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

[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.

[136or142]

Was support for slavery considered part of being a 'moral traditionalist' in this poll?

What kind of slavery we talking about? 1800s slavery or dom & sub slavery?

1800s slavery.

[Free Bird]

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.

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.

Even if I take this premise as true, I'm not sure there's much point in going after the votes of people who were so stupid they took Trump's economic solutions seriously.

This kind of attitude is ALSO why Trump won.

[136or142]

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.

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.

Even if I take this premise as true, I'm not sure there's much point in going after the votes of people who were so stupid they took Trump's economic solutions seriously.

This kind of attitude is ALSO why Trump won.

Yes, people who claim they voted for Trump because 'he tells it like it is' but, in reality, didn't want to hear the truth about themselves.  I'm really not interested in the ancient history of why or why not Trump won.

[136or142]

"This is why Trump won" the full list
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/14/this-list-is-why-trump-won-219009

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Because of America's complex history, particularly regarding racial issues, the issue of race will be unavoidable. There are numerous socioeconomic problems facing American minority groups - primarily due to structural problems in American society that have been constructed over time to deliberately establish White dominance and minority subordination. Although we have made tremendous strides, there are still countless problems that need to be addressed in order to help raise minorities to similar living standards of Whites (and, ideally, raise the living standards of all races). The narrow focus of this OP, which downplays the "working class" identity of African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asian Americans, and others, in favor of the image of working class Whites, is not applicable in a fair, just, and equitable society. The focus of the Democratic Party, despite its flaws, is on ensuring as many Americans as possible, from all backgrounds, can enjoy a middle class life.

This is simply not true. The average income of Asian-Americans is the same as whites, so their living standards are not lagging behind whites. The median income of Middle Easterners also does not lag whites. The issue of living standards as filtered through the lens of race is not Whites versus non-Whites, but some groups (Whites, Asians, and Arabs) versus others (African-Americans, and Hispanics). However, as far as African-Americans, their income is already on the rise, outpacing whites. For Hispanics 39% intermarried with other races, and the vast majority of those married Whites. Eventually this group will merge into the White majority. Hence the image of a racialized underclass and White upper crust is simply inaccurate.

The OP does not "downplay" working class Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; these working class Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and others, share the same concerns as working class Whites. They too, are hurt by trade agreements like NAFTA. They too, have no investment in abolishing ICE as most of them are legally here. They too, do not wake up cheering on Antifa, and overwhelmingly white agitation group, or endorse their violent tactics. Among Hispanics 53% either have no opinion or disapprove of NFL players' kneeling, and among Others, 57% either have no opinion or disapprove. Even among African-Americans, 26% have no opinion or disapprove. (Source) OP is completely correct that these issues do not necessarily speak to working class Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and others.

When it comes to the "top set of issues on your mind", African-Americans were actually the most likely to say economic issues (38%), followed by Hispanics (32%), followed by Other (30%), followed by Whites (27%). The next highest group was health care issues, which had identical support across racial groups. Show me one poll that says working class Blacks, Hispanics and Asians care more about transgender bathrooms and Confederate statues than jobs, health care, education, and housing. No such poll exists.

Asian Americans are far from a socioeconomically homogeneous group, but the rest of this is spot on. Although I doubt rising rates of racial intermarriage will solve racial tensions and white racial resentment, given the relative inelasticity of "white" and "black" cultural identities among residentially segregated Caucasian and African-Americans.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

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.

[Sumner 1868]

A study of precinct data by Washington State University showed Hillary Clinton improved on Obama's 2012 margin in areas where the median income is over $250,000 by thirty-nine points in 2016. I think that says quite a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

While I believe in sentencing reform, and an end to Draconian "mandatory minimums", this is not quit the working class issue you say it is.  Many of these criminal defendants are drug dealers who are NOT in the workforce, and who's real career is drug dealing.  Many of the men involved in the criminal justice system in the way you describe are not persons that are supporting their families, at least not actively and regularly.  In addition, much of the "disadvantaged" status of these families comes not from their low incomes, but from the prevalance of alcohol and drug abuse in these situations.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

[136or142]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

Do you actually believe Trump has done anything to help the working class?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

Do you actually believe Trump has done anything to help the working class?

His policies have increased construction-related employment significantly.  I live in Florida, and I can remember when that vital leg of Florida's economy completely dried up.  There are downsides to this, but Trump's policies have increased construction employment and reduced the percentage of those jobs being taken by illegal immigrants.

His policies have stopped the assault on workers in fossil fuel industries.

Trump's policies have resulted in job creation, which is good for the working class.  I will say that his labor policies are rather "Freedom Caucus-ish" and I don't consider them to be pro-working class.  But "working conditions", which is a valid issue, only come into play once you have a job; if you're unemployed, the fact that other workers have a safer work environment doesn't really impact YOUR live a whole lot.

