The upcoming Class vs. ID Politics/Diversity battle within the DNC

[ogc163]

As most people who have been paying attention to the media know, the inability of Hillary Clinton to win the election has been primarily blamed on her losing the "Rust Belt". The states of PA, WI,MI,OH all went to Trump, with only Ohio being expected. The loss of Democratic support in these areas have been blamed on Clinton and liberals on the coasts being unable to understand, convince, and reach rural poor/middle-class White voters (specifically men) in the Rust Belt.

There are some who feel that the Democratic party lost as a result of Clinton's hubris (she didn't visit the area in the crucial first month of campaigning, whereas Obama in 08' did several times) and Donald Trump's ability to put forward a resonating economic message etched in protectionism (unprecedented for a GOP candidate). Many progressives feel that the way to reach these midwestern voters is to focus on the progressive ideas embodied by Bernie Sanders. Sanders unapologetically believes that looking at problems through a class prism is the best way to figure out solutions in modern society and that a populist message can bring midwestern voters back into the democratic party tent. There have been countless articles making the argument that ignoring class was the major mistake of the Dem's, most notably Joan C. Williams piece in the HBR.

Another side of the debate in relation to Clinton's loss has laid the blame to racism/sexism/islamophobia/homophobia amongst the white working class voter, disturbed and annoyed at the notion that the white working class should have more attention given to them. The feeling amongst this group is that identity issues will take a significant back seat to class issues, and the splintering of what has been deemed the "Obama coalition" will occur. And that "economic anxiety" on the part of white rust belt voters is nonsensical in explaining why so many voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. While Jamelle Bouie's previously linked piece has made the rounds and he is the most notable public figure to touch the subject, it will likely be Ta-Nehisi Coate's upcoming piece that will permeate social media and cause the discussion between the two sides to reach new levels.

But I am curious to hear the coli's viewpoints.

@Abogado @Mephistopheles @Broke Wave @FAH1223 @Poitier @88m3 @Brown_Pride @theworldismine13 @SJUGrad13 @Robbie3000 @NZA @wire28 @Kitsch @JahFocus CS @Swavy Karl Marx

 

[JahFocus CS]

Race and class have always been inextricably bound up in the United States.

Neither issue (racism or class oppression) will be adequately addressed in isolation from each other.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

As most people who have been paying attention to the media know, the inability of Hillary Clinton to win the election has been primarily blamed on her losing the "Rust Belt". The states of PA, WI,MI,OH all went to Trump, with only Ohio being expected. The loss of Democratic support in these areas have been blamed on Clinton and liberals on the coasts being unable to understand, convince, and reach rural poor/middle-class White voters (specifically men) in the Rust Belt.

There are some who feel that the Democratic party lost as a result of Clinton's hubris (she didn't visit the area in the crucial first month of campaigning, whereas Obama in 08' did several times) and Donald Trump's ability to put forward a resonating economic message etched in protectionism (unprecedented for a GOP candidate). Many progressives feel that the way to reach these midwestern voters is to focus on the progressive ideas embodied by Bernie Sanders. Sanders unapologetically believes that looking at problems through a class prism is the best way to figure out solutions in modern society and that a populist message can bring midwestern voters back into the democratic party tent. There have been countless articles making the argument that ignoring class was the major mistake of the Dem's, most notably Joan C. Williams piece in the HBR.

Another side of the debate in relation to Clinton's loss has laid the blame to racism/sexism/islamophobia/homophobia amongst the white working class voter, disturbed and annoyed at the notion that the white working class should have more attention given to them. The feeling amongst this group is that identity issues will take a significant back seat to class issues, and the splintering of what has been deemed the "Obama coalition" will occur. And that "economic anxiety" on the part of white rust belt voters is nonsensical in explaining why so many voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. While Jamelle Bouie's previously linked piece has made the rounds and he is the most notable public figure to touch the subject, it will likely be Ta-Nehisi Coate's upcoming piece that will permeate social media and cause the discussion between the two sides to reach new levels.

