Why Democrats Lose With Middle Class White Men - And What To Do About It
Democrats make much of the opportunity that an America with growing fractions of minorities and women presents for the left.[1] But they give less attention to a parallel shift: Republicans are now overwhelmingly favored among alienated white middle class men (AWMMs). In 2010 and 2014, that was enough to raise GOP strength to a near all-time high despite the party’s myriad ills. Now, Clinton’s terrible numbers with this group have Trump, with all his flaws, competitive in states like Pennsylvania that were once safely blue. That should be a huge wake-up call. But it masks an equally huge opportunity. The GOP depends on not just winning, but winning big, with AWMMs; if they have to fight for AWMMs at all, they’ve already lost. With just slight gains here, Democrats would gain greater advantages than even unrealistically large gains with other groups. [2] They could lock up the Presidency, put the House in play despite gerrymandering, and make “the electoral arithmetic [] so dire that GOP strategy will have to change simply to remain competitive” — which might finally incentivize compromise and shared governance.[3]
Unfortunately, establishment Democrats focus more on securing their base than on increasingly scarce swing voters. That’s meant playing identity politics — focusing on disadvantaged race and gender groups. And if AWMMs have felt pushed away by that, party leaders frustrated by blue collar votes for the party of the 1%, shrug these voters off as intractably hostile — too blinded by culture, religion, ideology, or darker things such as racism to be worth trying to reach.
That conclusion doesn’t really fit, though. While some AWMMs may well be implacable idealogues, many more were core Democrats just a few years past (even Clinton voters in 2008). Nothing fundamental has changed. Their interests remain much more aligned with the left than the right. And as the rise of Trump highlights, many hate the GOP establishment and have little use for plutocrat boosting. This is hardly a profile of unreachable Republicans.
What’s really happening, then? What if it’s simply that Democrats are blowing it? After all, AWMMs, like everyone else, are hurting. Neither party has fixed that. In that context, what if one side too often sounds to AWMMs like it has no place for them, except sources of tax money that can be used to buy votes from everyone but them? If the other side at least welcomes them and talks their talk, which would look like the least bad choice? That fits, and if it proves right, it offers a path to victory. Democrats simply need to stop pushing AWMMs away — to make it clear that they serve everyone, regardless of identity group. And if they combine that with better efforts to fight the GOP — highlighting which option is truly more dangerous to the middle class — they can hold a winning hand across the board.
Times are hard for most Americans, and that hits AWMMs in unique ways.
Democrats’ problem with AWMMs starts with the background angst that so many Americans feel — the angst underlying both the Trump and Sanders surprises. For decades, most people have seen their prospects deteriorating. Most Americans are working harder for less money, losing job security, facing crushing health care and education costs, and the list goes on. This stress, which hits people in every group, has several particular spins for AWMMs:
- High unmet expectations: AWMMs face an especially big gap between where they are and where they think they should be. The good old days actually were better for their demographic in some ways (since they weren’t facing the prejudices others did). On top of that, the image of self-reliant frontiersmen runs deep. With the old economy fading, many AWMMs may not measure up to that image, and can’t see even seeking help lest they be deemed failures or moochers.
- Little faith in government to help: Government hasn’t had a good record of fixing the economy overall in recent decades. Our problems are deep enough that it would take massive efforts to turn things around, and partisan gridlock prevents that. Most recent victories (reversing the Great Recession) have been more avoidance of worse disasters than actual improvements. That doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in state solutions. There have been long term successes on equality for women and people of color, which are good for the entire country. But those have been most powerful offsets to the “government can’t fix things” theme for those directly facing racism or sexism. AWMMs have a harder time seeing the state helping them–but can see the state preferring others over them, (e.g., affirmative action). That can make government look not just unhelpful, but hostile — especially when they face an already tough job market.
- Unsettling cultural upheaval: During the same period that saw offshoring etc., there has been rapid social change. In progressive eyes, the shifts have been positive, making America more of a place for many cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles. But for those less inclined to change, the loss of old norms in which their culture ruled contributes to an anguishing sense of lost security.
Taken together, these feelings produce angry people watching a once-good life slipping into an abyss of uncertainty, with little faith in government to help. That creates a backlash against state-sponsored change that has deep implications in the context of the two current parties:
Democrats too often ignore or repel AWMMs
Democrats start out with something of a steep hill to climb. Their basic view of government as a useful tool doesn’t sound convincing when things have been getting worse. So the pull that once brought AWMMs to the left is far weaker than it was. Added to that, Democrat rhetoric too often suggests that they don’t really care about AWMMs.[4] Democrats focus a great deal on historically disadvantaged ethnic and gender groups. There are reasons for this. Progressive focus on these issues has been crucial in reducing race and gender barriers. And despite all progress, people in those groups still face problems that AWMMs do not. There is also strategic value in focusing on groups on whom Democratic victories depend. But this can also come across as a victimization game that panders to everyone but AWMMs. When times were better, this mattered less. But now, it translates into feelings that even though AWMMs are hurting too, Democrats aren’t interested in easing their pain — only in using their tax dollars to help (or bribe) those who are not them. Those feelings are further aggravated by candidates crying “vote for me because I’m not an AWMM”. As a result, many AWMMs feel like Democrats don’t have their needs at heart, but care only for those who check other boxes.[5]
Democrats have also been seen to practice hypocrisy on race and gender — setting aside principles of equality to pander to their base groups. For instance, affirmative action played a key role in giving opportunity to those held back by discrimination. But it also hurt non-minorities based on their skin color. While one might defend such policies stridently on the grounds that they did more good than harm, progressives often refuse to acknowledge that there was any bias in these policies at all, because discrimination against those who aren’t in the right categories somehow doesn’t count. In the same vein, progressives too often fail to apply their standards to their own side. Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment, for example, is the sort of thing that would have evoked a shower of stones had it been Scalia saying “learned Caucasian gentleman” (okay, he probably would have said something involving jiggery pokery, but you get the point). But no such shower was forthcoming from the left. Political correctness hits similar themes. Democrats have done far too little to push back against protesters who claim to have been oppressed but show no qualms about oppressing those who disagree with them. And while progressives may shrug off the failure to curb such excesses on the grounds that “we have bigger fish to fry”, that excuse doesn’t fly even with many on the left who value ideological consistency. Worse, it suggests that Democrats could easily step on AWMMs and not care.
