General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn search of "economic anxiety," Sam Bee finds the actual working class that has been
ignored by the media...and all of society.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Dealing with economic issues is not just a white thing. It brings people of all races together. That's why we Democrats need to talk a lot more about economic issues. Economic issues are inclusive.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Others, not so much.
The "White Working Class Male" is the focus of many who claim to be progressive, and want actual Democrats to focus on them in order to "win back the rust belt."
Hillary was lambasted by many on the far left for her insistence on talking about issues that affected only women and girls, and "identity politics," and such. I recall one "progressive" progressive politician who complained that if only the Democrats would "get off abortion and gay marriage" they would help Democratic politicians in conservative areas, and that once the white working class got their good paying jobs back, those "other issues" would "be made right."
Trickle down social justice doesn't work any more than trickle down economics, and actual Democrats understand that.
I'm glad Sam Bee is calling out those who don't get it both in the media, and in political circles.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)And emphasizing that all working people face the same economic challenges, the same unfairnesses, many of which can be ended through good legislation that protects working people's rights in the workplace is what the Democratic Party should be doing.
People of all races and genders who work should be the focus of the Democratic Party.
We should focus on all issues that hinder harmony and progress among working people.
We can focus on police brutality and immigration and other issues without forgetting the issues that unite all working people -- like the abuse by employers of the right to fire people for no reason, at-will employment unless you can prove discrimination or illegal conduct on the part of the employer, like the failure of large employers to include working people in their decisions on issues that affect the lives of working people, like the failure of employers to train their employees rather than just fire them or employ H1-b employees -- so many issues that unite working people of all races and genders.
This is the situation with regard to race and ethnicity in California:
No single ethnic group forms a majority of California's population, making the state a minority-majority state. Hispanics (of any race) are the largest single ethnic group in the state.[11] Spanish is the state's second most spoken language. Areas with especially large Spanish speaking populations include the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the California-Mexico border counties of San Diego and Imperial, and the San Joaquin Valley. Nearly 43% of California residents speak a language other than English at home, a proportion far higher than any other state.[12]
California is home to almost 25% of the country's undocumented population, making up 6% of California's residents overall. Two-thirds of California's undocumented population have lived in the state for more than 10 years.[13]
About 26% of California's public school students in the 2011–12 school year identified themselves as white (non-Hispanic), and 52% of the state's students identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. The following ethnic groups that made up the statewide public school student body were Asians (11%), African Americans (7%), Native Americans (0.7%), and Pacific Islanders (0.6%). Students of mixed race made up 2% of the public schools. Hispanics made up the majority of the state's public schools since 2010. Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest school district in California and second largest in the nation, is 73% Hispanic, 10% African American, 9% non-Hispanic Caucasian, 6% Asian, 0.5% Native American, and 0.4% Pacific Islander.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California
White people are not in the majority in California. And we are a very Democratic state.
Race issues are still a problem, but the minority population, that is -- whites, do not experience racial discrimination although we are a minority.
So the Democratic Party needs to respond to the reality that the race issue is changing.
I just think that we need to focus more on the economic issues than we do. We shouldn't neglect dealing with and talking about race issues and other minority issues, but we need to deal much better with economic issues that affect the vast majority of people regardless of race.
I'm not expressing this well perhaps because the reality that exists in most of the country simply is not the same that exists here.
If the Democratic Party is to remain relevant, it has to deal with reality. And in California, the reality is that white people are not the majority and can't dominate in politics the way they do in other areas.
And we should have a national set of Democratic priorities that focus on the issues of working people, not just or primarily on race issues.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sam is pointing out that working class people who are not white are being ignored.
And Hillary won with people who had economic anxiety at the top of their worries. Clinton easily won most low-income areas, which some dismissed as "the confederacy."
https://verrit.com/in-wisconsin-clinton-won-among-voters-with-economic-anxiety/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/02/in-nearly-every-swing-state-voters-preferred-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/
DT won with those who had cultural anxiety.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study
And they were the minority of voters. The future of our party, and its success don't lie in the culturally bereft rust belt, or catering to them. Representing their real interests, yes, but not throwing women and LGBTQ issues under the bus in a vain effort to assuage their "anxiety."