But I am curious to hear the coli's viewpoints.

@Abogado @Mephistopheles @Broke Wave @FAH1223 @Poitier @88m3 @Brown_Pride @theworldismine13 @SJUGrad13 @Robbie3000 @NZA @wire28 @Kitsch @JahFocus CS @Swavy Karl Marx

bruh...did you miss my entire thread about this?

Blacks will be left behind in new Democrat party fighting against Trump and Ignorant White Leftists

 

[theworldismine13]

you have to know the biggest variables 1) the state of the economy 2) the actual candidate

overall its still "the economy, stupid", identity politics came into play in 2016 because hillary wasnt promising anything economically to the obama coalition, her only economic promise was that she was going give amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens

i still say immigration did hillary in

 

[No1]

But I am curious to hear the coli's viewpoints.

This guy basically stated my answer:

Trump and the Working Class

I’ll try to make this brief. The apologetics and schadenfreude and recrimination are flowing fast. Too fast for good thinking. But this is important. A divide has emerged on the left between (1) those who believe Democrats need to develop a credible appeal to the archetypal (white, rural, high school-educated) Trump voter; and (2) those who believe these voters are irredeemably racist, and that any effort to include them in a coalition would entail a compromise with white supremacy.

I’ve largely avoided this conversation until now. It’s been marked by bad faith and straw men on both sides. And I think the media’s preoccupation with these voters—over, say, working class people of color—is itself an effect of a white supremacist lens. Why are media organizations willing to spend so much money and energy seeking to understand and empathize with the plight of certain members of the underclass and not others? As is often the answer to American questions: racism.

That being said, I don’t think there’s a sufficient way forward for left politics that does not try to organize and win over white workers. It may be true that due to demographic change, Democrats won’t need white working class voters to win presidential elections in the near future. But they do need them to win back state legislatures, gubernatorial races, senate and congressional seats. The thing about these “irredeemably racist” hinterland states is that they all have cities, and in those cites are minorities. These states also have women and immigrants and LGBT people and disabled people. As it stands, the marginalized populations in red states live under the rule of increasingly authoritarian statehouses and governors, whose priorities include depriving gay & trans people of their rights & safety, depriving poor and black people of the franchise, depriving working people of the right to organize, and depriving women of the right to get an abortion—not to mention empowering police, prosecutors, and immigration enforcement.

Unless leftists are content to condemn these populations to permanent white, nativist, reactionary rule, we have no choice but to prioritize organizing—yes, “winning over”—white workers in these states. Make no mistake: the most inspiring organizers in the country,many of them black and brown and gay and trans, are already and have long been doing this work. But the instinct among some liberals right now to write off Trump-voting states altogether is both politically and morally untenable and insulting to the organizers struggling—in an often hostile environment—to empower oppressed communities in the South and upper Midwest.

Crucially, the point is not to develop an economic program that simply ignores anti-racist concerns. Trump’s working class voters cannot be won over to a progressive coalition simply by bribing them with economic rewards. White supremacist ideology is an insidious thing. The very means by which struggling white workers lives could be materially improved—redistribution of wealth, government investment in communities and education—have been stigmatized as handouts to minorities. As we know, racism itself is among the chief obstacles to the implementation of a more egalitarian welfare state. Rather, the task—as it has always been—is to convince these workers that they are part of class that includes black and brown people, but that does not include their wealthy white bosses. That is: that they are part of the working class; and that the antipathy they feel towards elites is justified and shared by the people of color scapegoated by their political leaders.

Creating a multi-racial, anti-racist populist front will be difficult. There’s no roadmap. But it’s been done before—to varying degrees of success—by labor unions during the Black Freedom Struggle, by communists organizers in the South, by the CIO, by the New Deal coalition. A reinvigorated labor movement is an indispensable part of the way forward. Throughout history, unions have been the best vehicle by which white workers come to identify as workers first. That remains true today.

