The white blue-collar voter. Why he hates us.

[msmcghee]

These are the guys (the NASCAR dads) who will have much to say about who wins the WH in 2004.

This very interesting Buzzflash interview should be required reading - along with the underlying article referenced in the interview.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/12/int03326.html

Enjoy.

[ACK]

1. I love this remark

Hochschild: By appealing to the blue-collar guy's better half, by appealing to his good side. And by exposing this hoax.

I think that the Democrats can appeal to the blue-collar man or the -- I won't call him a Nascar Dad, but the blue-collar voter, male voter -- by saying, "You've been exposed to a giant hoax, and here's what the hoax is. It is offering you a make-believe candied apple with one hand and picking your pocket with the other hand. And take your own feelings back. They're yours. And put them behind a vote for someone who's going to really solve your problems. Set about seriously setting up a domestic agenda that makes a difference to you."

That is so true. We need a real no-nonsense populist voice to call the Repukes out on this crap. That will get us every bit of the white blue-collar non-racists vote. You don't think matters. You are fooling yourself. There are at least 50% of the Nascar dad population outside of the deep south that are not going to vote down purely racial lines. They have bought into this patriachal fantasy the Bush administration has pushed but if the lies are exposed and the message is put in real terms then there will be a turning away from the madness.

We just have to stand one step left of center and have the bravery to call them out and offer a choice at the same time.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. Methinks a lot of those guys have kids in the military. . .

This is where a group like Military Families Speak Out should talk to them.

:kick:

[cryofan]

3. good thread...here are my thoughts

People change over their lifetimes. Generally, men become more openminded as they get older, I think.

We do need to completely change our message and approach. But first you need to realize something: the Democratic Establishment is not going to help you. THey are rich people. And they are a lot more like the Republican Establishment than the majority of Americans.

The Democratic Establishment is not going to present the message that you and I want, so that is a problem. And how do we get around it?

[ACK]

5. Good point especially about the Democratic Establishment

Paul Wellstone and Dean's campaign should teach us one important lesson.

You do not have to be a corporate whore to win money to run an election.

Grass organizing combined with clever use of the new media is crucial.

Damn the establishment when it comes to the most important thing in running a campaign, money. It is not worth it.

We have to be careful about taking the lessons of the 2002 election too far. We cannot win by being repuke-lite or old-school intellectual leftists. There is nothing wrong with being old-school and most the ideas are, of course, obviously, don't frickin' flame me still relevant.

It is where we compromise that is important. You have to go for those irrational issues like guns and the death penalty. Compromise there.

I am sorry you cannot win on the national stage without compromising on these two issues. Those are the pansycrat liberal weakling issues. Got to look tough there. It is sad and crappy but true.

Everything else can stay straight up left of center. Healthcare can be argued convincingly using populist terms and so can the tax debate and well everything else.

It is the language that you use.

Understand Michael Moore is right. You have to explain to the selfish people why the left's policies are good for them. To put in another less caustic way, most people are just trying to fight the good fight and make ends meet. That means they will vote for their own self-interests. Progressive policies are in their best self-interests.

You have to let people know that they are being cheated by this administration. You can't just blindly paint them as radicals. You have to have the guts to expose the lies and not take the cheap shots.

If shrub questions your patriotism you out the missing in action for a year from the National Guard thing in a national ad and bash him for wanting to cut veterans benefits and combat pay. Where are the ads on this? Thought so, they are not there.

We have to speak to the people in a voice that not only can they understand but they can't even begin to ignore. That is key.

[loyalsister]

7. Excellent post!

I think you have a great handle on what we need to do nationally to win. Getting the basic things (HEALTH CARE!!) done is key.
We need to stop losing elections over guns and cultural divisions and get people's basic needs taken care of.

[ACK]

9. If only the Dems would listen...

There are plenty of examples of how to win campaigns even in the South. The Louisiana governor's race is the most recent example. The better example is Governor Warner's race in my state now, Virginia.

He knew how to aim his message at the people. I do not know how he did on the grassroots campaigning but god he knew how to appeal to the Bubbas.

Clinton knew how to talk to the people and he knew how to paint the Repugs as the dangerous radicals they are.

Lyndon Johnson for all his other faults had no problem getting down and dirty and frickin' vicious when he had to with his ads. There was nothing more negative in all campaigning than his atom bomb anti-Goldwater commercial.

