Where do we go from here?

[superrific]

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.

Right.

 

[Paine]

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?

I agree with a lot of what you say here, and I don’t think our notions of how Democrats should move forward are wholly in contention. You have pointed out that religion has fueled the most successful protest movements in the United States, and that is true. These movements have also incorporated economic rights as central to their premise.

 

[finesse]

I will continue to oppose intertwining religion and politics. It's a pernicious habit and is a danger to both parts. I want very much, instead, for religion to claim its separate important role in society defending it against false prophets. In a more perfect world, outsiders would be unneeded, unwanted and improper, none of which is true on the right. We don't have and I don't want us as a political party to have any standing in this.

 

[TarSpiel]

I think dems really need to start punching the homeless, foster kids and minorities more. That'll appeal to our target demographic here.

 

[Wolfslayer]

Yes, you are working class and should be included in anyone’s definition of what it means to be working class.

Nurses, teachers, all working class. This is what I, and other leftists, mean when we talk about the working class and the Democrats having a problem messaging to them. I guess a lot of liberals think I just mean we have a white working class men in the trades problem when I say “working class.”

Should be, but my education disqualifies me in a lot of peoples eyes.

 

[superrific]

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.

Time to turn on old man mode: every generation of young activists in America has had to learn that working class people resist change. We think they should like it. Progress, justice, improving our lives, etc. It makes sense. But in my entire lifetime it has never been true. There are a lot of reasons for that, some good, some not so good, and I'll suggest a couple:

1. Loss of white male privilege. Duh.
2. Uncertainty creates fear. Lots of people have been talking about the difficulties of living paycheck to paycheck. Well, one of the realities is that you try to set up routines to help out. I live a block from my grocery store and I go to the store almost every day. Every Saturday morning there is one group of Latinas who buy like three carts full of groceries. I'm sure they are buying for several households for a whole week. I guess I shouldn't say every Saturday morning because I don't actually know that (I don't go every Saturday morning), but whenever I am there so are they, and I never see them elsewhere.

Change fucks it all up. When things change, you sometimes need to scrap those things that long worked for you. That's annoying. What's more, it's certain. Maybe the change will also carry benefits, but those don't always materialize. They aren't always easy to see when your focus is on next month. That was the political dynamic of Obamacare, and why it was so unpopular even as it was so good for many people.

Now, when things get bad enough, everyone can support change. And that's how Obamacare happened. Health insurance had become such a joke, such a fraud, such an impenetrable hassle that people said, "enough." They voted en masse for new health care.

But now that we have Obamacare, Medicare 4 All is not necessarily palatable. Most people have pretty good insurance now and they can get it if they want it. It's by no means perfect, but the delta from Obamacare to M4A is not that big. Probably not big enough to justify the inherent fear created by changing the whole system. This is why activists don't understand working-class reluctance to embrace causes that would seem to help them. It was certainly true for me and my activist friends.

3. Suspicion that change always screws the working man in the end. This is demonstrably not true, but it's widely felt. And it's a self-defeating message that is commonly broadcast by progressives. It's meant to galvanize solidarity, but the practical effect is to engender cynicism, and cynicism is a huge barrier to solidarity. The message of "the corporate overlords will never let you have nice things, so we need to take them like with M4A" can be heard as "the corporate overlords will never let you have nice things, and that will be true of M4A as well."

 

[superrific]

I will continue to oppose intertwining religion and politics. It's a pernicious habit and is a danger to both parts. I want very much, instead, for religion to claim its separate important role in society defending it against false prophets. In a more perfect world, outsiders would be unneeded, unwanted and improper, none of which is true on the right. We don't have and I don't want us as a political party to have any standing in this.

The Civil Rights Movement was pernicious? The abolitionist movement was pernicious? Independence for India was pernicious.

The vast majority of successful social movements in the modern world have been inflected with religion, with religious appeals at the heart of the messaging. I mean, he was the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, after all.

And MLK's successor (not direct, of course) is Raphael Warnock, who is a pretty good politician and a guy I'm really happy to have in the Senate. He's great. I think we need more of him. He shouldn't be all of us.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

I think dems really need to start punching the homeless, foster kids and minorities more. That'll appeal to our target demographic here.