History shows that when white men have the upper hand in the economy, they aren't benevolent about social issues, despite what some "progressives" refuse to acknowledge.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)In 2016, Texas (36 EV) was closer than Iowa (6 EV)
In 2016, Georgia (16 EV) was closer than Ohio (18 EV)
In 2016, Arizona (11 EV) was far closer than Indiana (11 EV)
After 2020, I would suspect that TX, GA and AZ will pick up electoral votes and between Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, PA and Wisconsin, you'll see the loss of at least a few.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)were benevolent on economic issues, and LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
When racial minorities and women form a voting bloc and vote for a candidate, that candidate wins because the combination, mathematically is a winning number, a winning majority.
But minorities in most states are by definition not likely to win elections (except in exceptional races such as Doug Jones' seat in Alabama this year) because the numbers aren't there.
I am not suggesting that Democrats neglect justice issues, racial and gender equality as well as other justice issues. I am just saying that to attract the majority of voters, that is a winning number of voters in many states, especially in the Midwest, Democrats have to have better positions, winning positions on economic issues and focus much, much more on them in campaigns.
Democrats have failed to focus on economic issues in the states and in federal elections, and we see the result in the Republican statehouses and Congress as well as in the presidency.
Why should we continue to make the mistake that has lost us so many elections?
FDR and LBJ won elections. Bill Clinton won -- and one of the slogans of his campaign was, "It's the economy, stupid."
It is the economy, and if we Democrats don't pay more attention to the economic issues, we really are stupid. Really stupid.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)to those issues, and are therefore not "really stupid," as you put it.
It's the white voters with cultural anxiety about the Democratic base that are never going to get it, and if we pursue them by "getting off of abortion, gay marriage, anti-discrimiation laws and trans people using bathrooms" and alienate our actual base, thinking that the much examined (see the video again) and pined over "rust belt" white working class are going to somehow vote for someone who promotes their sworn enemy, "Government that re-distributes their wealth to those people," that would be **really** stupid, wouldn't it?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)And some working class people work in offices, restaurants, building sites, everywhere.
They are all colors, sizes, shapes, etc. They all need to make enough money to feed themselves and their familirs.
This is what Democrats should be dealing with. The issues that affect all working class families. Not just those who also happen to belong to racial minorities or who are women. Although Democrats should also deal with issues affecting racial minorities and women specifically. We can do it all. We haven't been doing it all very well, and that is why we have lost so many statehouses, the Congress and the presidency.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And again, you seem to be unaware of the gerrymandering and voter suppression that makes it much harder for Democrats to win than the GOP.
Here is some information on that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-gop-analysis-shows-n776436
https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/
You seem to have heard and accepted a lot of right wing propaganda about the Democratic party, and Democratic leadership.
You should become more informed. To start, you may want to read our party platform. I think you'll find that no one is being ignored.
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And she's very consistent that addressing minority issues, a big part of our platform, was a large part of why we lost in 2016. That, in order to win future elections, we must back-burner those (to of course be addressed as soon as we're back in power) and instead focus very strongly on economic issues that will bring back those white men who were fed up with equality.
That's my summary, of course, of a series of discussions Sophia and I had about this huge wedge issue Wednesday.
The gist I got is that it's not that anyone's against any faction of our tremendously diverse party, we're of course all for all, but only that--for now--nonwhite issues should be shelved for the good of the party. The premise is that all in our party will benefit too much economically for any of us to take that badly.
And if some do and our historic alliances of highly diverse groups start breaking apart, presumably we'll get back even more of those angry white men who'd OD'd on equality and voted for Trump to combat it. A "win" situation.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Is where the poster is "consistent."
Which parts of the platform does Sophia dissaprove? Perhaps you can clarify that for me.
Democrats are focusing on economic issues, and will continue to do so.
https://thinkprogress.org/democrats-special-elections-713965e20b52/
To backhandedly trash Democrats using passive language and "concern trolling" doesn't convince anyone that one supports Democrats, the Democratic party and Democratic leadership. It's far too rampant on DU among a certain group.
And yes, there are those who think that Democrats are diluting any economic message with the perjorative"identity politics," is indeed trying to push the actual base of our party, and the future majority into the background in the service of issues that directly affect white straight men - which can by and large be remedied with more money.
The premise that issues specific to race, gender and sexual orientation are not drivers of economic issue is naive, and to govern as though they are separate or could be will be disastrous for Democrats.
