Jen Psaki to leave White House in coming weeks

[Ferguson97]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

[Ferguson97]

I've said before that Psaki is the epitome of the limousine white liberal, who is college-educated, lives in a nice upper-middle class to upper class suburban area, probably shops at Whole Foods or some other higher-end store, and sends their children to private or elite schools.

This is bizarrely specific, and I feel like this rant isn't really about Psaki.

It seems more like you're just projecting your frustration that "cringe wine moms" are a more influential voting bloc than you'd like them to be.

I've been critical of Psaki before, as I've explained above. But yes, I will say that I don't think the absorption of wealthy suburbanites into the Democratic coalition is necessarily a good thing for the Party or for its policy development.

What you mention is what Thomas Frank in What's The Matter With Kansasl describes as the Democratic Party's response to their declining fortunes.  Those devising this strategy figured that the working class had nowhere else to go; that the Democratic Party would always be marginally better on economics than the GOP.

The problem with this take is that, over time, the Democratic Party's working class (who are, indeed, more socially conservative, more likely to be churchgoers and hold at least some socially conservative views) saw that Democratic Party go whole hog on social radicalism to the point of sending out dog whistles against THEM.  Over the course of 8 years, Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" became Hillary's "basket of deplorables", and her campaign reflected that attitude toward THEM.  

Once upon a time, there was room for disagreement on the social issues, but it was agreement on the issues important to WORKERS that defined you as an acceptable national Democrat.  The idea that a state such as Virginia could enjoy a trifecta and NOT repeal Right-To-Work laws was unconscionable.  (I'm talking about today's liberal Virginia, and not Harry Byrd's Dixiecrat Virginia.)  Today, it's reversed; there is all sorts of wiggle room on the economic issues for Democrats, but the hard lines on LGBTQ, religious freedom, the 2nd Amendment, etc. are now lines of cleavage for the Democratic Party.  Conformity to the party line on these issues is mandatory.  And while support for consensus Civil Rights legislation has been something that made you a NATIONAL Democrat since 1964, conformity to radical racial agendas (CRT, etc.) are the new Hills To Die On.  The final kick is that the party of "workers" actively slashes jobs in the energy industry which are UNIONIZED jobs, all in the name of "Climate Change".  Their party expects those workers to shoulder the sacrifice.  John Kerry telling Keystone Pipeline workers that they can "better jobs" manufacturing solar panels (which pay less than half that their pipeline jobs earned them) was kind of a "Last Straw" moment that encapsulated the whole shift away of the Democratic Party from the needs of the working class.

Climate change deniers like you should not be taken seriously.