Wellstone took to the grassroots as I mentioned and Howard Dean has finally showed the world how to use new media and the internet to appeal to the people.

I just hope the Democrats can look at all these things and forge a real plan for taking back the Congress and the Whitehouse.

[LeahMira]

11. Great article!

It is the language that you use.
Understand Michael Moore is right. You have to explain to the selfish people why the left's policies are good for them.

Absolutely! Wonderful article, BTW.

Democrats need to learn something they told us when we were studying to be teachers. You begin where your student is. That means you don't try to teach multiplication when a student doesn't understand simple addition. You don't hand a student a high school history book if s/he reads at third grade level. You just don't do it... even if the principal of your school, the state standards, and everything else that's pulling your strings is telling you that you are "supposed to" present that information and that book to your entire class. You start where your student is, and you work your way from there.

The fact is that a whole lot of people aren't up to "grade level" in this country. Democratic candidates aren't going to be as successful with them by attacking Bush as they are by explaining the personal costs to them of Bush policies in terms they can understand and in terms that are relevant to their daily lives. For instance, with all the billions we are spending each day in Iraq... what is the average person's share of that bill and what could s/he have bought for him/herself at the end of six months or a year if that money wasn't spent in Iraq.

[ACK]

13. Thanks

Sometimes it is not even about "grade level" of the voter.

There are people in this world that have been throughout the years after the Nixon "Southern Strategy" taught to hate the language of eastern university liberalism. It is horrible but true.

We have to change the language, sometime co-opting that horrible neoliberalism jargon but much more that take a populist tone.

My grandfather who lived through the Hoover era and was a huge FDR fan once said, "The Republican don't care nothing about nobody but the rich man."

Never have I heard anything more true. I have never seen anything to make me think different.

We need to get this message out and hammer home everyday how the policies of the Republicans server no one but the monied interests.

Bush talks about a class war and the Dems should turn that around and let everyone know that Bush was the only that started it. (Actually Raygun did but you know what I mean.)

[kath]

31. My Grandma said *exactly* the same thing as your grandfather, ACK

I learned at her knee that the Pugs are the party for rich people.

[Ficus]

4. the cultural issues do matter

unfortunatley. To try to ignore them as Dr. Dean has suggested, I believe is going to be a non-winning policy. I don't see the "nascar dads" just agreeing to disagree on issues like guns, and gay marriage.

Yeah, it's in their interest to vote Democratic.

First, we need to make it clear, we don't want to take anyone's guns away. (at least I don't)

Perhaps we need to frame our arguments better too. For example, frame our position against a CA regarding Gay Marrige in a way that addresses constitutional issues, rather than gay rights issues.

The only way to do this, is to gradually change the climate in America. Just a few ideas to throw out there.

[LoneStarLiberal]

6. Regarding BCWG and Gay Marriage

Perhaps the best course of action to with this particular group with this particular topic is to just pop the stupid bubble that the right wingers have created about this issue.

Just show the blue collar working class guys that gay marriage in no, way, shape, or form detracts from their existences, unlike having less environmental protection (more dangerous water, less deer to hunt), unlike having the government spying on everything from your email to your library checkout record (probably not too long for most of these guys), and unlike having your job offshored to a cheaper location while your government does nothing at all about it.

Remove the smoke, show them the mirror.

[matt53]

21. Why is that the big issue?

That's the problem. We're at war, people are out of jobs, and the big issue is supposed to be gay marriage? That's called being out of touch.

The candidates will all spout rhetoric about ending special interest control over government, but what is this issue if not a special interest? How many people does it actually effect? I can tell you it doesn't effect "Joe Sixpack" as he's called glibly here. Why should the average american be interested in redifining the meaning of "marriage"? This should be a minor post-election issue, not a major election-race issue. When you make it a major issue, it brings the expectation of further policies in that direction, which makes many people uncomfortable.

You've got to keep to a basic set of issues. You're not going to win any more votes by bringing up gay marriage. And nobody should be voting for the president based on this one issue.

[rumguy]

22. It's the repubs who are pulling this thing into the public's view

Individual states, like MA, are wrestling with the issue - just like VT already has. It's the repubs who are squealing about this and threatening to amend the Constitution.

