Where do we go from here?

[superrific]

"Working class" in America has long been a cultural concept -- since the 1960s at least.

 

[Paine]

Ok then what is working class to you? And why is it called that?

See my posts above and below. It’s a cultural signifier, an identity. It means different things to different people. I take a broad definition because I think that’s most conducive to winning politics.

 

[rodoheel]

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?

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 don't necessarily disagree with your definition of "working class" but I disagree with part of what you say. You say that workers "come from all walks of life and have all manner of views" which is "what makes them a viable electoral coalition." I would counter that the fact that the "working class" is so diverse in their backgrounds and views is what makes them very difficult to define or message to as a "class." The concerns and priorities of college-educated public school teachers and rural farm workers and urban police officers and suburban entry-level white-collar workers are all very different, and in some cases irreconcilably contrary to each other. Everyone wants to feel safe and secure, and everyone wants to have more money and have their money go farther, but the levers to pull are not the same.

I also, again, continue to dispute this idea that Democrats need to "start talking about the working class" as if they don't already. Policies that Democrats have advocated for like student debt relief, and credits for first-time homebuyers, and the expanded child-tax credit, are all indisputably things that help "working-class" people, but because none of them help all working-class people, they were spun as negatives to many voters who see themselves as "working-class." There's no question that Democrats need to find better ways to reach the people who consider themselves "working class" but acting like that's an easy and simple thing to do is just naive, IMO. Unless you think we should be like Trump and lie to voters by blaming it all on immigrants and inflation.

 

[mpaer]

Good discussions
It certainly is hard to "group " folks into such categories these days . Cost of living in San Fransico-or even Cary-compared to true small town America-makes national salary comparsions almost meaningless. To me clearly Joe Biden's messaging on "good Union jobs' is probably 20 yrs out of date.
Hillary Clinton's no tax increase for those under $400,000 (I guess 395 is middle class) was equally as baffling ...........
Even professions such as teachers just vary widely The avg teacher in Mass makes 93,000 , in a lot of States it is in the 50s.
A National messaging is hard

 

[rodoheel]

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.

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?

 

[lawtig02]

So here's a thesis I've been noodling over recently in the age of ascendant right-wing populism. Populism tends to wax when the public loses trust in institutions. But the outcome of populist movements in a democracy is determined by a different form of social trust -- the citizenry's trust in each other. Populism, when institutionalized in a country with high levels of partisanship and low levels of social trust, is almost certain to be authoritarian in nature, and that's true whether the populists are right-leaning or left-leaning. Thus, populism can work well and lead to a highly functional democracy in countries like Norway, with its relatively low levels of partisanship and high levels of social trust. But in our current political environment, populism, whether right or left, is far more likely to lead to authoritarianism than to functional democracy.

In the spirit of political science departments everywhere, I'm not saying that's right. I'm just saying it's worth examination.

 

[superrific]

Ok then what is working class to you? And why is it called that?

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.

2. Marx took that idea of the proletariat and applied it to factory workers in general. Factory workers, after all, had nothing to sell or trade than their labor. Their material well-being was not found in their access to capital (the other social class) but rather the alienation of their own labor. Since Marx was, shall we say, influential in sociology and economics, his concepts and terminology gained wide currency.

3. In the U.S., the term working class really came into vogue in the 1950s, IIRC. That was in the context of the post-war "let's everybody get along" model of peaceful industrial relations. Unions, companies and the federal government all had vested interests in workers feeling a sense of participation in the industrial system. This birthed the phrase "blue collar worker" -- it must be a conflict-free workplace if the main difference was in shirt color! -- and then that idea was broadened a bit to become "working class."

 

[heelinhell]

I have always considered "working class" as primarily an economic descriptor

underclass/impoverished
working class
middle class
upper middle class
upper class

 

[Paine]

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 don't necessarily disagree with your definition of "working class" but I disagree with part of what you say. You say that workers "come from all walks of life and have all manner of views" which is "what makes them a viable electoral coalition." I would counter that the fact that the "working class" is so diverse in their backgrounds and views is what makes them very difficult to define or message to as a "class." The concerns and priorities of college-educated public school teachers and rural farm workers and urban police officers and suburban entry-level white-collar workers are all very different, and in some cases irreconcilably contrary to each other. Everyone wants to feel safe and secure, and everyone wants to have more money and have their money go farther, but the levers to pull are not the same.

I also, again, continue to dispute this idea that Democrats need to "start talking about the working class" as if they don't already. Policies that Democrats have advocated for like student debt relief, and credits for first-time homebuyers, and the expanded child-tax credit, are all indisputably things that help "working-class" people, but because none of them help all working-class people, they were spun as negatives to many voters who see themselves as "working-class." There's no question that Democrats need to find better ways to reach the people who consider themselves "working class" but acting like that's an easy and simple thing to do is just naive, IMO. Unless you think we should be like Trump and lie to voters by blaming it all on immigrants and inflation.

I’m not interested in rehashing the 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.

 

[Paine]

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?

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.

 

[rodoheel]

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.

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."

 

[finesse]

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.

 

[Paine]

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."

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.

 

[rodoheel]

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.

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.

 

[Paine]

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.

