Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,474 posts)
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 02:39 PM Oct 2017

Democrats used to campaign on class and win. It's time to do it again.

The reason the Democratic Party lost the last presidential election is simple.

Or so a lot of Democrats seem to think.

In the end, says one school of thought, it was all about race. As the influential journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates asserted in a recent Atlantic magazine cover story, “whiteness brought us Donald Trump.”

(snip)

Unless, of course, November’s defeat wasn’t about race after all. The real reason Democrats lost the White House was economic, not cultural, according to the most powerful Democrat in the country (and his many allies).

“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things … you blame yourself,” declared Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier this year. “I think if we come up with this strong, bold economic package, it will change things around. That’s what we were missing.”

(snip)

In a sense, it all came down to class, because class is the space where economics and culture overlap.

More than any Republican presidential candidate in recent memory, Trump erased the boundaries between culture and economics. Again and again, the impulsive, improvisational mogul — a man who launched his campaign by calling Mexicans “rapists” — capitalized on the resentments and rage of certain white Americans: toward elites, toward the “establishment,” toward nonwhites and non-Americans. At the same time, Trump broke with the bipartisan Beltway consensus to gesture, at least, toward an economic attitude — “agenda” is probably too strong a word — that reflected the populist desires and demands of the voters to whom he was also targeting his divisive cultural appeals. Unravel free-trade deals. Revive American manufacturing. Reanimate the coal industry. Halt immigration.

Never mind that as president, Trump has done little, so far, to deliver on any of these promises. In his campaign, culture dictated economics and economics amplified culture. The product was greater than the sum of its parts: the first Republican presidential bid in decades to be animated by the affinities and animosities of a particular class. As a result, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million but peeled off just enough voters in the traditionally blue states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — 77,744 of them, to be exact — to eke out a surprise victory in the Electoral College.

If Democrats want to wound Trump in 2018 and defeat him in 2020, they would be wise to learn from his success. Don’t ignore identity — embrace it. Then embrace the economic implications of that identity.

But which identity could Democrats embrace? And which economic agenda flows from it?

This, at least, should be familiar territory. For decades, every Democrat worth his or her salt knew the answer.

And again, it comes back to class.

(snip)

With the rise of free-market Reagan Republicanism, any mention of class was soon considered off-limits; “Class warfare!” shouted the newly dominant conservatives.

As a result, a Democratic identity that used to center on economics came to center on culture, and a post-New Deal generation of politicians — Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, the neo-liberals and New Democrats — steered the party toward a more moderate, market-friendly agenda designed to appeal to the college-educated, meritocratic, baby-boomer professionals who now comprised the party’s primary class constituency. Free trade. Financial deregulation. Welfare reform. Technocratic innovation. Out went a rhetoric that once revolved around “workers”; in came “the middle class,” a mushy mantra whose main political appeal was the fact that almost all Americans thought it applied to them, actual data be damned.

Which brings us to 2017. The question a lot of Democrats seem to be asking themselves now, in the wake of Trump’s electoral upset, is whether the turn the party took in the 1970s — a turn reflected and reified in the presidencies of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — still makes sense today, with economic inequality looming, as Obama himself once put it, as “the defining challenge of our time.”

More, a lot more...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-used-campaign-class-win-time-090031609.html

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Wwcd

(6,288 posts)
1. Calling bs on this drumbeat. Sorry , too many variables at play to make it believable
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 02:45 PM
Oct 2017

no matter how many times its repeated.


"The real reason Democrats lost the White House was economic, not cultural, according to the most powerful Democrat in the country (and his many allies). "

This:
"Don’t ignore identity — embrace it. Then embrace the economic implications of that identity. "

Democrats have nevered ignored identity.
The democratic party is the epitome of identity. All identities.


delisen

(6,042 posts)
2. BS is right. Schumer had 8 years to develop an
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 03:03 PM
Oct 2017

economic message.

He is looking for an easy fix. (Just 88000 votes in a few states and we would have won)! It was just a bad campaign, like Gore's, like Kerry's).

We are in the middle of a revolution and at war with a foreign power and Schumer either did not see it coming or did see and did not act.

Senators without sufficient foreign policy experience and the ability to analyze the same are apt to think this way.

