Jul 26, 2004 5:20:56 PM
Donna--
Tell me, what is it about "WalMart America" that scares you? "We" are not so scary, and "we" are quite diverse. I recommend shopping at WalMart every once in a while to mingle with "us"--and save a few bucks while you're at it.
I'd also say that connecting (reconnecting?) with middle America ("working class"? "blue collar"?) is a whole lot tougher with a billionaire and a millionaire at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 26, 2004 5:29:12 PM
Anon: I think you misunderstood Donna. It looks to me like she meant "the Walmartization of America", i.e. we're all going to end up working shitty jobs with low pay and no benefits.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Jul 26, 2004 6:08:24 PM
I can understand why working class voters would be turned off by a millionaire New England prep school boy who came from an old-line WASP family, went to Yale, and put another millionaire, of less social register background, on the ticket.
But since that's exactly what both parties are offering, I don't understand the preference for the lazy, dumb one who fakes being a regular guy over the smart, hard-working one who is what he is.
Posted by: C.J.Colucci | Jul 26, 2004 6:12:03 PM
I'd also say that connecting (reconnecting?) with middle America ("working class"? "blue collar"?) is a whole lot tougher with a billionaire and a millionaire at the top of the Democratic ticket.
Unlike it is for the millionaires at the top of the Republican ticket...
I think the elephant in this particular room is the dreaded R-word: Racism. If you think I'm wrong, consider that the Democratic Party seems to have no problem at all connecting with the nonwhite section of the working class.
There's a funny bit in Mike Royko's book Boss where he talks about newly-arrived immigrants learning to hate each other -- for example, an Irishman arrived in this country hating only the English, and soon learned to hate the Poles, the Jews and the blacks; a Pole arrived hating only the Russians and the Jews, and soon learned to hate the Irish and the blacks; and so on.
I think the appeal of the Republican Party to lower-income whites worked in sort of the same way. They were originally attracted because the GOP played to their fear of black people, and eventually adopted the rest of the party philosophy, which was basically the same stuff Republicans had been complaining about since Roosevelt. To put it another way, working class whites were so angry at the Democrats over the party's support for the civil rights movement that they (working class whites) eventually were convinced the Democrats were wrong about everything.
And Anon, having grown up and gone to public schools in some very white and working class neighborhoods in Chicago, I know whereof I speak. Sometimes one would have thought the first word some of my peers ever learned to say was "nigger".
Posted by: Ridnik Chrome | Jul 26, 2004 6:22:13 PM
anon, the saving a few bucks is at the expensive of those white working-class folks, whom WalMart prefers to pay low wages and no benefits whenever it can. So, no thanks; I'll mingle with the white working-class (my mother's people) other places.
I can't help but wonder if abolishing Right-to-Work laws in many of those states would help. Unions are very helpful to the working man and woman in places where they aren't de facto illegal.
Posted by: mythago | Jul 26, 2004 6:27:15 PM
Walt--
Thanks for the clarification. I know it's easy to hate WalMart, especially as it operates now. But WalMart is a boon to the working-class consumer and it does bring jobs to at least some communities. We can debate the social (and other) costs of that boon, as well as the overall value of those jobs. But it's hard to explain WalMart's success among America's working poor if it's such a bad thing.
Ridnick--
I think some of your points about racism and party alignment are historically accurate, as far as they go. But I think there's more at work here, as the history of both of the current major parties demonstrates episodes of bravery and ignomy on both sides.
Mythago--
I agree with you about the importance of unions--though I have serious misgivings about the corporatization of Big Labor. Hard to feel connected with at least some of the big unions, especially in the service sector.
And CJ--
I'm not sure which side you're talking about throughout your post. I think all your insults/accusations/criticisms could be levelled at either ticket with about equal accuracy or error.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 26, 2004 7:02:56 PM
Let's see now....after watching the Bushies loot the state of California with Enron scams, fall asleep on the job and watch helplessly as 9/11 happened (but they knew enough to stop flying on commercial aircraft), invade Afghanistan in a war that would have been better not fought (judging from the current situation there), and then invade Iraq on the basis of lies, it seems only natural to ask: What's wrong with the Democrats?
Maybe a better question would be, what's wrong with this picture? Why, after the four years we've just experienced, would anybody be asking what's wrong with the Democrats?
Well, maybe you'd like to try the old double-or-nothing bet. Sure, you know the gang in the White House is playing with marked cards, and even if you win the big bouncer is going to roll you in the alley and take your winnings back into the casino for the owners. But maybe you hold a grudge and just can't get over what the Democrats did to you last time they were in office.