Then, again, I haven't said I support Donald Trump's re-election effort.  I haven't even said that I'm going to vote Republican in 2020.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

A study of precinct data by Washington State University showed Hillary Clinton improved on Obama's 2012 margin in areas where the median income is over $250,000 by thirty-nine points in 2016. I think that says quite a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

That study is limited to precincts with electorates that are over 90% Non-Hispanic White.

[Sumner 1868]

A study of precinct data by Washington State University showed Hillary Clinton improved on Obama's 2012 margin in areas where the median income is over $250,000 by thirty-nine points in 2016. I think that says quite a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

That study is limited to precincts with electorates that are over 90% Non-Hispanic White.

Which means other upper-class precincts probably swung even more Democratic. Says a lot.

[RINO Tom]

A study of precinct data by Washington State University showed Hillary Clinton improved on Obama's 2012 margin in areas where the median income is over $250,000 by thirty-nine points in 2016. I think that says quite a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/27/upshot/white-voters-precinct-analysis.html

That study is limited to precincts with electorates that are over 90% Non-Hispanic White.

Which means other upper-class precincts probably swung even more Democratic. Says a lot.

Perhaps, though since Clinton was more or less running as Obama 2.0 and Romney crushed in those areas, I think it says more about how bad of a fit the GOP nominee was for those areas ... and less about the Democrats.

[136or142]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

Do you actually believe Trump has done anything to help the working class?

His policies have increased construction-related employment significantly.  I live in Florida, and I can remember when that vital leg of Florida's economy completely dried up.  There are downsides to this, but Trump's policies have increased construction employment and reduced the percentage of those jobs being taken by illegal immigrants.

His policies have stopped the assault on workers in fossil fuel industries.

Trump's policies have resulted in job creation, which is good for the working class.  I will say that his labor policies are rather "Freedom Caucus-ish" and I don't consider them to be pro-working class.  But "working conditions", which is a valid issue, only come into play once you have a job; if you're unemployed, the fact that other workers have a safer work environment doesn't really impact YOUR live a whole lot.

Then, again, I haven't said I support Donald Trump's re-election effort.  I haven't even said that I'm going to vote Republican in 2020.

1.Which of Trump's policies have resulted in the increase in construction jobs?

2."Assault on workers in the fossil fuel industry." So, you believe that people in the working class don't suffer from COPD, Asthma, or any of the many other diseases people get from the release of, especially, fine particulate matter?  I'm not referring to the workers, I'm referring to the negative externalities caused by the fossil fuel industry.  Of course, at the same time that Trump and the Republicans slash environmental regulations they're also making it more difficult for people, especially the working class and the underclass, to receive health care.

In the case of the fossil fuel industry, Trump's and the Republican policies certainly benefit the real elites, but they don't really help too many others. It certainly says something about the white working class that they seem to believe otherwise.

The 'assault on the fossil fuel industry' is nothing more than demanding that fossil fuel companies pay for the cost of their externalities.  Do you think it's Okay for them to be freeloaders?

Would it be fair to say that you think a child living with same sex parents is living in a worse situation than a child living down wind from a fossil fuel emitter (especially coal)?

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

In other words, men's issues are working class issues? Yikes.

That post was even more pathetic than your first one, and isn't even worth a response. Try harder.

While I believe in sentencing reform, and an end to Draconian "mandatory minimums", this is not quit the working class issue you say it is.  Many of these criminal defendants are drug dealers who are NOT in the workforce, and who's real career is drug dealing.  Many of the men involved in the criminal justice system in the way you describe are not persons that are supporting their families, at least not actively and regularly.  In addition, much of the "disadvantaged" status of these families comes not from their low incomes, but from the prevalance of alcohol and drug abuse in these situations.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

Source for the bolded claim? By the way mandatory minimums apply to crimes other than drug distribution, but obviously the war on drugs which puts away (among others) distributors of harmless drugs like marijuana and disproportionately targets black and brown people is also a problem. I suppose I could have been more general by saying a crooked justice system which goes easy on white collar crime but brings down the hammer on working people, rather than focusing on one issue like mandatory minimums.

[Yank2133]

It only seems like a platitude because such a large number of working-class people have decided to piss away the meaningful assistance they would have gotten from Democrats in favour of the bigotry, bluster, and ignorance that seem to more immediately dance in their hearts.

That sounds harsh, but IDGAF. They vote against their own interests because something about having the hardships of racialized people get attention irks them. Seeing the successes of racialized people irks them even more. Having to check themselves or make an effort to show empathy to who are different? How dare we ask they do that! Too much economic angst, I suppose...