Agreed. And any demographic we are trying to court, we need to threaten them with deportation. They seem to love that shit.

 

[Paine]

Time to turn on old man mode: every generation of young activists in America has had to learn that working class people resist change. We think they should like it. Progress, justice, improving our lives, etc. It makes sense. But in my entire lifetime it has never been true. There are a lot of reasons for that, some good, some not so good, and I'll suggest a couple:

1. Loss of white male privilege. Duh.
2. Uncertainty creates fear. Lots of people have been talking about the difficulties of living paycheck to paycheck. Well, one of the realities is that you try to set up routines to help out. I live a block from my grocery store and I go to the store almost every day. Every Saturday morning there is one group of Latinas who buy like three carts full of groceries. I'm sure they are buying for several households for a whole week. I guess I shouldn't say every Saturday morning because I don't actually know that (I don't go every Saturday morning), but whenever I am there so are they, and I never see them elsewhere.

Change fucks it all up. When things change, you sometimes need to scrap those things that long worked for you. That's annoying. What's more, it's certain. Maybe the change will also carry benefits, but those don't always materialize. They aren't always easy to see when your focus is on next month. That was the political dynamic of Obamacare, and why it was so unpopular even as it was so good for many people.

Now, when things get bad enough, everyone can support change. And that's how Obamacare happened. Health insurance had become such a joke, such a fraud, such an impenetrable hassle that people said, "enough." They voted en masse for new health care.

But now that we have Obamacare, Medicare 4 All is not necessarily palatable. Most people have pretty good insurance now and they can get it if they want it. It's by no means perfect, but the delta from Obamacare to M4A is not that big. Probably not big enough to justify the inherent fear created by changing the whole system. This is why activists don't understand working-class reluctance to embrace causes that would seem to help them. It was certainly true for me and my activist friends.

3. Suspicion that change always screws the working man in the end. This is demonstrably not true, but it's widely felt. And it's a self-defeating message that is commonly broadcast by progressives. It's meant to galvanize solidarity, but the practical effect is to engender cynicism, and cynicism is a huge barrier to solidarity. The message of "the corporate overlords will never let you have nice things, so we need to take them like with M4A" can be heard as "the corporate overlords will never let you have nice things, and that will be true of M4A as well."

I think what you say about uncertainty makes sense in a certain era. I don’t think that dynamic necessarily holds today.

 

[superrific]

I agree with a lot of what you say here, and I don’t think our notions of how Democrats should move forward are wholly in contention. You have pointed out that religion has fueled the most successful protest movements in the United States, and that is true. These movements have also incorporated economic rights as central to their premise.

I would not say "central" and I think that was the key. Economic rights were inherent in the premise, but those were voiced considerably less often and certainly at less volume. That's a balance I'd like to recreate if possible.

As you said, campaigning and governing aren't the same. I think our governing agendas should be focused on economic rights (not exclusively, of course). But class politics just doesn't work as a successful message in American politics for whatever reason. Our campaigns, then, should be more religiously focused. Or if you don't want religion, vague emotional optimism. More focus on getting people enthused about a better society; less focus on specifying what that better society will look like.

The secret to Trump's success, I think, is precisely his inability and refusal to talk about specifics. He lets his audience project their wishes onto him. They make him into Jesus' bff if that's what they want. They make him into a champion of the working class, if that's what they want. He's infinitely malleable, and I'm not talking only about his ample belly. I don't want to be infinitely malleable, but there is a lesson from GOP politics (after all, before Trump, we all complained how vapid W's campaign ideas were): vague promises beat specifics. And indeed, look at how many Trump voters have assumed that Trump's very specific and very carefully described ideas about mass deportations aren't going to happen. They think they are hearing more vague promises.

We always have to remember that the most successful political messaging from our side this century was Obama 08. What was his slogan? "Yes we can." Perfectly non-descript. There was also the "hope" and "Change" artwork -- again, non-descript. I'm not saying we go back to that exactly, but I think "Yes we can" will beat "here's an idea for better health insurance" every time. It shouldn't, but it does.

 

[superrific]

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.

Did you see that piece in the Times talking with 24 Trump voters about Trump's cabinet choices? I will try to link it if I can find it. Not a one mentioned economic issues. Now, the interview questions weren't exactly on point, but it was striking to me that every single one of them cited a non-economic reason for voting Trump. Maybe not every single one. I'm vaguely recalling maybe a couple who did, but it was a small minority.

