Is the Democratic Party's "Working Families" Line Mostly Just a Platitude Now?

[Calthrina950]

The Democrats used to be commonly known as the party of the working guy, evidenced by their previous dominance in the working-class South. The image of Democrats in the minds of many, at that time, was one of blue-collar workers walking in and out of their factory jobs, and other such imagery. This type of mentality still occasionally shines through, evidenced by victories in places like North Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, and North Carolina, states with moderate State Democratic Parties that all, to some extent, at least, have populist streaks to them.

Recently though, many think that the Dems, by and large, have become too strung up in neoliberalism and identity politics. Still, they continue to trot out talking points about the middle class and working families. So, are the Democrats still the party of "the working man and woman" and the middle class as they like to say? Or, is it just an empty platitude now to keep organized labor in line (while throwing them itty bitty crumbs, to steal a phrase, here and there) while most of the bigwigs (Cuomo, Booker, Obama, the Clintons etc.) focus more and more on identity politics, corporatism, neoliberalism, and generally pandering to the far-left? I'm leaning towards it just being an empty buzzword at this point. If it weren't, then more Democrats, I feel, would be more vocal against trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, rather than just a few like Marcy Kaptur and Sherrod Brown, just to name one issue, and wouldn't be so ready and willing to bend on one knee to appease out there folks like Antifa and the Abolish ICE movement, likely making Middle America and the Average Joe feel alienated in the process.

Note that my opinion does NOT suggest the Republican Party is now the party of "the working guy," either. Neoliberalism is a bipartisan ideology, one that is still embraced by most Republicans, especially in Congress and the Senate. So now that I've said that, I would appreciate if this discussion focused on the Democratic Party, both as a collective and as a series of factions, rather than devolving into a game of Whataboutism used as another excuse to attack Republicans.

I largely agree with the points that you have presented in your post. In many ways (as has been pointed out by users such as Fuzzy Bear), the Democrats seem to have moved away from much of the economic populism which defined the party in earlier decades. Now, I'm not saying that they have completely abandoned their prior ideals. That is certainly not true, given that we have the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who seem to focus primarily on the economic issues, particularly income inequality, education, banks, wages, and healthcare. However, much of what we have seen in the past few years (i.e. the fights over gun rights, over criminal justice issues, over Antifa, over "free speech" and affirmative action, over immigration policy, over the Trump Administration, over gay and transgender rights, over Islam, etc.) has sent out the wrong signal to voters who should, looking at their economic situation, be voting Democratic.

My hope is that the Cordray timeline written by TheDoctor will come to fruition soon, and the Democrats will return to the working-class roots that were at the heart of the party in the days of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. Yes, the Party must continue to have an appropriate focus on issues of pressing social concern. But at the same time, "identity politics" and "culture wars" shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of passing substantive economic and foreign policy programs that will, in the long run, address some of the most glaring issues in our country today.

[Calthrina950]

One of the most frustrating aspects of our current political dialogue is that the term “working class” has come to only describe white male West Virginian coal miners, despite the fact that urban non-whites make up a more significant share of the actual working class. Clinton won a sizable majority of people making under $50,000 a year, yet Trump is portrayed as some sort of godlike figure to all lower-income people, just because lower-income whites liked him.

So, no, the Democratic Party is still the party supported by a majority of the working class. They’re just no longer the party of the white working class.

Perhaps not, but you say it somewhat dismissively. Shouldn't you be trying to win them back? A lot of Democrats, especially coastal ones, are now holding the WWC in open contempt because they voted for Trump.

Of course the Democratic Party should still work to engage WWC voters. But I wholly reject the notion that Democrats should ignore righteous social causes just because some rural whites aren’t sympatheric to those issues. Believe it or not, the Democrats can simultaneously address both economic and social issues; in fact, I would argue that the emphasis Democrats put on social issues is greatly exaggerated by their critics to both the right and left (after all, healthcare is the most popular issue among House Democrats this year). Any voter who is deeply bothered by the Democrats even moderately addressing problems pertaining to race/gender/sexuality/etc. will ultimately be incompatible with the Democratic Party in it’s modern form, because the party has positioned itself as the only one that will even begin to tackle such issues and voters who truly dislike any emphasis being put on those issues will be repelled regardless.

If I sounded “dismissive,” it was just because I was responding directly to your question, which seemed to pertain to the working class as a whole, and thus it didn’t matter exactly which constituencies within that umbrella supported the Democrats and which didn’t, because the overall answer is still no.

Of course a party can address social issues, but I think a lot of "Middle America's" point of contention is the extent to which they go, and the identity politics therein. Consider, when the Dems first started accepting gay marriage and were generally pro-choice, I think only the heaviest of the Bible Belt cared.

