How Democrats lost the working class

[trapdoor]

If anything is clear over the last three election cycles it is that the blue-collar voter, something that once comprised "The Democratic Party's base," no longer votes for that party. There's a on and off debate about why this is the case, but its been summed up well in, of all places, the current New Yorker magazine. I think this piece does a great job (this is not a coffee-cup read -- it's long).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If anything is clear over the last three election cycles it is that the blue-collar voter, something that once comprised "The Democratic Party's base," no longer votes for that party. There's a on and off debate about why this is the case, but its been summed up well in, of all places, the current New Yorker magazine. I think this piece does a great job (this is not a coffee-cup read -- it's long).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

The Nobility With No Ability

GI Billies' Brats. Fearing it was doomed unless it expanded, the aristocracy allowed in future HeirDads who were willing to brownnose out of their class, based on sacrificial workoholism but not talent. Those bootlickers sent their predatory snob sons and daughters into the Democratic Party to further pull it away from its plebeian origin.

 

[trapdoor]

The Nobility With No Ability

GI Billies' Brats. Fearing it was doomed unless it expanded, the aristocracy allowed in future HeirDads who were willing to brownnose out of their class, based on sacrificial workoholism but not talent. Those bootlickers sent their predatory snob sons and daughters into the Democratic Party to further pull it away from its plebeian origin.

Uh -- could you restate this. I'm not certain I catch your meaning.

 

[connieb]

If anything is clear over the last three election cycles it is that the blue-collar voter, something that once comprised "The Democratic Party's base," no longer votes for that party. There's a on and off debate about why this is the case, but its been summed up well in, of all places, the current New Yorker magazine. I think this piece does a great job (this is not a coffee-cup read -- it's long).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

I think like most elites - he can't grasp really what truly motivates people. He attempts to put it in a box. He knows he doesnt' really get it, but he thinks his flowery prose will distract the reader.....

Of course, as the left has embraced identity politics they have disavowed their "base". The unions of course, were formed in part to keep first the Irish.. and then the former slaves - OUT of high skill good playing jobs. These working class people still gay homosexuals "queers". Don't understand as a guy who works with his hands all day, why some other guy would want to dress up like a woman.... they think their weirdo's and freaks.. and to see their party championing those kind of social issues above, economic issues..doesn't sit well with them.

I find it funny though - how elitists like this guy don't actually know what to do with the many people like me and my husband. Good educations, good careers, well off economically - who still reject their eliteism. How can that be? How can you not have been appropriately indoctrinated - to buy into the globalism and lack of nationalism in your education.

I think those people are so incredibly out of touch. All of my clients are in the construction industry. Rough talk, rough people, decidedly lacking in grace and refinement so that even though I am more educated than many of them.... on paper... I feel more strongly tied to people like that, than others who have a few pieces of paper hanging on their office.

These are people with pride. They don't want to be told how you will take money from someone else and give it to them. They want to be told that you will get out of their way of making their own money.

About the only thing this guy said that I agree with is, that both parties - STILL don't get it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Uh -- could you restate this. I'm not certain I catch your meaning.

Ears Open, Eyes Closed

If you don't believe this is what happened, you listen too much to those who have always hid it from us.

 

[trapdoor]

Ears Open, Eyes Closed

If you don't believe this is what happened, you listen too much to those who have always hid it from us.

I'm not objecting to what you said, at least not yet. I'm stilll hoping you can translate it into something I understand.

 

[Queen Titania]

Uh -- could you restate this. I'm not certain I catch your meaning.

It's a new language, you'll catch up

 

[as seen on tv]

when you hang onto "the welfare class"; the "high school dropout class"; the "politics of gender identification class" . . . she may be thinking it doesn't matter if she can't hold onto men with blue collar paychecks.

 

[Arkady]

If anything is clear over the last three election cycles it is that the blue-collar voter, something that once comprised "The Democratic Party's base," no longer votes for that party. There's a on and off debate about why this is the case, but its been summed up well in, of all places, the current New Yorker magazine. I think this piece does a great job (this is not a coffee-cup read -- it's long).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

For the early-to-mid 20th century, the white working class was better supported by the Democrats both in terms of their economic interests (the Democrats being more pro-labor, and more supportive of social spending), and in terms of their cultural interests (the Democrats being more pro-segregation). As the Democratic party became less racist, and the GOP rushed in to provide a home for former Democrat racists like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Ronald Reagan, that changed. At that point, the white working class was better supported by the Democrats in terms of their economic interests, but better supported by the Republicans in terms of their cultural interests. Ever since then, there's been a slow realignment, where educated people moved towards the Democrats and racist people moved towards the Republicans.