We need to pay zero attention to polls that ask questions in the following way: "which of the following issues is the most important to you: a) . . b) . . . c) . . ." People don't necessarily know what the terms mean, and they find it hard to cabin their ideas into small descriptors. For instance, in that set of interviews, the most commonly expressed idea was that Trump was going to end our foreign wars and keep our troops at home. Yes, that doesn't distinguish Trump from the status quo (sigh), but anyway, let's suppose you're a Dominican voter with a high school education. You want not to send Americans into war. Do you consider that to be "foreign policy?" Probably not. I mean, what the fuck is foreign policy anyway? That's a hard term even for us to define. It's certainly not self-evident that "foreign policy" means "keep our troops home."

So it's not a surprise that "foreign policy" ALWAYS ranks low on voters' priorities. Maybe that's because people don't think it's that important, but maybe it's because nobody knows what it actually refers to. So they go with the choice that's easier to grasp: economic issues.

 

[finesse]

The Civil Rights Movement was pernicious? The abolitionist movement was pernicious? Independence for India was pernicious.

The vast majority of successful social movements in the modern world have been inflected with religion, with religious appeals at the heart of the messaging. I mean, he was the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, after all.

And MLK's successor (not direct, of course) is Raphael Warnock, who is a pretty good politician and a guy I'm really happy to have in the Senate. He's great. I think we need more of him. He shouldn't be all of us.

At no point did I suggest that religion should not be a consideration in politics or politics in religion. I'm all for working together when we have mutual interests. I just very strongly resist the idea that either drives the other. That, to my mind, is an infringement of the separation of church and state. And yes, that infringement is pernicious. It's also very present in our society and getting worse. I really don't want to add to it. Religion as part, absolutely. Religion as a feature, not so much.

 

[Paine]

Did you see that piece in the Times talking with 24 Trump voters about Trump's cabinet choices? I will try to link it if I can find it. Not a one mentioned economic issues. Now, the interview questions weren't exactly on point, but it was striking to me that every single one of them cited a non-economic reason for voting Trump. Maybe not every single one. I'm vaguely recalling maybe a couple who did, but it was a small minority.

We need to pay zero attention to polls that ask questions in the following way: "which of the following issues is the most important to you: a) . . b) . . . c) . . ." People don't necessarily know what the terms mean, and they find it hard to cabin their ideas into small descriptors. For instance, in that set of interviews, the most commonly expressed idea was that Trump was going to end our foreign wars and keep our troops at home. Yes, that doesn't distinguish Trump from the status quo (sigh), but anyway, let's suppose you're a Dominican voter with a high school education. You want not to send Americans into war. Do you consider that to be "foreign policy?" Probably not. I mean, what the fuck is foreign policy anyway? That's a hard term even for us to define. It's certainly not self-evident that "foreign policy" means "keep our troops home."

So it's not a surprise that "foreign policy" ALWAYS ranks low on voters' priorities. Maybe that's because people don't think it's that important, but maybe it's because nobody knows what it actually refers to. So they go with the choice that's easier to grasp: economic issues.

Again, not interested in rehashing this argument. I’ll just say, Trump not focusing on economic issues at all once in office doesn’t disprove that a lot of voters voted for him based on their economic concerns.

All of us here know that Trump doesn’t give a shit about that stuff and that he won’t help. People know what it means when they say they voted on economic issues. It means that prices are too high, rent is too high, and people are struggling to pay off debt and bills.

 

[superrific]

I think what you say about uncertainty makes sense in a certain era. I don’t think that dynamic necessarily holds today.

Says every young activist ever.

That's a joke, but it's also true. The humor is actually at my expense: the old man looking down on activists as if my experiences are always going to reflect realities at all times. At least some of the time, the activist's claim will be correct. Maybe more often than not.

But it's also true that a lot of young activists assume (subconsciously and through deed more than as an expressed thought) that the past is the past and the future will be new. At least some of the time, it's not.

 

[Paine]

Says every young activist ever.

That's a joke, but it's also true. The humor is actually at my expense: the old man looking down on activists as if my experiences are always going to reflect realities at all times. At least some of the time, the activist's claim will be correct. Maybe more often than not.

