mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
No Left Left
The Left Has Lost the Working Class
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • seattleoutcast

    I believe it was 2011 when the dems, pushed by Obama, thought the future lay in a minority white population. They abandoned the white, working class vote and pushed heavily into identity politics. This was a dreadful miscalculation. Minorities did not vote for Hillary like they did for Obama because she wasn’t a minority. Of course this is only a small part of the democrat’s mistakes.

    • FluffyFooFoo

      Yep, America is still about 70% white.

      • Pete

        And that is something the Democrats want to change. They are a self-hating bunch.

      • Room_237

        I think one issue that people forget is that Latinos over time integrate more closely into the white majority, It has happened before. My grandparents and great grandparents came from Italy. At the time they were seen as alien to the then WASP majority — Catholic, south European, clannish. They were natural Democrats. Yet by the time my parents were middle aged, my family members were just as likely to be Republicans. But as a kid the divisions made sense. The more middle class members of my family (like my parents) were Republicans. The more working class members were Democrats.

        Today it is a jumble. My older cousins as well as my more blue collar cousins all seem to have voted for Trump. My more bobo type cousins as well as the upper middle class ones, seems to have voted for Clinton. My cousins that are more into identity politics also voted for Clinton, though they supported Sanders in the primary. I and one of my cousins were outliers, we voted for Johnson.
        I think we are seeing a change in political alignment. The GOP will move from a conservative party into a nationalist party while the Democrats are moving from an American liberal party to a party that caters to the upper middle class and the poor.

  • FriendlyGoat

    “It’s just that Trump and the GOP won it”.

    The “leftwing intellectuals” are those who understand that high-end tax cuts did not, do not, cannot and will not increase the overall number of living-wage jobs when accompanied by the spending cuts to be imposed to compensate for the tax cuts. The fact that the electoral college could be won on less than one tenth of one percent of the national vote (in WI,MI, PA) on an amalgam of anger whipped up on side issues like guns, racism, immigrants and gay marriage (plus “Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is a Bitch/Witch”) does not validate any debate about what is good or bad for the working class in terms of whether it will have sufficient numbers of living-wage (living-wage) jobs going forward. Only a long-term (long-term) trial of GOP economic and governmental policy can prove whether systematic disempowerment of workers will somehow empower workers. The aftermath of Reaganism has already proven this didn’t work in the past, of course, which is why so many people were left so disappointed with their “work lives”. But,……nothing remains for the working class but to see it proven again. The experiment will go on for a while and the results will be measureable for a “longer while”.

    • Arkeygeezer

      Does anybody know how high-end tax cuts keep seniors working in jobs that can support them?
      Yes, those are the people that provide the jobs for the rest of us, if they don’t ship them off to Mexico or China. Giving them a tax-break if they keep the jobs in the U.S.A., keeps jobs in the U.S.A. Did you ever get a job from a poor person?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Did you know that with higher income taxes on business income that all the wages are deductible and that the more people you hire with the money flowing in from gross margin (sales minus materials), the less tax you pay? Did you know that the more after-tax money a company can save in a low-taxed environment by NOT hiring people, the more likely it is to not hire them? Did you know that most of the tax cuts being contemplated will flow to trading and the service sector of the economy and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with any jobs ever off-shored in the past or the future? Do you really think Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Geico, the National Football League, or even your dentist are going to use any savings from lower corporate taxes to hire more people?

        • Arkeygeezer

          No, but it can induce manufacturing companies keep their jobs in the U.S.A. Again, did you ever get a job from a poor persons. Rich people use their excess cash to endow Universities, create charitable foundations, expand their operations. We should just make sure they expand their operation in the USA instead of Mexico, or China.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Question time again.

            Do you think high-end philanthropy will continue at the past rate if the threat of Estate Tax is removed? Would you please try again on EXACTLY how high-end tax cuts are going to keep the sixty-somethings employed in jobs they are permitted to remain in and that will support them to a retirement age of say 69 or 70? (It’s not that I require a particular ideology, but an answer that isn’t completely empty would be nice if we’re really going to pretend this is a discussion.)