They're the ones who are going to try and use this as a wedge issue.

[QC]

28. Good point--the Goopers put the issue in play.

It was not gay groups or Democrats who decided to mount a major push for the first constitutional amendment in history designed to limit rights rather than expand them.

They have been using hot button emotional issues for years to distract voters, kinda like the way street magicians and pickpockets used to work together--the magician keeps people's attention directed away from the guys who are robbing them.

Republican strategists are anticipating a Dean nomination, and they have already announced their intention to tie him as closely as possible with same-sex marriage, since they believe that he is particularly vulnerable on that issue. Bush's recent statements, the proposed amendment, and the AFA poll are just the first shots.

[Nobody]

25. My pet issue is health care

And right now, health care insurance is really hard to get. I think I've convinced a Rush Limbaugh fan co-worker of mine that a national health plan is the way to go.

Why? Because we're both temps, and we were both laid off of higher paying full time jobs as full-time employees. We don't get health benefits, or even paid holidays.

Health care is not a luxury, it's a necessity. Now I'm going to tie this to gay marriage.

Married couples get to put one another on their health plans. But domestic partners who are NOT married can't. They can't visit their partner in the intensive care unit, they are not considered "next of kin" for any wrenching decisions. The hospitals and probate courts will always take the word of a sibling who may not have seen the person or spoke to them in 20 years over the word of an intimate partner without that little piece of paper known as a marriage license.

Unless these relationships are legally acknowledged, the benefits don't apply.

Even though I don't have health care coverage, I don't begrudge the partners of those who do have it from getting it.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Here's a choice article on politics from the recent Field&Stream

It probably goes a long way toward describing the dilemma we're talking about here.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/article/0,13199,548173,00.html

[rumguy]

19. great article - most hunters are pro-environment

there are many, many hunters out there who are pro-environment. We have to reach out to these folks.

There are actually a large number of gun-owners who are circulating a petition right now protesting Bush's decisions on the environment. Some of the biggest and oldest gun clubs in the US are participating.

[IrateCitizen]

34. But we can't underscore the problem of anti-gunners, either

We have our fair share on these boards who would advocate gathering up and melting down every single firearm in the country, if they could.

I serve on the exec board of my local Sierra Club. I remember discussing the need to form alliances with sportsman's groups with one of the other members, an older woman. She basically said that she was completely against guns, and couldn't form an alliance with anyone who wasn't.

(SIGH!)

Is it any wonder that we remain so fragmented?

[gpandas]

35. anti-gun

why are so many dems against gun ownership? if Asscroft and his gestapo come after me, they better come low and fast.

[ACK]

10. kick

dupe thread already posted on this.

[Beaker]

12. I wasn't aware that I hated us-

umm...I am a white blue-collar worker-at least I was up until I became disabled(but my politics haven't changed)...I've never been into nascar, or any other kind of racing, or any real sports either- that's because I grew up around chicago, and they don't have any professional sports teams to cheer for, so I never got interested in any. I've always been a Democratic voter though, as have the majority of union members that I've known and worked with over the years.

[msmcghee]

14. I'm sure you understand . .

. . the purpose of studies and surveys like this is to try to make generalizations - that can be used to solve problems, like how to combat the BFEE in this case. I'm sure most union members would be Democrats. But it's also true that unions now account for only about 10% of workers, nationwide.

I remember a day back in the early nineties. I was out in the shop of my company helping the crew get an order ready. We were listening to the news on the radio and it was a Repuke attack on Hillary's health care intitiative. A new guy, young but with a wife and kid, long hair, recommended by another good employee for the job, started saying the vilest things about Clinton and Hillary.

I was really surprised. As a child of the sixties I just assumed that young people would identify with liberal causes. I never knew any who did not (although I was in my late 40's by that time).

My theory is that the 80's finally separated the younger generation from any social or political influence of the sixties - even though the hair styles and clothes were still hanging around in some cases.

Then when the repukes launched their very successful attack against health care - and came full out against everything Clinton, that appealed to the younger white males who didn't really care about politics, buy probably identified with the anger and male values the pukes were broadcasting. Remember, the 80's was when a lot of people started making a lot of money. But if you weren't you probably felt a loss of power - as this article tries to explain.

