Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is all on point.Right, that’s why his stance is disagreeable to me: the Democratic presidential ticket actually did NOT focus on identity politics at all: never once mentioned the transgender issue, never once mentioned Harris being the first female president, never once mentioned Harris being the first Black woman president, etc. And “identity politics” certainly did not prevent Democratic candidates from doing really well across the country. I will totally buy the notion that Democrats as a whole have focused too much on identity politics over the last decade or so- I will not, however, buy the notion that it was identity politics that lost them this election, considering 1. The presidential ticket did not engage in such, 2. Democrats down ballot did very well, especially in swing states, and 3. The Republican ticket actively ran an entire campaign predicated upon their own identity politics. It’s why it’s really difficult to take Bill Maher seriously on this, because the real answer as to why the Democrats lost the election is way, way simpler: they were the incumbent party in an anti-incumbent moment worldwide. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, again, I absolutely do detest identity politics. I detest it on both sides of the ideological spectrum. But it isn’t why the Democrats lost this election 49-48.
How do you define the "elite class"? I personally hate the term "elite" because it seems to have become mostly a pejorative that is synonymous with "liberal" than anything else.You’re obviously right. That’s why more work needs to be done to create a message that ties people together as workers. A lot of this is driven by the elite class’ own notions of what is means to be a worker. That is, a white blue collar guy from the Midwest.
Ok then what is working class to you? And why is it called that?Not necessarily. It allows people to map themselves onto the notion of what a worker is. I’m a white collar worker but still consider myself working class because of the kind of money I make. Working class isn’t just middle-aged white pipe fitters.
Am I making any more "assumptions" about the working class than they are making about me and people like me? Or any more assumptions than the people who broadly say things like "liberals need to go out and talk to working class people"? Who are the "liberals" that we're talking about here, and why do we assume that none of them know or talk with "working class" people? This is sort of my whole point: you're criticizing liberals, or "elites," for generalizing about working-class people while engaging in, or at least accepting, an analytical framework that generalizes about "liberals" or "elites."I think you’re making a ton of assumptions here about working class people. Is there a segment of people without a college degree that demean college education and big cities? Sure. There are also a ton of working class people who have college degrees, who live in cities, and work in education.
Part of this issue that liberals have messaging to workers is making a ton of assumptions about them and what they value. In truth, they come from all walks of life and have all manner of views. That’s what makes them a viable electoral coalition. We don’t have an issue messaging to highly educated white liberals.
If Democrats start talking about the working class, are a ton of white college educated liberals going to start voting for Republicans?
OK - so how do you define the "group of people that identify as working class or with workers" who "seemed to have moved away from Democrats in 2024" specifically? We're talking about a subset of working-class people here, so how do you define them and how should Democrats message to them? about "pocket book issues" in a way they haven't already tried?If Democratic messaging focusing on working class voters and pocket book issues brings some of these guys along, that’s gravy. The messaging is really targeted at another group of people that identify as working class or with workers. This is the same group of people who seemed to have moved away from Democrats in 2024.
1. The phrase actually dates back to the Romans, and the proleteriat. The proletariat was a class of citizens who owned no property and thus could contribute to the military only via labor -- i.e. their contributions were their children joining the army as foot soldiers.Ok then what is working class to you? And why is it called that?
It's good to know that when you use the terms "liberals" or "elites" you are referring to "the narrow band of people, and it is a narrow band, who have controlled Democratic messaging and campaigns for the last 20 some odd years. A consultant class of, mostly white, college educated liberals who live and work in D.C." But that is very clearly not how those terms are understood or meant by most of the people who use them, in the media or otherwise. And I will note that my first post in this conversation was not referring to critiques of "liberals" made by you specifically, but of those critiques made generally in the media and elsewhere. And I do not read those critiques as being limited only to the people who "control Democratic messaging and campaigns."I’m not interested in rehashing to arguments in your last paragraph.
People do need to be more precise in their critiques. I’m talking about the narrow band of people, and it is a narrow band, who have controlled Democratic messaging and campaigns for the last 20 some odd years. A consultant class of, mostly white, college educated liberals who live and work in D.C. I think the people that get offended by critiques of this group tell on themselves.
Your second paragraph speaks to the entire point I’ve tried to make. The working class is a large, disparate group of people. You bind this group together by pushing forward policies that will help all of them, like Medicare for All. Universality is the key.
OK so how do we message to those people on economic issues? I really don't think the answer is policy messaging, like Medicare 4 All, which many people probably don't even really see as being about the economy at all (though they should). The most persuasive critique I've heard is that Trump has done a better job connecting emotionally with those working-class voters (Latino or otherwise) than Democrats. Because as many have pointed out, it's not like Trump was offering any generally applicable economic relief policies for the country; just niche (idiotic) things like "no taxes on tips" and claiming that he could reduce everyone's tax burden by increasing tariffs. So I'm not convinced that policy messaging is the answer at all; it's more about emotional appeals and emotional connection.I’m talking specifically about working class Latinos. Men and women. They moved away from Democrats in 2024. As did Black men to a lesser degree.
I’ve listened to and read countless interviews with working class voters who voted for Democrats in the past but Trump in 2024. The underlying piece of it all is economic issues. Again, I don’t really care to rehash the argument about this again because I’m made my points and people here can take them or leave them.
I agree with the last part, but the problem is that the main strategy that Republicans have used to "capture the anger" is simply to lie. Lie about what the cause of the problem is (immigrants, government spending) and lie about what the solutions are. Tell people it's someone else's fault, tell them you will punish the people who are to blame. To risk the great cringe-factor of quoting Aaron Sorkin, I still think this speech from the "American President" captures it the best:Of course. I agree with you that a lot of working class white guys (and non working class, as we’ve pointed out) throw out liberal elite as a slur that means a lot of different things. What they really mean comes out when the door is closed.
I don’t really care to reach those people. They’ve voted for Republicans since at least 1968.
There is a legitimate anger at the system though. It comes from people like those mentioned above, but also from people that are more amenable to Democratic policy solutions. Seems like a political anger that Democrats could capture with the right message. 2024 and 2016 show us that Republicans will capture the anger if Democrats don’t.
1. Right on, brother. Now we're talking. I'd suggest that we find a better term than "wrong identity" but conceptually you're right. This is why all the trans messaging is effective, even though it affects peoples' lives not at all. It's about identity, and yes, Dems have become seen as champions of identities other than working class (especially white working class). I would disagree that Dems "wrapped themselves" in this state of affairs.I tend to agree with super that all politics are identity politics now. Identity politics haven’t failed, more so that Democrats have wrapped themselves in the wrong identities. Identities that many people across the country see as counter to their own.
That is, being working class (or someone who works for a living, however you want to phrase it) is an identity in and of itself. It is an extremely powerful identity and one that unites people across racial and gender lines. We’ve seen this work throughout American history in other political movements.
Right.I can't help it. You can flesh this out as you will but if there's not a good chance you might get your hands dirty, tear up your clothes or bleed a little bit (about every day for me) then the people that do won't consider you working class.