          • Arkeygeezer

            As I said before, high-end tax cuts induce manufacturing companies keep their jobs in the U.S.A.and provide more jobs for all of us, regardless of age, race creed or color. Your failure to grasp that simple proposition is the basic reason why the Left has Lost the Working Class, which was the point of this essay.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The problem is that the majority of the high-end tax cuts are going to EVERYTHING ELSE besides manufacturing, to 1) Operations with jobs which cannot possibly leave the USA anyway, such as construction here, retail here, medical/dental care here, transportation here, oil/gas and mining here, insurance and banking here, utilities here, food service here, entertainment here (among other things) and, 2) to operations which many people might—-for all kinds of reasons—-wish that we had less of anyway, such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, payday and title lending, cell-phone and video game addiction of young people, the new (in some states) marijuana industry, real estate speculation, commodity speculation, and pure trading of stocks, bonds, currencies, and the endless variety of derivatives—–where the whole goal of the trading is to make money off someone else’s losses without hiring anyone to do anything.

            We have a “bait and switch” mentality going on which entices people to only think about preventing outsourced jobs when the real goal of the MAJORITY of the tax cuts is to feather the nests of all these other things. Citizens are hurt by this, not helped.

          • Arkeygeezer

            So, you admit that high-end tax cuts would create jobs. Just not the jobs that you like? Sorry, Goat, that’s not how things work!

          • FriendlyGoat

            I never admitted any such thing. There is NO net job creation from tax cuts accompanied by the equivalent spending cuts. High-end tax cuts create pressure for elimination or diminution of all living-wage jobs from both sides of the coin. The more money which can be saved in a low-tax environment from not hiring people in the private sector, the more they will not be hired. The more budgets are cut in the public sector, the more they will not be hired.

      • J K Brown

        Many small business owners are poor persons if judge by disposable income. They may make it to a sustainable level, but many years they make far less than their lowest paid employee. And all the while, the government man is coming round for his cut.

  • rheddles

    Once upon a time, the political left was a movement of blue collar working class Americans.

    The upper middle class progressives may have co-opted the working class into supporting them and appearing to provide leadership for them but it was never a party of the people, only their betters (as with the Bolsheviks). As long as the progs threw goodies to the workers primarily through industrial unions that provided progs reliable votes, they were both happy with the deal. But the elite leadership of the Democrat party threw workers off the bus some time ago to make room for the more reliable and growing victims. Particularly after the unions made more and more industries uncompetitive in the post war decades of prosperity the Democrats became less and less interested in the diminishing class of workers.

  • QET

    One significant reason for the repeated misunderstanding of the Democrats and the Left is that they are thinking, speaking and writing in an anachronistic idiom, using words that have no corresponding concepts in the Western present. There is not now, nor has there been for a very long time, a “proletariat” in the US. That word simply cannot do service as a general reference to lower income persons. The concept was developed in a very particularized context and that context disappeared, taking the proletariat with it. Ditto “working class.” The only way for lower income people, poor people, to constitute a true economic class is if they have consciousness of that class status or at least a basis for developing that consciousness. In Marxist theory it was never merely the fact of being poor and “oppressed” that provided that foundation; it was the specific manner in which they were exploited by the capitalist owners of the means of production. That manner of exploitation vanished for enough people that those who were left could not retain form as a true class, even though we have never ceased using that language.

    The continued use of Marx-derived terminology and concepts by persons seeking to understand the politics and economics of 2016 America is just one more instance, and probably the most consequential one at that, of fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. People are so comfortable with that idiom and those concepts, they have invested so much of their intellectual lives in learning them and internalizing them and re-producing them for their like-minded peers, that they would rather continue to exist in a Frankian haze of perplexity and disbelief, would rather preserve the theory and its idiom at any cost, than consider the theory and its linguistic apparatus as obsolete.

    The active Left of today, largely a youth movement, hasn’t even bothered to learn Marxist theory or any other political or economic theory or history. “tl;dr” is their guiding educational principle. In place of words like “proletariat,” “working class,” “exploitation,” and “means of production,” which are now obsolete but at least have a serious intellectual pedigree, they flail about for words around which to organize their impulse to be “activists” and “agents of change,” and so we get endless regurgitations of absurdities like “marginalized,” “disenfranchised,” “voiceless,” and many others, none of which have any actual ideas behind them and so are incapable of expressing anything other than the restless indignation that has characterized adolescence at all times and places.

    Until the Democrats rid themselves of people who think and speak in such absurdities, they are not likely ever to understand what are the true interests of the people they continue to call the working class.

    • FriendlyGoat

      This doesn’t have to be hard. The “working class” are those people who have W-2 jobs and rely upon them for support, plus those who have W-2 jobs which are not quite adequate in terms of “support”, plus those who would be employable in a W-2 job for support if such job which could support them existed. It also includes a growing number of self-employed people who may be either prospering or struggling more mightily than even those with the W-2 jobs which are “not quite adequate in terms of support”. We do not have to channel Marx in order to know who workers are and whether they can be described as a subset class within the entire population.