It’s going to be hard. But we don’t have a choice. Wealthy whites in red states, who benefit from the entwined dual-regime of white supremacy and capitalism—what we should insist on calling “racial capitalism”—will continue to fight with ever greater resources to preserve and further entrench the status quo. White workers share their interests, but not all of them. That’s the opening. It always has been.

I watched one of Trump’s last speeches before the election. In it, he said, “Tomorrow, the American working class will strike back.” I was struck. No contemporary Democratic politician would (or could, credibly) say those words. Afraid of scaring off their donors or being red-baited, most Democrats won’t even utter the phrase “working class”—preferring the capacious and increasingly meaningless “middle class” or, at best, “working families.” But Trump said it. His rural and exurban white supporters have a class consciousness of sorts. They despise elites. They feel that the system is rigged. But that antipathy is entirely entangled with their fear of a black president, of eroding racial and gender hierarchies, and their perception that multi-cultural elites are helping minorities at their expense. Trump can say “working class” because everyone in his audience hears the unsaid word “white” preceding it. It is, as it has ever been, the left’s task to build a mass political movement where there are no words silently preceding the term “working class.” It’s not hyperbole to say that everything depends on it.

 

[Tate]

The issue isn't that democrats fail to appeal to the white working class, it's that they don't appeal to the entire working class.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

it's hard for me to call it with this current election. i think trump's combination of populism for the white working class paired with 'ism rhetoric/dog whistle politics may have deflected that group, or a portion of that group, permanently. i don't see how the dem coalition hold together such a vast net of people who find one another's ID's annoying


lgbt - conservative latinos, black, and poor whites aren't feeling them
blacks & hispanics - poor whites aint here for these groups (shyt are we even here for each other?)
poor whites - blacks, coastal elites, lgbt, and hispanics (to an extent) aint caping for them and their backward views
the meritocratic elite (six figure coastal libs) may be more centrist so they're not running with fiscal ideals that spoil their riches

so many conflicts of interest in the dem party, it's doable, but dems need an "explain it like i'm 5" campaign to explain how their policies are mutually beneficial.


republicans - will be conservative regardless of faction and no matter what they tell the masses (still can't believe working white bought into "bring the jobs back, stop globalization")

 

[JahFocus CS]

Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded.

A lot of cac workers hate on us and other POC but their racism only aids in their jobs getting shipped abroad and their rights as workers getting eroded. Why? Because it weakens the working class as a whole.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The issue isn't that democrats fail to appeal to the white working class, it's that they don't appeal to the entire working class.

Yup. Most regular working people I know didn't vote.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but this coalition of corporate interests, city-dwelling educated professionals who live comfortably enough to be satisfied with soft neoliberalism and incrementalism, and minorities who vote primarily because the other party is overtly racist wasn't sustainable.

It's just that Obama was an extraordinary once in a lifetime politician in terms of his charisma and presidentialness.

You see the difference when a candidate like Hillary runs with basically the same formula...it's 5 million votes.

 

[No1]

Yup. Most regular working people I know didn't vote.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but this coalition of corporate interests, city-dwelling educated professionals who live comfortably enough to be satisfied with soft neoliberalism and incrementalism, and minorities who vote primarily because the other party is overtly racist wasn't sustainable.

It's just that Obama was an extraordinary once in a lifetime politician in terms of his charisma and presidentialness.

You see the difference when a candidate like Hillary runs with basically the same formula...it's 5 million votes.

Obama also actually went to working class areas.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Obama also actually went to working class areas.

Robby Mook said she didn't need to.

 

[No1]

Robby Mook said she didn't need to.

They got gassed over him helping them win races in places like VA and forgot that those demographics don't line up that way everywhere.

 

[Grano-Grano]

The issue isn't that democrats fail to appeal to the white working class, it's that they don't appeal to the entire working class.

/end thread.

 

[Type Username Here]

The issue isn't that democrats fail to appeal to the white working class, it's that they don't appeal to the entire working class.

fukking preach.

 

[the next guy]

Robby Mook said she didn't need to.

Robby Mook ... smh. This guy still having a career after this too...