 

[trapdoor]

For the early-to-mid 20th century, the white working class was better supported by the Democrats both in terms of their economic interests (the Democrats being more pro-labor, and more supportive of social spending), and in terms of their cultural interests (the Democrats being more pro-segregation). As the Democratic party became less racist, and the GOP rushed in to provide a home for former Democrat racists like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Ronald Reagan, that changed. At that point, the white working class was better supported by the Democrats in terms of their economic interests, but better supported by the Republicans in terms of their cultural interests. Ever since then, there's been a slow realignment, where educated people moved towards the Democrats and racist people moved towards the Republicans.

OK -- I get it, the GOP absorbed the racists who didn't support the 1964 Civil Rights act. They're dead. Ronald Reagan was never among them. The white working class, meanwhile, has walked away from the Democratic Party. Why? It's not about race, which is addressed in the article I attache, so again, why?

 

[Arkady]

OK -- I get it, the GOP absorbed the racists who didn't support the 1964 Civil Rights act. They're dead. Ronald Reagan was never among them

Sure he was. I know it's sacrilege to speak ill of Saint Ron in the presence of a right-winger, but history is what it is. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, back when that was the party of racism. Jefferson Davis was a hero of his. As Democrats increasingly became supporters of black civil rights, in the late 50s and early 60s, Reagan became alienated from them. He wound up joining the GOP, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Even as late as his presidency, he was fighting hard against civil rights... for example, he vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act (and had his veto over-ridden). That was actually the first presidential veto of civil rights legislation since 1866.

The white working class, meanwhile, has walked away from the Democratic Party

I think that in years of greater economic hardship, like 1992 or 2008, the white working class focuses more on economic considerations, and continues to vote for Democrats. But when times are relatively good, economically, like today (highest median family incomes in American history), they are less focused on the bottom line and more focused on the culture-war issues the GOP uses to try to peel them off. That includes Trump's appeals to racism, xenophobia, and religious bigotry.

 

[trapdoor]

Sure he was. I know it's sacrilege to speak ill of Saint Ron in the presence of a right-winger, but history is what it is. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, back when that was the party of racism. Jefferson Davis was a hero of his. As Democrats increasingly became supporters of black civil rights, in the late 50s and early 60s, Reagan became alienated from them. He wound up joining the GOP, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Even as late as his presidency, he was fighting hard against civil rights... for example, he vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act (and had his veto over-ridden). That was actually the first presidential veto of civil rights legislation since 1866

First, I'd like to see proof that Jefferson Davis was a hero of Ronald Reagan. After you fail at that, you can explain how wanting a smaller government and fewer government programs (the Reagan doctrine, and the reason he separated from the Democratic Party), is racist.

I think that in years of greater economic hardship, like 1992 or 2008, the white working class focuses more on economic considerations, and continues to vote for Democrats. But when times are relatively good, economically, like today (highest median family incomes in American history), they are less focused on the bottom line and more focused on the culture-war issues the GOP uses to try to peel them off. That includes Trump's appeals to racism, xenophobia, and religious bigotry.

That is borne out by neither polling nor voting numbers. Personally, I don't think you read the article.

 

[Arkady]

First, I'd like to see proof that Jefferson Davis was a hero of Ronald Reagan. After you fail at that, you can explain how wanting a smaller government and fewer government programs (the Reagan doctrine, and the reason he separated from the Democratic Party), is racist.



That is borne out by neither polling nor voting numbers. Personally, I don't think you read the article.

There are countless references online to his Jefferson Davis statement. Here's one from Newshour. I can do a Nexis search to get a contemporaneous one if you have access and can replicate it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june01-regan90_2-6/

Reagan was fine with bigger government and more government programs in the FDR/Truman era, and throughout the 50s, when he was a Democrat. And that was an era of unprecedented government growth and proliferation of government programs. When it was about the alphabet soup of novel New Deal government agencies, he was a happy Democrat. Then the Democrats started supporting black civil rights and he, like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and other racists, jumped to the GOP. He preferred to cite government expansion as the reason, but the timing doesn't support that. He chose the Democratic Party throughout the era of most aggressive expansion of government, then left it when the part turned its back on white supremacism.

Yes, I read the article. It was a good article, but didn't really address the point I'm making, about the Democrats doing better with working class whites during hard economic years like 1992 and 2098, but having trouble in years like this or 2000, when unprecedented middle class wealth allows more of a focus on cultural issues instead of the bottom line.