      • Jim__L

        … And these working class people (and our values) are ignored by the technocrats who know oh-so-much-better.

        Yeah… no. Hence Trump.

        • FriendlyGoat

          As I explained below today, the election of Trump does not prove any betterment of the lives and fortunes of the working class. The results will be the results—–not a matter of voter opinion—- and they will play out over years.

          As, I have explained to you in the past, your “values” are now a completely captured matter. Mr. Trump will be telling you and the entire evangelical church what those values are—— and not the other way around.

          • seattleoutcast

            But the difference is that Trump says he will do something. Hillary admitted she was for TPP and wanted to remove borders. What is a voter to do? Go with someone who says he has your back or someone who wants you to live in further poverty?

          • FriendlyGoat

            As I have been trying to explain, hearing someone say he has your back is not the same as your back being watched out for and protected. Republicans have been busy for a long time seeing to it that any worker can be fired at any time for any reason or no reason. They are against collective bargaining, against minimum wages, against labor standards, against safety standards, against pensions, against any anti-discrimination efforts and now against any standard definition of what health insurance should cover. You are not getting some pie-in-the-sky rendition of what you thought you heard from Mr. Trump. You are GETTING concentrated Republicanism. At this moment, there is zero evidence to the contrary.

          • seattleoutcast

            I know this is what you are trying to explain. I know, I know. But tell that to the factory worker in Illinois. They are getting screwed by the democrats (look at the exodus) and then Hillary ignores them.

            TPP was terrible because it allowed corporations to sue countries. I thought you knew that. Every democrat I know worth their salt hated the TPP.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Obama was a Democrat and he seemed to know that TPP was not necessarily worse for either America or America’s workers than whatever else will be put in place instead. When Republicans do their trade deals (and they will), we can then compare all the provisions, no?

          • Jim__L

            I’d tell Mr. Trump very properly to go to h***, if he presumed to dictate moral values to the church. (Honestly, the balance of evidence is that he doesn’t care one way or another.)

            Hillary is on record as being in the business of dictating values to the church. Just because you fell for it hook, line, and sinker, doesn’t mean others have so little spine.

            And you’re still running on the same materialistic hamster wheel that has been your argument all along. FG, we’re not going to sell out for the pittance that the technocrats have to offer.

            “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?”

          • FriendlyGoat

            First of all, his Tweeter is now bigger than your Tweeter, so he controls the message, not you. Secondly, none of the leaders in the ministry business who sold out on him and on economic Republicanism are in any position to tell him to go to h*** under any circumstances whatsoever, and they are not going to. Thirdly, whatever can be done in that materialistic realm to shift wealth and power upward will be done. We know this because of the announcements so far with respect to tax reform and deregulation are all in that direction. We know this because strict constructionist judges of the Constitution cannot rule any other way on any case because the Constitution itself was designed for wealth and power to stay in upper hands—-mitigated only by certain amendments and liberal judges’ interpretations of the past.

            If Mr. Trump tells you that illegals are voting by the millions, you believe him. If he tells you that you don’t care about his tax returns or gargantuan conflicts of interest, you don’t. If he tells you that Mexicans would pay for a border tax on imports rather than American consumers actually paying that tax if implemented, you believe him. If he says it would be okay to steal part of immigrants’ remittances of their wages to their families back home, you believe him. If he says torture and black sites are okay, you believe him. If he says he will get you better treaties and trade agreements than the ones he disavows, you believe him. If he says climate change is no problem, you’re on board.
            If he told Billy Bush everything he told Billy Bush, the church cheered his election. It’s a long list already and we’re not even yet to the stage of what he may wish to do with both internal police power and external military power—-but whatever those things are, we already know who the nodding birds are going to be.

          • Anthony

            You wrote a lot and quite simply I might add.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks. As you may know, it is addictive to try to answer these guys with something that makes sense to self (even if not to them). Without writing, how would we know what our thoughts even are?

          • Anthony

            You’re welcome and trust me your presence (addiction) and contribution is greatly appreciated (the audience remains larger than regular respondents).

          • FriendlyGoat

            Thanks.

          • Jim__L

            Just consult the Democrats’ party platform, that tells you what to think quite effectively.

          • FriendlyGoat

            If that’s so good, why don’t you do it? I actually write my own stuff but you wouldn’t have to—–since you are recommending this source.