Yes, I agree with that. I think Medicare for All kills two birds with one stone. It is an emotional appeal and a policy appeal. Democrats have only focused on the policy without the emotion for a long time.

 

[rodoheel]

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.

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:

"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life."

Substitute "illegal immigration" for "President's girlfriend" - and of course ditch anything about "character" which clearly is no longer even close to important - and you basically have the Trump campaign there. It is basically further proof that it's easier to win elections with lies than truth. If people are hurting, they will instinctively look for someone and something to blame. Is there a way to win over those peoples' anger without lying to them and telling them there's some easy solution, some easy scapegoat, for their pain and disaffection?

 

[mpaer]

It could be Orangeturds best messaging was
"This nation is going to hell-it's becoming a Sh$%hole country. I wil bring change"
It resonated with folks trying to buy a house, racists , farmers, folks whose marriage wasn't great , all kinds of people who hear about Woke. 49% of the people were convinced things are getting bad-for many different reasons most of which were as emotional as "factual"

 

[Healing]

It also, to me, just reinforces the notion that WWC in the midwest/south are the real americans

Where I grew up, working class was an unsubtle euphemism for “manual laboring white men, and most definitely not those black or brown manual laboring men”.

 

[Paine]

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:

"Whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life."

Substitute "illegal immigration" for "President's girlfriend" - and of course ditch anything about "character" which clearly is no longer even close to important - and you basically have the Trump campaign there. It is basically further proof that it's easier to win elections with lies than truth. If people are hurting, they will instinctively look for someone and something to blame. Is there a way to win over those peoples' anger without lying to them and telling them there's some easy solution, some easy scapegoat, for their pain and disaffection?

I think Democrats have to acknowledge that campaigning and governing are two different things.

Democrats have been reticent to point out the root cause of a number of issues due to how our campaign finance system is structured. When healthcare is an issue for so many people, you have to offer something to blame and direct anger at.

Republicans will offer illegals immigrants as the issue or whatever. Democrats rarely point out that the root of the problem is a for-profit health insurance system. Even though the vast majority of Democrats support Medicare for All, very few Democratic pols run on it. Blame should be placed on health insurance companies. It should be placed on pharma. These industries have destroyed the lives of Americans.

Democrats are scared to criticize and take on corporate power.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.

Daniel Bell's "Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism", published in the early 70s, was one of the first books to recognize the consequences of religion and traditionalism among the working classes. Class struggle had been disrupted, argued Bell, by the inability of American workers to establish solidarity because of racial divisions. The supposed vanguard of the new society was actually conservative and mostly wanted to live where black people didn't.

Add gender and sexuality into that mix and we have today's situation. This wasn't something that "liberals" or "neoliberals" or "Democrats" did, except in the sense that liberals have emphasized racial and social tolerance and inclusion for generations. The right was working to split minorities and labor, and AM talk radio was their secret weapon. It's really hard to do justice for groups that don't like each other, or at least when one group doesn't like the other group.

To the extent that Democrats fucked up, it was in not taking Rush Limbaugh seriously. And the reason they didn't take him seriously was that he seemed so stuck in the past. Video was the new thing. AM was an ancient, outmoded technology. Rush was just some backwater hick from Missouri (which he was). But what Dems didn't realize was the power of the delivery truck radio, so to speak. Radios in workplaces created a captive audience, and it was thus that the modern, toxic "white working class" conservative political identity was born.

2. You're right that working class is an identity and that's what is fueling Trumpism. It's a powerful identity. But it's also a culturally conservative one -- especially when it comes to gender and sexuality issues, to say nothing of race (an ancient divide-and-conquer strategy that remains potent today). So it's a real challenge to bring that identity within our tent.

This is why I've been favoring religion-based appeals. "Christian" (or any religious identity) is as powerful an identity as working-class and in many ways, more so. And I think it's more promising because it's expressly universalist. The problem with class politics is that they are inherently, by definition, divisive. If you go back to Marx, the "struggle" part of "class struggle" has always been necessary and foundational. In a simple economy and a simple society, that might not be bad, where the heroes and villains are clearly identifiable. But it has proven untenable for liberals to tell workers, "we are organized against those people as our enemies" without creating a conceptual permission structure for them to see other people -- i.e. black people, gay people, etc. -- as villains in somewhat different stories. We basically want class politics to divide people in a certain way and it just doesn't work like that.

Last week we were talking about the need for a new villain, and here too Christianity helps because Christianity has always employed the language of battling against sin rather than sinners. I know, hating the sin and loving the sinner is mostly bullshit, but I'm talking about the language and rhetoric. It's sort of weird for a union leader to stand up and say, "our enemy is cruelty and the hardening of hearts," but those ideas have been emanating from the pulpit for generations.

Our new enemies should be Divisiveness, Cruelty, and Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, after all, has long been a religious concept. I've argued that MAGA world has a different view of hypocrisy than educated liberals. We see hypocrisy in terms of vice; it signals inauthenticity, inconsistency and lack of intellectual rigor. They see hypocrisy in terms of privilege, which has a sound basis in sociology, and want it. So we need to get back to the religious meaning of the term and attack that mindset that MAGA has so readily adopted about rules for thee. Jesus actually talked a fair bit about hypocrisy, right?