As the video shows, the "white working class" seems to be the only "working class" whose economic issues are relevant to public discussion, because of their cultural anxiety about the growing visibility and influence of the population that is not white, straight, male and Christian. Defending that perception isn't what Democrats need to be doing if we want to remain progressive.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)You know, I really wish our entire party became a new, enlightened, better version of FDR's Democrats.
Their aspirations were awe-inspiring. A simple list abbreviating the FDR administration achievements runs to several computer screens.
What the FDR administration is not known for is commitment to extending its advances to all Americans. That waited for future Democratic administrations.
In 2016 and still, some have been claiming to be FDR Democrats, but few seem to really know much about that and just assign their own image to it. And some of the discussions are making me wonder if -- for some --this may be turning into a dog-whistle for going backwards.
We're not doing that!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The Democrat that follows a Keynesian philosophy of governance. I absolutely think that it's the best way to go - just as I think that installing fuel cel technology on every business, home and automobile in the country is vital to address global warming. I also understand the impossibility of doing it within 20-30 years, and that promoting incremental progress towards that is a more productive use of the capital we have than calling any progressive politician who doesn't demand it right now "a corporate shill."
I think that many of the things that FDR was able to do was possible was that he didn't have to abide by the Civil rights act, or fair hiring practices, or a GOP that has a communications arm in FoxNews. Or Facbook. The days of the entire country getting behind a massive federal hiring program are gone. The GOP fought the idea of an "Americorps" program by saying that "people shouldn't regard government as an employer."
The New Deal jobs were by and large, for white men. (some administrative, low pay work did go to white women.) There weren't job crews that had people of color or women on them, working side by side, learning trades like plumbing and electrical work. Those programs would be recieved very differently now - especially those for the skilled trades. Not to mention the turning away of Jewish immigrants by FDR, many to return to die at the hands of the Nazis.
Much like the economic boom of the 50's was made possible enabled by firing women from their wartime highly paid skilled manufacturing jobs, and excluding people of color from the get go, the FDR era can't be replicated from whole cloth now.
Unlike the 1930s we would have to deal with a white working class that dispises government unlike those in the 1930's, we would have to deal with immigrants working side by side with those who chanted "build the wall!" We have to deal with a Republican party that has created a vision of a bloated, corrupt, anti-business, filled with lazy worker, entitled federal government that cannot be trusted to do anything right.
Anyone who thinks that a President elected in 2020 will be able to establish new deal programs with the broad public support of a destitute populous, desperate for jobs that will make the white rust belt get behind those programs doesn't understand their history.
LBJ was able to get the Civil Rights legislation passed because he was an insider whose years of experience in the Senate gave him the skills to schooze and to twist arms. He also had a Republican Party that was in transition, and not so entrenched in the policies that the GOP has come to represent.
Hillary was the closest thing we had to LBJ, and we saw how she was successfully savaged by misogynists on both the left and right.
That was our chance for another LBJ. Effective insiders - especially women - are subject to a backlash right now - see also Nancy Pelosi.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And you're so right, the attitudes of the past really are not acceptable now. We do progress.
I'm more hopeful than some, Ehrnst. I suspect that this current acting out of serious bigotry will turn out to be its last great flare before dying back for a long time, an angry, desperate attempt at a comeback in a world that has moved on. Including, notably, perhaps a good third of conservatives.
Not, of course, that hateful bigotry won't still burn in some, only that in revealing it so virulently, they will have forced a new awareness in the rest of its potential for destruction, and backlash. Even many in that crowd who came to support Roy Moore were disappointed that there weren't Jews among them. Imagine--those people wanted that affirmation that they were not bigots! 
Step by step. Around the planet, as new means of production have caused an explosion of wealth, poverty and hunger have shrunk dramatically and human rights advanced. If it weren't for what climate change is, and is going to be, doing to us, and the great angers and anxieties that will cause, I'd be wondering if America wasn't due for perhaps the biggest leap forward yet.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)here on DU.
underpants
(182,830 posts)
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,855 posts)Right-wing authoritarianism, in other words. The "white working class" stuff is a distraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
If you're an African American who exposes his/her underwear above his/her pants, or a Hispanic immigrant waving the Mexican flag, you just might "trigger" those snowflakes.
There's apparently a "war on Christmas" too, at least in their minds.
IluvPitties
(3,181 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)Nicole Wallace is on the Toady Show interviewing white working-class Trump voters--again. The same ignorant, deluded individuals she interviewed a year ago. Same shit. Different day.