          • seattleoutcast

            He told many Americans things they wanted to hear, and now he is acting on them. By taking such a bitter, partisan stance you don’t see how you are blinded by your prejudices. I’m sorry to point this out, but your party is using you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Are you kidding? I never met a “real” Dem Party person in my life. They don’t know me, pay me, or hear from me. I write things they don’t and wouldn’t.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Thank you for that quote….one of my favorite movies ever…

      • QET

        From what I understand of actual political campaigns, it does have to be that hard. If the purpose of “know[ing] who workers are” is merely to hold forth on their sorry plight, then yeah, you don’t need to know anything really. But if the purpose is to convince them to vote for your political candidate, then, from what I have seen of campaign “ground games,” you need to know a great many specific things about the people whose votes you are seeking. To explain convincingly to them why the Republican policies will not make their lives better but the Democrats’ will, you need some sort of theory of economics; and the theory has to explain satisfactorily the situation of the newly unemployed factory worker in Ohio as well as the minimum-wage earning barista in Seattle, which Marxism cannot do. The only left-wing economic theories that have been used for the last 150 years have been various strains of Marxism, and that idiom is exhausted. Telling people that they are marginalized and disenfranchised and oppressed doesn’t tell them anything at all. You speak below of “betterment of lives and fortunes” but I have seen no coherent statement from the Left as to just what constitutes said “betterment,” how it is to be assessed, measured. And if there is such a coherent statement out there, it obviously did not work in this election, and it would be my contention that the reason for that probably is because it relies on outdated language for its expression.

        • FriendlyGoat

          There is no question that Murdoch, Limbaugh, Palin, Breitbart, Bannon, Conway, Falwell and Trump (among others) won the 2016 messaging war to produce the slim election result. The question is whether their messages were bullsh*t. I contend that they were and that a large number of people are going to suffer increased negative consequences from the process. There is actually no theory of economics which proves that laissez-faire allows wealth or power to flow downward in an already-developed economy without mitigating factors (such as income taxes, labor laws, consumer protection, trading regulation,collective bargaining, public education, public services). So many people have taken so much liberal progress for granted for so long that they seriously have no idea what happens to ordinary people when it is rolled back. They are going to find out over the next several years.

          • seattleoutcast

            There is no evidence that Keynsianism works, except to double our debt and make your children and grandchildren debt slaves and to hate you for your generation’s selfishness.

            One simply has to look at Japan to see the failure of Keynes.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m not a fan of joining camps named after particular economists or schools of thought, such as Austrian, for example, or Keynes. I’m in favor of people drilling down to their own common sense on basic issues such as whether high-end tax cuts create jobs. With the exception of foreign aid, almost all government spending ends up in someone’s job or in someone’s pocket who buy’s something which creates demand here. That is simply not the case with wealth piling up in the hands of individuals or investment pools. Often as not, the machinations of trading put on pressure for job elimination via M&A, or for the purpose of dividends or raising the stock price, or for the CEO to justify his/her own compensation.

          • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

            You seem to assume that the labor of the oppressed workers contributes nothing to the company’s profits. If a worker produces even $24,001 in value, then firing that worker would lead to a net loss in profit — something that many companies are unwilling to do.

            Now, if the worker produces only $23,999 in value, then, sure, he’s at serious risk of being fired. But why should it be otherwise? Do you really want every job to be a sinecure?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I think the point is that the worker who produced $24,001 in value is now to be considered $7,999 under quota as a result of corporate income tax cuts from 40% (federal and state) to 20%.

            Gotta tell ya you’re far from the first conservative with whom I have discussed this subject, and just like every last one of the rest of them (seriously), you have sought to blame the worker for the fact that tax cuts work in reverse of the job-creation claims made by the advocates of tax cuts.

            If workers were aware of the real-world operation of high-end tax cuts for the owners of their companies, AND better yet, could hear the counter-arguments I’ve seen from you guys that “hey, those workers may be deadbeats anyway”, conservatism would be a dead letter.

          • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

            You don’t seem to understand people, profit, business, work, or taxes (much less tax incidence). Even if you outlaw capitalism, people will still strive to maximize their income (in whatever post-capitalist form it takes). As a member of the Soviet Communist Party once told me, when I joked that his negotiating tactics were capitalistic, “Everyone’s a capitalist.”