 

[trapdoor]

There are countless references online to his Jefferson Davis statement. Here's one from Newshour. I can do a Nexis search to get a contemporaneous one if you have access and can replicate it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june01-regan90_2-6/

Reagan was fine with bigger government and more government programs in the FDR/Truman era, and throughout the 50s, when he was a Democrat. And that was an era of unprecedented government growth and proliferation of government programs. When it was about the alphabet soup of novel New Deal government agencies, he was a happy Democrat. Then the Democrats started supporting black civil rights and he, like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and other racists, jumped to the GOP. He preferred to cite government expansion as the reason, but the timing doesn't support that. He chose the Democratic Party throughout the era of most aggressive expansion of government, then left it when the part turned its back on white supremacism.

Yes, I read the article. It was a good article, but didn't really address the point I'm making, about the Democrats doing better with working class whites during hard economic years like 1992 and 2098, but having trouble in years like this or 2000, when unprecedented middle class wealth allows more of a focus on cultural issues instead of the bottom line.

Well, for openers, there are lies in your link. Roger Wilkins claims Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, and that simply is not true. He launched his campaign with a televised announcement in New York City. So the statement that Wilkins follows up, that Reagan considered Jefferson Davis a hero, is in doubt, at best.

Reagan, like a lot of us, reached "this is enough, no more" while he was a Democrat. How big does the federal government have to be? Does it have to touch everything? Because it was designed NOT to touch everything, according to everyone (including and especially Hamilton) who was involved in its creation. Consequently, when it was clear the Democratic Party of the 60s saw no limits, Reagan left it (or as he said, it left him).

Democrats didn't do particularly well with working class whites in 1992, and did very badly with them in 2008, and in 2010 were repudiated by the class effectively as one voting block.

 

[reason10]

I think like most elites - he can't grasp really what truly motivates people. He attempts to put it in a box. He knows he doesnt' really get it, but he thinks his flowery prose will distract the reader.....

Of course, as the left has embraced identity politics they have disavowed their "base". The unions of course, were formed in part to keep first the Irish.. and then the former slaves - OUT of high skill good playing jobs. These working class people still gay homosexuals "queers". Don't understand as a guy who works with his hands all day, why some other guy would want to dress up like a woman.... they think their weirdo's and freaks.. and to see their party championing those kind of social issues above, economic issues..doesn't sit well with them.

I find it funny though - how elitists like this guy don't actually know what to do with the many people like me and my husband. Good educations, good careers, well off economically - who still reject their eliteism. How can that be? How can you not have been appropriately indoctrinated - to buy into the globalism and lack of nationalism in your education.

I think those people are so incredibly out of touch. All of my clients are in the construction industry. Rough talk, rough people, decidedly lacking in grace and refinement so that even though I am more educated than many of them.... on paper... I feel more strongly tied to people like that, than others who have a few pieces of paper hanging on their office.

These are people with pride. They don't want to be told how you will take money from someone else and give it to them. They want to be told that you will get out of their way of making their own money.

About the only thing this guy said that I agree with is, that both parties - STILL don't get it.

How could you say a man who created more jobs than the last FIVE Democrat presidents combine, an man who built an EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR EMPIRE from a simple million dollar loan from his father (which he had to pay back with interest) doesn't know how to motivate people? This man is the landlord for the largest bank in the world.

 

[Arkady]

Well, for openers, there are lies in your link. Roger Wilkins claims Reagan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, and that simply is not true. He launched his campaign with a televised announcement in New York City.

The first big appearance was outside Philadelphia, MS, for his infamous states-rights speech.

So the statement that Wilkins follows up, that Reagan considered Jefferson Davis a hero, is in doubt, at best.

It's a claim by an actual professor of history, so it would be surprising if he just made it up, though it could be he was paraphrasing what Reagan said unfairly. Here's some other support:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rene-bryce-laporte/reagans-birthday-no-party_b_4745684.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=P...an "stone mountain" "jefferson davis"&f=false


I did a search in the Reagan archives, and could only find two Reagan speeches mentioning Davis, but in both cases it was in a positive light:

https://www.reaganlibrary.archives....chForm=/search/speeches/speech_srch_form.html
https://www.reaganlibrary.archives....chForm=/search/speeches/speech_srch_form.html

Reagan, like a lot of us, reached "this is enough, no more" while he was a Democrat.

Agreed. But, very obviously, that had nothing to do with the size of government. If it was about the pace of expansion, it was much greater back when he was a loyal Democrat from the mid-1930s through mid-1950s. If it was about the absolute size of the government, on the other hand, he presided over expanding it to a much greater size than it had in the 1960s, when he was president. Rather, he had an issue with civil rights. He was angry about "welfare queens" driving Cadillacs, and "young bucks" eating T-bone steaks. He made that clear by opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and being the first president to veto civil rights legislation since the time of Andrew Johnson. He was perfectly happy with massive government expansion if it took the form of whites-focused social spending, as in the pre-civil-rights era, or if it took the form of peacetime military bloat, as during his own presidency. But he felt betrayed by the Democratic Party's civil rights platform, must like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and other contemporaneous party-jumpers.