And what was that, exactly? Maybe you were perfectly happy when Bush and his buddies took the top 100 slots at the college you wanted attend, but when the Democrats persuaded that college to let in one affirmative action student, well, that was just too much for you!
Well, whatever your looney-tunes gripe, just forget about the good of the nation and vote your feelings. Send those bad old Democrats a message! Just don't be too surprised if a lot of other people have decided that maybe there isn't that much wrong with the Democrats after all.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 26, 2004 7:37:09 PM
Anon:
Well, d'uh.
Posted by: C.J.Colucci | Jul 26, 2004 8:34:15 PM
serial catowner: To me, Anon sounds like someone who's willing to be convinced. So try to convince him/her, rather than using insults.
Posted by: Walt Pohl | Jul 26, 2004 10:20:04 PM
Anon:
There is an anti-intellectual strain in the Republican party that appeals to many working whites. (Blacks apparently find Republican politicians so inimical to their interests that the anti-intellectualism that exists there is overridden by an antipathy to Republicans.)
People who go to church are more likely to be religious, people found in the stadia are more likely to be sports fans, and people in the Universities are more likely to be intellectuals. People that finish post graduate education are smarter, on average, than those who don't.
Undereducated, working class whites are pandered to by Republicans who understand the anti-intellectualism which stands at the heart of the gut antipathy many working class whites feel for those who control the levers of power in most of this countries institutions. This despite the fact that in the last 60 years there are far more jobs created under Democratic presidents than Republican.
Posted by: epistemology | Jul 26, 2004 10:23:02 PM
Walt--
Thanks for the cover. I must admit that I didn't take catowner's comments to be directed at me.
Epistemology--
I'm not sure I follow you, exactly. But I would like to ask a follow up question, apropos comments at the start of the thread. I would certainly agree that people who finish post-graduate education are more educated. I wouldn't go on to say they're smarter, necessarily. But there's where my question lies: What do folks here (in this comment section, if it's possible to summarize) mean by smart?
Following on that, I'm not sure I get the "Bush is dumb" meme, exactly. I'm not trying to incite a riot, but I'm not sure if it's shorthand for saying his policies are dumb or that he says dumb things, or if the notion is that he has a subpar IQ (granting IQ as a reasonable definition of "smart" or low IQ as a reasonable marker for dumb).
I mean, I can understand that many, many of his policies (and I know we can quibble about which are his, which are his party's, etc) are dumb. And I can understand that his presence at the podium frequently seems to lower the wattage in the room. But I haven't seen anyone actually suggest that he has a low IQ.
Sorry for the lengthy post. Thanks for everyone's patience and helpfulness.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 27, 2004 12:43:07 AM
Maybe we're angry at being called "ignorant Fox-news-limbaugh fed sheep."
White working-class men are generally appealed to by Republicans by using cultural issues. These usually include racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, and xenophobia.
That's why African-Americans vote 90% and gays vote 70-80% Democratic. It's why Bush won't get 70% of Muslims this time through, despite their generally culturally conservative orientation. At some point, folks know where their bread is buttered.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Jul 27, 2004 2:12:16 AM
Indeed, my post was not directed at anon. I find the whole "what's wrong with the Democrats" meme to be wildly off the mark.
In combination with Kevin Drum's post it seems to say that Democrats should dream up an alternative fantasy world that offers easy plums for those low on the social ladder. Well, I'm about as low as you can go and still have a home, and I know there's no free lunch.
Anon certainly hit the nail on the head saying that Bush seems to lower the wattage in a room. It's like the sci-fi movie where the lights buzz, flicker, and glow like candles instead of bulbs.
One of the problems with Bush is that, given every opportunity that huge wealth provides, he has consistently failed to do anything worthwhile. Just compare any stage of his career with John Kerry and you'll get the picture.
At the end of the day, a man who had Bush on his board of directors says "If you had asked me to name, say, 25 million people who might become President, he wouldn't have been on that list."
That said, the "white guys left behind" meme is seriously flawed. The first time I applied for food stamps (the year Boeing laid off 70,000 people in Seattle) there was no justice, and it hurt most of the white guys as much as it did everyone else. Today the white guy (I am one) gets as much justice as the women and blacks, and that's a lot more than there used to be. The same goes for emplyment opportunities and accessible education.
Which, really, should be perfectly plain to any dyslexic who has benefitted all their life from a personal affirmative action plan tailored to their special needs.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 27, 2004 10:50:02 AM
Well, I'm about as low as you can go and still have a home, and I know there's no free lunch.
Hey, serial catowner don't give up hope - at least you have your cat. Don't eat Monsieur Puss, buy him a pair of boots and your luck just may turn around.
Cheers.
Posted by: abb1 | Jul 27, 2004 5:15:46 PM