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m not a communist and I actually worked in free enterprise all my life (now retired) including a couple of decades as the accountant for a manufacturing company. That’s one of the reasons why I know how these tax cuts actually work in practice. Another reason is that some of the traditional claims from economists are turning out to be cock-eyed.
            Here’s a more serious analysis than I could personally produce:
            http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

            That one’s on the subject of growth. A more serious concern for average citizens is whether they just elected a president who promised them jobs and who will be implementing policy which actually reduces the number of good jobs. I am of the opinion that nothing else can possibly happen and for the reasons explained in my post which you initially replied to. Government spends nearly everything it gets on jobs in both the public and private sector. After-tax earnings retained in private hands simply don’t do that. When you enact the spending cuts to go with the tax cuts, jobs take a hit.

    • Jim__L

      The US was distinguished by the fact that when our country formed, capital in the form of land (small freeholds) was made generally available to the population at large. We’re a nation of yeomen, with all the benefits that accrue from that — egalitarianism, democracy, a stake in the system.

      That’s shifting, now, not to anyone’s benefit.

    • Jim__L

      ‘and so we get endless regurgitations of absurdities like “marginalized,” “disenfranchised,” “voiceless,”‘

      But not “irony”, as the little snowflakes ignore the fact that their great-and-good college professors are busily marginalizing, disenfranchising, and silencing Middle America and traditional values.

      Hence Trump.

    • Disappeared4x

      “…they are not likely ever to understand” the English language, let alone what ‘work’ means! When they say “working families”, Democrats are referring to the Working Families Party, same founder as the SEIU, which rules New York City, and the force behind today’s fracture in the Democratic Party.

      It continues to puzzle me that the punditry has failed to notice the source:
      https://www.city-journal.org/html/union-rules-new-york-13736.html

      “The Union That Rules New York: Powerful and well funded, 1199SEIU has unprecedented reach into city and state government.”

      Stephen Eide Daniel DiSalvo Summer 2015
      “…Having successfully organized the vast majority of drugstores in the city by 1958, union president Leon Davis, a Russian-born drugstore clerk and onetime member of the American Communist Party, set out to organize New York’s “voluntary” hospitals.

      Deploying its members and financial resources, 1199 has branched out to support other “progressive” causes, including tax increases, gay rights, climate change, and an expansive immigration policy. It has helped underwrite “living wage” campaigns, including the “Fight for $15” fast-food workers’ movement, and lent support to the recent antipolice protests in New York City and elsewhere. Now that 1199’s longtime friend and former employee, Bill de Blasio, has been elected mayor, the union’s power is at an apogee, especially at the city level. The union’s continued dominance not only thwarts prospects for health-care reform in New York; it also drowns out any sense of proportion in public discourse, particularly in the city.

      From these early organizing struggles, Davis left two key tactical legacies. The first was an appreciation for the benefits of ideology and symbolism.

      Davis’s second tactical bequest was his discovery that the most effective way to win over hospital management was via government bailout. The turning point at Montefiore came when city government offered to raise the subsidy it had been providing for ward patients from $16 a day to $20. Similar deals were struck during subsequent organizing campaigns. A game emerged, in which 1199 would push management to the brink of a strike, and then city or state government would swoop in with an 11th-hour offer of funds to secure “labor peace.”

      Another vital component of 1199’s extraordinary influence is its vaunted ground operation, including get-out-the-vote efforts that don’t technically count as a campaign contribution. The union claims that 100,000 of its members in New York City are registered Democrats. That sum happens to be almost exactly the margin by which Bill de Blasio, 1199’s preferred candidate, defeated his closest rival, Bill Thompson, for the Democratic nomination for mayor in 2013.

      Another vital cog in the 1199 machine is the Working Families Party (WFP). Founded in 1998 by 1199 and several other unions and activist networks, the WFP is a creature of New York’s “fusion” electoral system, through which minor parties can cross-endorse major-party candidates. In this system, Democrats who want to avoid a challenger running to their left must secure the WFP’s endorsement. In addition to the leverage it wields through its ballot line, the party’s 40-person full-time staff and 500 paid election canvassers have made it the most important third party in New York, especially at the city level. The WFP has also effectively developed its own legislative bloc in the city council, the Progressive Caucus, to which 19 of the 51 council members now belong. …”

    • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

      I wish you were more right than you are. My nephew, after one year at Oberlin, has become a full-fledged Communist. He gave his parents the Collected Works of Marx and Engels for Christmas. (Abridged, I think, since the full thing ran to 50 volumes in Russian.)