I'll bet the pukes never expected that young white blue-collar males would identify with them and their causes. Their anti-health care attack was aimed at middle class college graduates (Harry and Louise). I think the RNC (probably Gingrich or his staff) was smart enough to figure out what was happening - and realized that they could ride that horse all the way to the whitehouse, or possibly a complete government takeover.

I think this article is extremely important because if there is a way to take back our government, it is through this door.

[Spirochete]

15. You're part of the other 50% that's not fooled

neither are the other white, blue-collar workers on DU. The other half are the ones being duped into voting GOP against their own best interests.

[Ksec]

16. being a blue I can give you my theory

Knowing and living amongst Blue collar workers I know a few things about them. They hate the fringe and they feel a vote for the Dems is a vote for becoming a Liberalised society. You know what that means?

We got problems

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. But what does "liberalized" mean to them?

What does "fringe" mean to them?

I've heard too many people just mindlessly repeat what they've heard on TV to believe that the blue collar workers you're referring to could even give specifics of what they wouldn't like.

Try asking them some time what aspects of liberalism they don't like. They'll probably hem and haw and say something like, "Giving my tax dollars to lazy drug addicts so they can sit on their fat asses"--in other words, the Fox News version of liberalism.

It could be an opportunity for a little political education.

[dani]

17. she offers a nice

articulation of how Rush scapegoats minorities as the cause of the decline of blue collar wages and opportunities while hiding the real causes, while the Repubs continue their policies that are very hostile to the working class. I think this is something that is crucial for the Dems to understand thoroughly so they can counter the rightwing propaganda that has been so damaging to their standing with the working class.

[matt53]

18. I don't think calling them "Nascar Dads" is helping

I think they just might see that as condescending...

just a guess.

Imaging someone coming up to you and saying "How can we get your Cashmere-elitist vote?"

I'm not saying that's who you are, just an example of another condescending label that might work in marketing circles, but shouldn't get out for people to hear. Much less become a catch phrase for Dianne Sawyer to use.

[rumguy]

20. It's the media's term not ours

Just like the soccer mom term of the nineties...whatever happened to them?

It's stupid media created lingo that means nothing.

[Ksec]

26. Maybe down South but up here its not as big

Nascar is something I dont get a big kick out of. Round and round and round. Its enough to make me spew chunks.

Now in the South Nascar is God.

[DemBones DemBones]

27. You're perpetuating a stereotype: "in the South, NASCAR is God."

We don't need to alienate anybody -- NASCAR fans, Southerners, anybody!

[Ksec]

30. Yea youre right

But you gotta admit that the south is where Nascar got its start and also the major fan base is down there.

[Kat45]

23. Very interesting article.

I never thought about this in such depth. This will give me something to think about.

[QC]

29. As I posted in the other two threads on this same article,

there are some interesting ideas here, but the major weakness of the article is its extreme distance from its subject.

In other words, that Berkeley sociologist seems not to have actually gone out and asked any actual blue-collar guys why they vote as they do. Instead, she's giving us the kind of discussion one would find in an introductory gender studies course.

I think she's right about working-class white men feeling threatened, but there's a lot more to the story than patriarchy. And anyone who characterizes blue-collar women as meek and submissive clearly doesn't know any of them.

[robcon]

32. I think the report is very simplistic.

All political consultants know that many union workers agree with the Democratic party on almost all economic issues, but that is trumped by their agreement with the Republican Party on social issues and foreign policy.

These "Reagan Democrats" are an important force in politics. The sociologist seems to think simplistically that people 'should' vote for the person who will make them the most money, instead of someone they can trust on social and foreign policy/war issues. I think the facts show that people don't only act on economic self-interest.

[kath]

33. IMHO, Hochshild minimizes the racism issue, aka the Southern Strategy,

WAY too much. Yeah, it's mentioned in the interview and article, but pretty much glossed over.

[Ksec]

36. to me

The Blue collar worker just wants a decent wage and some benefits that dont take 30% of your wages to pay for
They want whats right for the majority, not making the majority cow tow to special interests
They dont want Gay people kissing on Main Street, leave it at home. They dont want straight people kissing on main street either for you about to assault me on my insensitivity.
They dont want Minorities getting a job over them because of someones skin color. And that works both ways.


They want what white collar workers want. Theres no difference. Just treat us like you would anyone else. After all the only difference is where we work.