But around the early 2010s, I would say as the last handful of Dixiecrats were defeated, then the party's power became more and more concentrated in the hands of coastal cosmopolitans like Pelosi and Schumer. Now, at least from Middle America's perspective, the Democrats are seen as the party of illegal immigration, which is very unpopular and was, in fact, opposed by the likes of Obama and the Clintons and Schumer as early as 2008, of third bathrooms, and of identity politics. The perception is they have moved extremely to the left. This may or may not be true, but that's people's perception of the matter.

Now, with the Democrats, everything seems to be about "women this, blacks this, privilege this," tossing aside merit and individual issues in favor of collective factors outside of one's own control. In doing so, I think the Average Joe, who would accept Bob and Steve getting married or Alice having an abortion, has felt alienated, whereas Trump spoke to their concerns, which were economic and, really, unlike POC, the only real concerns they had.

I think people misconstrue identity politics with issues in general. You can talk about issues facing a community, such as drugs or police brutality, without making your point just to pander at an "African American Summit" or something. You could make it clear that you're talking about it because it's a problem facing people without a voice, not because it's very transparently a demographic you're trying to pander to and win, leaving others out in the process. If done that way, the Democrats could be seen as the party of the little guy again, rather than the party of non-white non-males. That's not to say it's not important or a bad thing to appeal to those groups, but not blatantly alienating or disregarding people outside them would be good, too, when all they want is their pension and to be able to run their business like everyone else without being called racist and privileged because reasons. That would be a lot more egalitarian to a lot more people and more in line with MLK's message of character over color, and it would allow for a much more wide-reaching message.

TLDR: The Democratic Party, since the Obama era, has become much more concerned with who people are rather than what they face, and have been all but wiped out in areas that kept it moderate, giving the coastal weirdos carte blanche to go way far to the left and out of step with mainstream views and logic, often to the detriment, perceived or real, of Middle America, such as an open embrace of illegal immigrants directly leading to a depression of wages. This obsession with identity has caused a lot of people, who would otherwise be socially tolerant and Democratic-leaning, to feel neglected or alienated because, quite often, they are implied to be villains merely for existing.

As a black person, I feel it necessary to interject again into this thread, in response to this post.  I agree with you that some of the social advocacy by the Democratic Party has gone overboard. The debates over transgender rights, "religious freedom", illegal immigration, and gun rights have, in many ways, involved stereotypes, falsehoods, and hyped-up language, from both sides of the political spectrum. Many people have genuinely felt themselves isolated from the Party, and many have felt that the Democrats are no longer concerned about their needs. Even among the left-leaning elements of the Democratic base, you can detect this dissatisfaction.

The Bernie Sanders crowd, I think, is an indicator of how there are Democrats who are concerned about the kinds of economic issues (i.e. income inequality, healthcare, education, the environment, jobs, banks, outsourcing) that affect all working-class and middle-class Americans, regardless of race or background. In my view, though, it is important to pay appropriate attention to social issues. Issues such as criminal justice reform, poverty, urban crime, and redlining are in many ways linked to those substantive concerns that I listed above. Many minorities do continue to suffer from disparities that have their roots in the history of this country. I don't think one can begin to address the systemic problems our country faces without addressing these injustices as well.

In the long run, though, I don't think "identity politics", whether of white evangelicals or BLM activists, is a good thing for our democracy. Polarization has intensified considerably within the last twenty years, and the bitter partisan debates that we are seeing in the Trump era are the most visible sign of that. I certainly don't want partisanship to worsen, and I don't want either party pandering to just one segment of the electorate at the expense of other segments. My firm belief is that most Americans fall near the center of the political spectrum (as I do), and I hope that our political system can eventually be modified to recognize this. If we do not, then more of the same will continue.

[Calthrina950]

I raise this proposition: do working-class minorities and POC (which the overwhelming majority of POC are because of where they tend to live, namely urban areas) vote Democrat because of economic issues, or because they at least acknowledge OTHER problems they have, such as over-policing, gang violence, and drugs, whereas Republicans are completely tone-deaf and cast said groups off as lazy and talk about "helping them help themselves?"

I could argue it's the latter. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? If the Democrats were still a mainly working-class party, and weren't mostly coastal cosmopolitan neoliberals, with evidence being their support among poor POC, then shouldn't the WWC still also overwhelmingly support them? Shouldn't Kentucky and West Virginia still be sapphire blue?

Working class minorities and POC (including Evangelical Christians who are black or even Hispanic) vote Democratic because the GOP has taken positions that give the appearance that they wish to block them from voting, which means blocking them from having effective influence on public policy of all kinds.  I'm talking abour Voter ID, opposition to restoring  voting rights to felons (even those done with their sentences), gerrymandering, tough-on-crime sentencing proposals (from pols that take in a lot of cash from privatized prison firms, and a sometimes mean-spirited opposition to affirmative action.  These issues aren't vanity issues to these folks; they are survival issues.  Minorities have figureed it out; you have to be able to vote, and your vote has to be counted in a way that it is not negated, in order to have political influence. 