But it's also true that a lot of young activists assume (subconsciously and through deed more than as an expressed thought) that the past is the past and the future will be new. At least some of the time, it's not.

Yeah, I just don’t think telling people: “you will no longer pay at the point of service and you won’t have to worry about going broke from medical debt” is going to scare people and make them not want to change from our current system.

Of course Republicans and business interests will fear monger about it. They did that under Truman and Clinton. But we have to present the case based on values and morals.

 

[superrific]

Religion as part, absolutely. Religion as a feature, not so much.

I don't understand this distinction but it's all good. I'm not envisioning our candidates for office be Bible thumpers. After all, MLK never held elected office; he never wanted to; and I have my doubts that he ever would. Gandhi was not a part of the post-colonial British government.

 

[heelinhell]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/income-fall-americas-lower-middle-122100515.html

 

[rodoheel]

I think what you say about uncertainty makes sense in a certain era. I don’t think that dynamic necessarily holds today.

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

 

[superrific]

Yeah, I just don’t think telling people: “you will no longer pay at the point of service and you won’t have to worry about going broke from medical debt” is going to scare people and make them not want to change from our current system.

Of course Republicans and business interests will fear monger about it. They did that under Truman and Clinton. But we have to present the case based on values and morals.

Well, Clinton did present the case based on values and morals.

I was a young guy when Hillarycare was rolled out. True story: I had an internship set up on the Hill to help sell Hillarycare in summer 93. But Hillarycare didn't show up; my internship vanished; and then it was rejected by the public.

I couldn't believe it. Why would voters hate universal health care? Why would voters -- who after all elected Clinton by a healthy margin after he talked so much about universal health care -- not want less expensive insurance? Portable health insurance (this was before HIPAA and COBRA)? No denials for pre-existing conditions? What about two people sitting at a kitchen table saying, "I don't know if we can afford this" convinced people that the thing that was going to reduce their costs was actually worse for them? The effectiveness of that ad made no sense to me, and to be honest, I still don't get it. Hey people, it's a fucking ad. It's not the truth. Those are actors, not real people. Sigh.

Maybe you're right and things are different now. But my advice is: prepare yourself for things that do not make sense. Like what we just saw in this election. People complaining about inflation lining up to vote for more inflation. People thinking Trump was their champion, or a man of his word, or a man of principles, or any number of bizarro sentiments I've seen expressed. People thinking that trans prisoners getting sex change operations was affecting their life.

I guess this is my main message to young activists (it's what I was referring to in my PM about the New Left). If you assume that people are rational, you will be disappointed and you will make mistakes. It's better to assume that people are partly rational some of the time. And thus things that should work sometimes won't.

 

[Paine]

Well, Clinton did present the case based on values and morals.

I was a young guy when Hillarycare was rolled out. True story: I had an internship set up on the Hill to help sell Hillarycare in summer 93. But Hillarycare didn't show up; my internship vanished; and then it was rejected by the public.

I couldn't believe it. Why would voters hate universal health care? Why would voters -- who after all elected Clinton by a healthy margin after he talked so much about universal health care -- not want less expensive insurance? Portable health insurance (this was before HIPAA and COBRA)? No denials for pre-existing conditions? What about two people sitting at a kitchen table saying, "I don't know if we can afford this" convinced people that the thing that was going to reduce their costs was actually worse for them? The effectiveness of that ad made no sense to me, and to be honest, I still don't get it. Hey people, it's a fucking ad. It's not the truth. Those are actors, not real people. Sigh.

Maybe you're right and things are different now. But my advice is: prepare yourself for things that do not make sense. Like what we just saw in this election. People complaining about inflation lining up to vote for more inflation. People thinking Trump was their champion, or a man of his word, or a man of principles, or any number of bizarro sentiments I've seen expressed. People thinking that trans prisoners getting sex change operations was affecting their life.

I guess this is my main message to young activists (it's what I was referring to in my PM about the New Left). If you assume that people are rational, you will be disappointed and you will make mistakes. It's better to assume that people are partly rational some of the time. And thus things that should work sometimes won't.

There was more wrapped up in Hillarycare besides it just being a debate about universal coverage vs. the system we had at the time.