      So they can be somewhat successful, at least, in recruiting new Marxists. It probably helps that high school don’t teach much history.

  • Jim__L

    The Left has lost the working class because nominal Socialists have forgotten what Socialism actually refers to… the elimination of social (class) distinctions as a cultural concept. Technocrats have set themselves up as the new aristocracy, booted and spurred, to ride the body politic where they will, with endless reams of regulation, and indoctrination in the schools.

    Trump has set himself up as a lone individual to take them on. Americans saw him as less of a threat to liberty than Hillary, especially when the elites warning them about how bad Trump was going to be are seen to be the problem.

    It was elite hubris — that their success with “disruptive technologies” in the “New Economy” as “knowledge workers” or “smart creatives” meant that their class, and only their class, could or should have power and influence, and devil take hindmost.

    Why are they surprised if their devil Donald Trump should come roaring back at the head of a horde of “hindmost”?

    Disruptive technologies and free trade really have screwed Americans over. And how did the Democrats react? Obama bellyached about “bitter clingers”, Hillary about “deplorables”.
    “Manufacturing jobs just aren’t coming back” is still common refrain
    among the clueless elites, who remain unaffected (in either prosperity or pride) by the loss. They’re doubling down on what has worked (oh so very well!) for them, and everyone else can rot.

    The sense is palpable, that they really don’t give a d*** about
    the “lower orders” (except insofar as they can acknowledge their status as inferiors, get on board with radical social agendas, and fall into
    line for patronage).

    Hence, Trump.

    Hillary and her technocrats, if they are socialists at all, are more like Stalin and his commissars, and Hitler and his Gauleiters, than they were like Eric Blair (George Orwell) and his… well, as an anarcho-socialist, Orwell didn’t have an army of minions to implement his agenda. Democrats should take note.

    • If you read Blair’s entire body of work, chronologically, I think in another ten years he’d have been a confirmed conservative.

      • Jim__L

        John Lennon ended up as a Reagan supporter.

        If you’re not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart…

  • Anthony

    Traditional Democratic groups, such as labor unions, have lost membership and may no longer activate (in large numbers) an organized counter, And yes, Americans displaced by automation, globalization, and changing manufacturing trends are currently described as Trump voters (the forgotten men and women of our country). However as the center and left have lost ground, I think the author overlooks the focused organization/mobilization that turned GOP and Trump successes. Those factors more so than a wealth inequality leftwing intellectual referendum help carry the day, inter alia. Still, Harry Z.Cohen makes a signal economic point: the rungs of the economic ladder are farther apart. Can President Trump mediate the conflict between the well being of American citizens and the vibrancy of 21st century American capitalism? Improving the quality of American infrastructure and thereby increase moderate and middle income prospects may be a start. The politics will inevitably play themselves out but the mentioned 64% ought not minimized.

    • Jim__L

      Trump had no organization. How did that contribute to his success now?

      • Beauceron

        That’s true.
        Trump ran one of the most disorganized campaigns in history. He had almost no “ground game” as they call it. He also spent less than half the money Hillary did on his campaign.

      • Anthony

        If you don’t know then you’re commenting on the wrong site! thefederalist.com/2017/01/24/dr-russell-moore-trump-scotus-future-american-churches/

        • Jim__L

          If you’re implying that churches were Trump’s “organization”, please tell me how an organization that says the same prayers for Trump as they did for Obama counts as being in the tank for Trump.

          What you’re implying is a libel, in the same vein as “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

          • Anthony

            I’m not implying anything beyond my initial declaration. Which remains if you….

      • ——————————

        He didn’t need organization. He had the right message at the right time…and Hillary was a really crappy candidate.

        He just needs to do much what he said he will do, and he will be successful….

  • Beauceron

    I don’t think the Left has concerned themselves with the “working class” for some time now. Identity– primarily race, but also gender and sexual orientation– has replaced the old class consciousness.

    The DNC chairman leadership conference was, even to someone who’s become jaded about the Left, startling in its bigotry. What do white middle class and working class people think when one of the people running for the DNC chairperson’s job openly states she sees her role as going around the country teaching people “how to shut their mouths if they are white” and “my job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt”? And another candidate to chair the DNC (and Sanders’s former spokesperson) said ““we don’t need white people leading the Democratic party right now.” People at the conference applauded both of them loudly. Another leading candidate is a former leader within the Nation of Islam– who as a bedrock principle of their theology don’t even think white people are human beings.