If he would even address the automation revolution which has been building for generation and is now about to blow up on us I would have a little respect for his class argument.

The overriding issue of our generation is human rights. The workers are in the process of being otherized and dehumanized.

If the worth of a human being is seen as his/her value as a value-adding economic unit it isn't going to mean much in the brave new world.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
3. If you hadn't noticed, we are in the midst of a devolution. Citizens losing rights daily....
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 03:19 PM
Oct 2017

I agree senators without foreign policy experience aren't helping though. Worse are those trying to depriotrtise the freedoms of women and POC for a fatter paycheck.

Skittles

(153,150 posts)
4. complete fucking bullshit
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 03:29 PM
Oct 2017

Hillary won the popular vote without the help of Russia, the FBI and voter supression

and she DID talk about economics

question everything

(47,474 posts)
8. Time to take our heads from the sand
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:14 PM
Oct 2017

Yes, she won the popular votes, mostly in the coasts. I thought that by now we realized that she lost votes in the middle of the country, and deal with it.

From the above:

I got in touch with four younger, forward-thinking Democrats, all of whom have been asking versions of these questions themselves: 2016 Missouri Senate candidate Jason Kander; Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy; Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan; and 2016 Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tom Perriello.

From the outset, Kander, Murphy, Ryan and Perriello agreed on one thing: The Democratic Party can’t downplay its commitment to social justice and civil rights.

..as Murphy put it, when Clinton did talk about the economy, she “started with programs and plans” — taxing the rich, redistributing wealth and creating various new benefits, like paid family leave — rather than “a vision of the change we’re trying to bring about in people’s lives,” according to Kander.

====

I posted here several weeks ago what a speaker, a political science professor and a liberal said, when I asked him how could Trump offered opening the coal mines: He offered hope, replied the speaker, who himself, by the way, hailed from coal country where no one has been mining for decades.

Hillary talked about the economy but not in phrases that touched the heart of many who could benefit from her ideas.

I, of course, supported Hillary from the beginning, from 2008. And, personally, I like facts and reasons and rational talking. Most of the country, however, is seeking talk from the hearts. Feelings, rather than charts. Opraization, if you like. Sadly, Hillary does not posses these qualities that Bill has in abundance. Remember in 2008 she won New Hampshire because she cracked a bit talking a day before? It would turn me off, but most voters like it.

Skittles

(153,150 posts)
10. without Russia, the FBI, voter supression and SEXISM, *HILLARY WOULD HAVE WON*
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:28 PM
Oct 2017

SHE TALKED PLENTY ABOUT ECONOMIC ISSUES BUT ALL THAT WAS REPORTED WAS HER FUCKING EMAILS

Scruffy1

(3,256 posts)
12. All true,but............
Mon Oct 30, 2017, 11:51 AM
Oct 2017

Winning is often the ability to overcome obstacles. First you have to recognize the obstacles then find a way to overcome them. We failed.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
16. She did overcome obstacles. A lot of them. She had the election won by a decisive margin.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 11:18 AM
Oct 2017

And then Comey through another huge obstacle in her way. That was impossible obstacle to overcome.

Without FBI repeatedly interfering to destroy her she would have won in a landslide, regardless of what other obstacles were in her way.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
17. I agree with your statement but I think the FBI clearly has to be listed first.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 11:20 AM
Oct 2017

Comey and his cronies did so much more damage than Putin did. They completely rigged the election.

Had it not been for the FBI setting out to destroy her she would have won in a landslide, Russia not withstanding.

StevieM

(10,500 posts)
18. I disagree. The best evidence is that HRC was more trusted on economic issues than Trump was.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 11:21 AM
Oct 2017

To whatever extent she had a problem there it was because some voters distrusted her due to the fake email scandal and that spread to other issues.

JI7

(89,247 posts)
15. HAHAHAH, TIM RYAN ????????? Tim Ryan has said Democrats need to fucking LOWER Corporate Taxes
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 04:09 AM
Oct 2017

but facts don't matter to someone who wants to keep pushing the same shit despite evidence that people hwo voted trump did so because of bigotry and ignore the russian interference into the campaign.

and ignore the FACT that majority including majority of rural white people who said the economy was their top concern voted for clinton.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Democrats used to campaig...