However, it is worth pointing out that you are operating as if "working families" includes only white families. You lament identity politics while playing that exact same game yourself. So don't tell me identity politics is bullsh-t when Republicans have warped it even moreso to their advantage (take Trump's silly politicization of the young lady who was killed by an undocumented immigrant, for example). By and large, working people do vote for Democrats. They're just working people who happen to be people of colour. But for some reason they don't count.

What if they actually like Republican Economic Policies better.


Just because you believe Republican Economic Policies dont benefit the middle class doenst believe everyone has to

If this were true, why do Republicans always have to hide their true intentions through bad faith?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Yes, clearly the party that advocates for ending mandatory minimum sentencing, increased minimum wage, ending workplace harassment and hiring discrimination, strengthened workplace safety standards, and increased worker presence in corporate shareholder pools has forgotten about the working man.

What does "ending mandatory minimum sentencing" have to do with the "working man" (sic)? It's a bit odd to pass yourself off as speaking on behalf of working people while implying that they are criminal.

In a criminal justice system where arrest rates are unequally distributed, mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects men (if not fathers, then men in other important roles within family units) in poorer (and often otherwise disadvantaged) families. Having these men incarcerated for longer disrupts income and childrearing. Also nothing in my post insinuates that all working people are criminal. In short your post is weaksauce.

In other words, men's issues are working class issues? Yikes.

That post was even more pathetic than your first one, and isn't even worth a response. Try harder.

While I believe in sentencing reform, and an end to Draconian "mandatory minimums", this is not quit the working class issue you say it is.  Many of these criminal defendants are drug dealers who are NOT in the workforce, and who's real career is drug dealing.  Many of the men involved in the criminal justice system in the way you describe are not persons that are supporting their families, at least not actively and regularly.  In addition, much of the "disadvantaged" status of these families comes not from their low incomes, but from the prevalance of alcohol and drug abuse in these situations.

This is an issue not for the "working class", but for the "underclass".  Now the underclass has legitimate issues that need to be addressed if for no other reason but to be humane.  But working class people's interest does not always coincide with the underclass's interests.  Lectures and scolding in the vein of your average HagridOfTheDeep (a/k/a "I've never worked a day in my life!") post only reinforce the view of many working class people that limousine liberals value the underclass for votes, only, but look down on the working class because they are not as docile.  There's a reason former NYC Mayor John Lindsay was hated beyond words by NYC's uniformed services and transit workers despite giving them the biggest raises ever.

Source for the bolded claim? By the way mandatory minimums apply to crimes other than drug distribution, but obviously the war on drugs which puts away (among others) distributors of harmless drugs like marijuana and disproportionately targets black and brown people is also a problem. I suppose I could have been more general by saying a crooked justice system which goes easy on white collar crime but brings down the hammer on working people, rather than focusing on one issue like mandatory minimums.

I don't know where people get the idea that society goes easy on white collar crime.

White collar criminals are often given harsh sentences in order that they be made examples of.  Bernie Madoff is one example.  A major swindler in my community whose name escapes me got 30 years; he'll die in prison most likely.  Doctors prescribing Rx drugs are going to jail for long sentences every day for drug trafficking that isn't street level.

This may have been true at one place and time, but it's not true today.  Indeed, Celebrity Justice and White Collar Justice is harsher than ever. 

https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2071-criminal-records-and-unemployment-the-impact-on

https://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/04/nonsensical-sentences-white-collar-criminals-256104.html

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/sr084-males-probation-parole/sr084-males-probation-parole/sr084-males-probation-parole.htm

I have worked in prisons with drug-addicted inmates.  I will tell you that the vast majority of the younger offenders had rarely had a job, and many lacked basic employment skills.  A huge number of them were given up on around age 14; that was the point where their parents (usually, only one, or a grandparent) could no longer effectively control their behavior.  Their job skills were limited, and their job seeking skills reflected the skills of someone who chose not to bother with learning the skill in the first place.

I have worked with folks in treatment centers who were in a re-entry phase where they worked during the day and came back to the center at night.  Some of them got jobs, and pretty good jobs all things considered.  Forty hour a week jobs, which did not require them to get 2-3 jobs to string together to make ends meet.  And when their time came to an end at the treatment center what happened?  Many of them quit their jobs.  They were not interested in working a structured job.  Some used drugs the first day out.  Others had secret plans for what they'd be doing after discharge. 

These issues are not "working class" issues to the population people are discussing here.  Many of these folks had "paternalistic" relationships with their employers; indeed, such an employer was the only kind that would hire many of these people and put up with their varying levels of ongoing dysfunction.  I will grant you that this is an issue in criminal justice; the degree to which paternalistic employment contributes to recidivism.  But the people in this sort of arrangement were often unmotivated to change; they had an arrangements where they had to take an amazingly low amount of responsibility for their lives.  I've seen this on the micro level, and this is as foreign to the working class as Mandarin Chinese is to San Juan, Puerto Rico.