    One of the organizers of that conference wrote:

    “The single greatest force shaping American politics today is the demographic revolution that is transforming the racial composition of the US population. Since passage of the 1965 Voting Rights and Immigration and Nationality Acts, tens of millions of people of color have joined the electorate, rapidly swelling the ranks of people of color from 12 percent of the population in 1965 to 38.4 percent today…How much of the resources and money will go towards chasing the shrinking sector of the electorate made up of the conservative white working class, and how much will go to maximizing the power and potential of the most rapidly growing sectors of the population—the country’s communities of color, who make up 46 percent of all Democratic voters?” (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/65175.html)

    The Left no longer cares about the working class. They don’t really care about helping poor people per se. They care about race. Bill Clinton warned Hillary that she should not ignore the white working class– and she and her campaign decided instead to ignore him ( http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/13/losers-clinton-campaign-ignored-bills-advice-and-felt-white-working-class-voters-werent-worth-the-time-n2245095). And that’s why she lost. The thing is, her campaign strategy was wrong for the moment. In a decade it will not be wrong.

    That’s it. So, no more class war. Race war is next, so we all have that to look forward to. Thank you Leftists!

    • Beauceron

      BTW, I would love to hear what an honest, thoughtful Leftist thinks of this?

      FriendlyGoat?

      Do you just not believe it’s happening? That I am exagerating the issue? Are you happy that it’s happening? I mean, seriously– I just don’t know how someone at the DNC conference did not stand up and shout “STOP! This is madness! This is morally reprehensible!” The thing is, I agree with them in theory– they will be able to win the Presidency while disregarding whites in the future. I also take them at their word that they will do what they say they will do. What do you think about it? Doesn’t it trouble you at all?

  • Daniel Nylen

    It is ridiculous say that the Left has lost the working class. 105 thousand votes in PA, MI and WI is all that separated a President Trump from a Democratic president. So with the worst Democratic candidate in our lifetime, who obviously and openly lied to the American people about an illegal server and emails, a long history of scandals, and not only couldn’t be bothered to even try to get blue collar voters she was openly scornful of blue collar workers. Instead of law and order blue collar police, she had the mother of thug M. Brown at her convention. She was actively trying to lose the blue color votes. And still Trump barely won—by 105 thousand votes out of almost 12 million votes! What happened is that with 8 years of actively working against the working/blue color voter, and openly campaigning to hurt them—they slightly understood by a thin thin margin.

    What scares me is that the Democrats will wake up and realize they need the blue collar-Midwest votes and we will get someone like Bill Clinton in 2020 who will “feel your pain” and along with lavish promises will take back the historically democrat voting Midwest. As long as the democrats are crazy and openly anti-white (whites need to shut up etc.) Trump can do okay, but hoping that the Democrats don’t nominate a sane candidate is a slim hope.

    • Anthony

      Daniel, for sake of clarity on one of your points (and this is only for purposes of fact as the election has been decided), in the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin Trump won by miniscule margins – 0.7%, 0.3% and 0.3% respectively (by about 70,000-80,000 not 105k [small point]). And for a throw in the your point: Trump won Florida by 1.2%. In not one of the top 11 battle ground states did President Trump win an absolute majority. So, your 1st sentence is correct and author misleads perhaps unwittingly. Both parties need to honestly ask where they want the long-term health of their country in 2028.

    • f1b0nacc1

      You are correct and at the same time incorrect.

      Absolutely, Trump’s margin of victory was paper thin, and it is virtually certain that a sane, capable Democratic candidate would have won. I rather doubt that you could get anyone here to disagree with this.

      HOWEVER…

      Trump was an epically bad candidate, flawed in so many ways that he shouldn’t have even been close. Yet not only did he win (albeit by a very narrow margin) those key states, he also came very close in several others (notably MN, VA, and NH, the first two having been solidly in Obama’s camp only one election cycle ago). The Democrats ran a terrible candidate, but they had few others (only empty-headed twits like FG think that Bernie was a better choice) and a quick perusal of their next cycle’s crowd looks even less hopeful. Since Obama has decided to stick around in DC, it is unlikely that any move away from the identity politics that the Dems have become addicted to is going very likely to happen, and without that, they aren’t going to regain any of that lost ground.

      Finally, we may (perhaps) also be looking at a sea change in voting patterns, similar to what happened in the 1980s with the Reagan Democrats. Now this is speculative (at best), but it is no less speculative that suddenly the white working class (and in truth, I am onboard with QET’s criticism of this phrasing, but will use it for convenience here) is suddenly going to embrace identity politics and submission to the condescension of their betters.