I have posted on this topic before:  If the GOP really wanted to make inroads into the minority vote, they need to stop advocating policies that tell them, "We don't want you voting!".  Many blacks are NOT super-liberal at a number of levels; they are more likely to be churchgoers, and more likely to subscribe to certain tenets of social conservatism than white liberals, but they'll endure that before they support someone who actively supports policies that hits them, as a group, in an area that affects their ability to make a difference.  Voting, in a real sense, is how we, as Americans, defend our individual liberties, and, in truth, we only have the rights and liberties we can defend.

 

I agree with the points made here as well. You are correct when you say that many blacks are not socially liberal on certain issues. This is especially true when you look at things such as gay marriage and abortion.

[Calthrina950]

I raise this proposition: do working-class minorities and POC (which the overwhelming majority of POC are because of where they tend to live, namely urban areas) vote Democrat because of economic issues, or because they at least acknowledge OTHER problems they have, such as over-policing, gang violence, and drugs, whereas Republicans are completely tone-deaf and cast said groups off as lazy and talk about "helping them help themselves?"

I could argue it's the latter. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? If the Democrats were still a mainly working-class party, and weren't mostly coastal cosmopolitan neoliberals, with evidence being their support among poor POC, then shouldn't the WWC still also overwhelmingly support them? Shouldn't Kentucky and West Virginia still be sapphire blue?

Working class minorities and POC (including Evangelical Christians who are black or even Hispanic) vote Democratic because the GOP has taken positions that give the appearance that they wish to block them from voting, which means blocking them from having effective influence on public policy of all kinds.  I'm talking abour Voter ID, opposition to restoring  voting rights to felons (even those done with their sentences), gerrymandering, tough-on-crime sentencing proposals (from pols that take in a lot of cash from privatized prison firms, and a sometimes mean-spirited opposition to affirmative action.  These issues aren't vanity issues to these folks; they are survival issues.  Minorities have figureed it out; you have to be able to vote, and your vote has to be counted in a way that it is not negated, in order to have political influence. 

I have posted on this topic before:  If the GOP really wanted to make inroads into the minority vote, they need to stop advocating policies that tell them, "We don't want you voting!".  Many blacks are NOT super-liberal at a number of levels; they are more likely to be churchgoers, and more likely to subscribe to certain tenets of social conservatism than white liberals, but they'll endure that before they support someone who actively supports policies that hits them, as a group, in an area that affects their ability to make a difference.  Voting, in a real sense, is how we, as Americans, defend our individual liberties, and, in truth, we only have the rights and liberties we can defend.

 

I agree with the points made here as well. You are correct when you say that many blacks are not socially liberal on certain issues. This is especially true when you look at things such as gay marriage and abortion.

I remember reading an article, I think it was in National Review maybe, about this issue. The GOP has a serious messaging problem with non-whites. That's where my point about the Democrats even acknowledging these struggles and not sounding, even if they don't mean to, like they want non-whites to be put in gulags. I see no reason why a Republican could support Voter ID while making it clear that POC will still be able to vote, or why criminal justice reform couldn't be supported while making it clear that they're not going to throw young blacks in jail for 20 years for possessing a plant. In fact, I would think that it would be beneficial to the "opportunity for free enterprise" line for Republicans to take a more active stance against people being in a perpetual cycle of prison and poverty. All about marketing.

Criminal justice reform is something which, I think, should be a bipartisan issue. You are probably aware of the Sentencing Reform bill that was proposed by a group of Republican and Democratic Senators concerning this very issue, and which has stalled because of partisan gridlock. If the Republicans gravitated more towards the center on these kinds of issues, while making a solid argument as to why conservative economic principles and policy would benefit minorities more than Democrats, then they would be in better shape. I like to mention the Cordray realignment timeline frequently, as I think it provides a good road-map of where I think the parties should go.

A Republican Party along those lines (socially moderate, fiscally conservative, practical), adhering to its principles but doing so in a way so as to attract more voters to its camp, will be a better party. This is just like how a Democratic Party that is socially moderate to liberal (without the excessive focus on identity politics) and strongly populist on economic issues (like during the New Deal days), would also do better.

[Calthrina950]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's been a platitude since the Clinton's came in and cleaned house and turned it into a party for high-class social liberal professionals who treat poor people as pets that need a bone thrown to them every now and then via mediocre legislation.

This relates to the point that I was making earlier, in that it would be advisable for the Democrats to return to their populist and progressive roots on economic issues, as seen in the New Deal and Great Society.