 

[Arkady]

How could you say a man who created more jobs than the last FIVE Democrat presidents combine, an man who built an EIGHT BILLION DOLLAR EMPIRE from a simple million dollar loan from his father (which he had to pay back with interest) doesn't know how to motivate people? This man is the landlord for the largest bank in the world.

You are ineducable. I've debunked each of those points in detail, and yet you are back reposting them all in unmodified form. Are you just a bot?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm not objecting to what you said, at least not yet. I'm stilll hoping you can translate it into something I understand.

Looking Up to Lowlife Who Think We Are Beneath Them

You didn't try to understand my point. You sensed that it threatened your pet ideas, as expressed by the flunkie journalist you parrot. His own conformist arose out of a sheltered but conceited perspective that, despite its pushy prestige, is inadequate, unrealistic, and narrow. The only thing those of his ilk do is rearrange broken chairs on the deck of a sinking ship.

 

[trapdoor]

The first big appearance was outside Philadelphia, MS, for his infamous states-rights speech.

He announced his campaign (his kickoff speech) from a library study in New York, via television.

It's a claim by an actual professor of history, so it would be surprising if he just made it up, though it could be he was paraphrasing what Reagan said unfairly. Here's some other support:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rene-bryce-laporte/reagans-birthday-no-party_b_4745684.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=PzEALp45b8YC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=reagan "stone mountain" "jefferson davis"&source=bl&ots=i1j0jI9b1U&sig=JFTVsmv94jgd1uoU0raylymcVpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGgpKK7IzQAhXJ0iYKHaxOBWsQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q=reagan "stone mountain" "jefferson davis"&f=false

I followed your links. The Reagan's birthday party writer makes no mention of Jefferson Davis. The book "America on the Brink" does, but is not specific.. The anecdote about "but I think Abe is joking" is far from Reagan saying Jefferson Davis is a hero.

But what if he had? Is Jefferson Davis anything OTHER than his presidency in the Confederacy? Before the Civil War he had been a war-hero commander in the Mexican war, Secretary of War (what we now call Secretary of Defense) of the United States, and a senator universally admired for his service. He was racist. So was most of the world, including places like the UK that had no formal slavery but managed to enslave a number of nations during the same period. Do you judge a man by the worst thing he did, or the best thing he tried to do? In any case, smearing Reagan for mentioning Davis is pretty thin gruel from a "Reagan's a racist" standpoint, and you could probably do better. I think I can do better, and I'm reasonably certain Reagan wasn't a racist.

Agreed. But, very obviously, that had nothing to do with the size of government. If it was about the pace of expansion, it was much greater back when he was a loyal Democrat from the mid-1930s through mid-1950s. If it was about the absolute size of the government, on the other hand, he presided over expanding it to a much greater size than it had in the 1960s, when he was president. Rather, he had an issue with civil rights. He was angry about "welfare queens" driving Cadillacs, and "young bucks" eating T-bone steaks. He made that clear by opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and being the first president to veto civil rights legislation since the time of Andrew Johnson. He was perfectly happy with massive government expansion if it took the form of whites-focused social spending, as in the pre-civil-rights era, or if it took the form of peacetime military bloat, as during his own presidency. But he felt betrayed by the Democratic Party's civil rights platform, must like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and other contemporaneous party-jumpers

I disagree that it had nothing to do with the sizer of government, or its pace of expansion. It was clear the government expanded hugely from the time FDR took office through the Eisenhower years -- at which point Reagan wasn't alone in thinking perhaps it was time to tap the brakes. Thank you, however, for bringing up the "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" because that's an interesting thing. You see, Reagan never made it plural. He referred to a specific welfare queen who had multiple IDs, drove Cadillacs, and defrauded the government. Although he never mentioned her name, it was Linda Taylor. Linda Taylor was many things -- but what she was not was African American. She was caucasian.

 

[trapdoor]

Looking Up to Lowlife Who Think We Are Beneath Them

You didn't try to understand my point. You sensed that it threatened your pet ideas, as expressed by the flunkie journalist you parrot. His own conformist arose out of a sheltered but conceited perspective that, despite its pushy prestige, is inadequate, unrealistic, and narrow. The only thing those of his ilk do is rearrange broken chairs on the deck of a sinking ship.

Look, I'll admit to, from time to time, willfully misunderstanding someone's post in order to get to the nut of a subject -- but I swear to you that in this case I'm not doing that. I simply didn't and don't understand what you were trying to say. The "flunkie journalist" I allegedly "parrot" is, in this case, a "New Yorker" reporter that I doubt sincerely would share a single political view with a libertarian such as myself.