      You are absolutely right that HRC was an awful candidate, but so was Trump, perhaps even more awful in many ways. With that said, though he was outspent, out fundraised, and outorganized, he still won.

      • Bandit

        What Dem candidate can reassemble the Obama coalition? Trump got a smaller % of white vote than Romney – every part of the 2008 Obama coalition went more for Trump than they went for McCain or Romney. Who will the Dems run ..Granny Warren?? Bernie Sanders?? Corey Booker?? Please LMK.

        • f1b0nacc1

          I am not sure that we are in disagreement here…. The Dems have some very, very serious issues problems with their ‘bench’ (though you never know when a surprise candidate out of the blue will come around…like Obama), and though the demographics are in their favor, even those depend upon current trends (like high immigration) remaining constant.

    • rheddles

      Given the shenanigans that go on in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee, winning by 100K votes is a big deal. Bring on that voting investigation. There’s plenty of ballot stuffing going on in the big cities. You underestimate how much the Democrats have changed since the ’90’s No way Bernie/Fauxahontas/Pelosi go for a Clinton candidate. Radical ideological purity rules. Till they die off.

  • ljgude

    I notice that that Silicon Valley rich are as solidly behind the Democrats as the wealthy were behind the Republicans before 1929. There were exceptions of course like my great grandfather who was a wealthy New Yorker in the advertising business during the 20s. He publicly supported a Taxi strike in the 20s and he lost business as a result. He was, as FDR would be called a decade later: ‘a traitor to his class’. The only Silicon Valley elite I know of who supported Trump is Peter Thiel. Checking the spelling of his name on Google there were three top stories – promoted I presume by some mechanism, involving money and/or editorial discretion, as follows: 1. “Peter Thiel, Trump Adviser, Has a Backup Country: New Zealand New York Times · 2 days ago” 2. “Billionaires like Peter Thiel get citizenship abroad so they can run from the problems they create Quartz · 2 days ago” 3. Peter Thiel, who supported Trump, is leading the search for top U.S. antitrust officials CNBC · 1 day ago” Plus ca change, plus la meme chose. I think it was very clever this time around that the very rich have become Limousine Liberals and they have had a good run from hosting Black Panthers at swish parties in the 60s to saving the Washington Post from the knacker’s yard. But Trump got in on the back of the of the white working class vote and he is already into the Democrat’s backfield hosting the Carpenter’s Union at a White House meeting about infrastructure. And Ben Carson will appeal to the deeply religious segment of the black community and if he delivers on urban renewal in the inner cities he will peel off a good part of the black vote. Sure the Democrats will keep the public sector union vote but the Hispanic vote is not so solid with the conservative outlook being eloquently represented by two children of Cuban refugees in the senate. And, yes, I understand they are not Mexican.

  • J K Brown

    “The protection of the rights of the individual—of the free American citizen—is the very reason for being of the Democratic party. That party favors the individual–just as the Republican party favors the capitalists, and the Socialist party, as I shall try to show you, only the office holder. At least, those who are not office holders will, under Socialism, have the hardest kind of a time.”
    –Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson

    Mises pointed out in his ‘Liberalism’ (1927) that all modern political parties are parties of special interests. In America, with our two party limitations, each party is a coalition of special interests. Sadly, both Republicans and Democrats have a strong socialist bent in that they favor the office holders and those not office holders have the hardest time. We can observe that the modern Democratic party no longer practice the protection of the rights of the individual, preferring instead the group/tribe special interest, even as they continue the rhetoric, although now more libertine than liberal.

  • If America is not first in the American President’s calculations, when does it come? Second? Fifth? Nineteenth? Never? It just might be never. #Winning.

  • The working class volunteers in my county who would normally have evaporated after the election are all starting to come back. They believe Mr. Trump still needs their help.

    Thanks, MFM! I couldn’t have done it without you!

    And all you Democrats and other extreme Leftists? You guys ROCK! I REALLY need you to keep up the good work! (Please elect that white womyn from Idaho as chair of the DNC. You definitely need someone in that slot who will loudly and shrilly “tell white people to shut up”.)

  • Thomas Hazlewood

    Jobs disappear when taxes and regulations are so onerous that the grass becomes greener on the other side of the ocean. That’s the hand of government, poor government, in action.

  • 2+2=4andalwayswill

    Trump AND the GOP won it? From where I sit, it looks like Trump won against the GOP, as much as against the Dems.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service