Democratic rhetoric sometimes also actively alienates AWMMs. Some on the far left claim that all white men are privileged oppressors — lumping struggling workers in with rich elites. It should surprise no one that people on the receiving end of that respond badly. And the party leadership, while not really sharing extremist views, declines to object for fear of alienating parts of its base. That makes the extremism look more representative of the party than it actually is.
All of this contributes to a strong visceral feeling that Democrats don’t care about AWMMs, could casually trample their interests, or might even be out to get them. Democrats’ problems with AWMMs look a lot less mysterious in that light. The situation starkly illustrates a basic danger of race and gender politics, too; no matter which side one picks in such breakdowns, the other side gets alienated. That’s not a good position either tactically or on the merits; no one should govern who can’t serve everyone, regardless of identity group. Of course, picking sides in identity wars isn’t what progressivism is really supposed to be about. But as long as it looks that way to AWMMs, and they feel on a gut level that they just can’t side with Democrats without harming their own interests, the Democrats will continue to have huge problems.
Republicans fare better with AWMMs, albeit still not great.
Republicans oppose most of what AWMMs hate. They don’t claim government will work, so don’t get blamed for government failures. They oppose allegedly wasteful programs calculated to help people who are not AWMMs. They press for tax cuts –an easy thing to like. They present things in a simple, viscerally appealing package, too. To that, Republicans tap into angst about change, channeling the angst into a fear of “otherness.” With some, this can cross the line into racism. The narrative of “you would be millionaires if not for the government holding you back, and taking your money to fund handouts to Those People” runs deep in Republican rhetoric. Stoking genuine angst and fear of change, the Republicans make it easier for AWMMs to blame the government that’s giving their tax money to people who are not them, rather than the fat cats who are capturing the lion’s share of the economy. If this narrative doesn’t fit the facts, it still has rhetorical force. Added to that, Republicans often disdain “pluralism” as standardless or Godless, and hold themselves out as promoting “traditional” (i.e., conservative Christian) culture. For those of that culture, especially those who feel embattled or fear that their once-secure position is slipping away, that approach can resonate. Indeed, Republicans often tap into that fear, and direct it against other groups — or against government itself. Given the skepticism AWMMs have of government action in general and Democratic identity politics in particular, scapegoating along these lines can work disturbingly well.
That’s not to say that the bulk of AWMMs have a positive view of Republicans — they don’t.[6] After all, Republican policies don’t actually help them. If pressed, many AWMMs who vote Republican will acknowledge that Republicans support the fat cats; the groundswell of support for “outsiders” that Trump rode showed the low regard in which much of the GOP rank and file holds the elites who lead the party. But in an age of extremely diminished political expectations, in which politicians make plague rats feel better about their approval ratings, the election goes to the side that sucks least. In the eyes of many AWMMs, the party that doesn’t dislike them, gets their angst, might cut their taxes, and doesn’t want to take from them to give to not-thems, ends up being that least bad option. So Republicans win largely by channeling angst that should play to Democratic strengths — and Democratic failures make that possible.
As difficult as that position is for Democrats when it comes to the AWMM vote, it pales next to the problem that Republicans have with the rest of the electorate. While most Republicans are not racists, enough are, and enough of their themes play to xenophobia or suggest that American means white male Christian, as to leave just about everyone else with an impression that the Republicans are hostile.[7] And even though the Republican establishment largely does not share such views, it often declines to denounce the vileness for risk of alienating parts of its base. That creates the impression that the party approves of the fringe’s bile. In the words of the Votemaster, there isn’t room in a party for both racists and the targets of racism — you have to choose. So they have. Republicans thus don’t have a lot of room to grow. Given that Republicans now control of the bulk of this country’s governing bodies, though, that’s scant comfort. And if Democrats cede the AWMM vote to the GOP, they have no realistic path to improving things anytime soon (and might well lose the Rust Belt, and the Presidency).
But that state of affairs looks very changeable. In the age of Trump, many have figured out that tax cuts for hedge fund managers won’t help the middle class, many want a better option. So do those who dislike regulation and taxes but don’t like extreme views. If Democrats could neutralize the dislike that they have inspired in AWMMs, those voters could be in play.
How do Democrats turn things around?
Setting things right could be easier than it looks. This isn’t putting new paint over rotten wood — attempting, Priebus style, to spin a message to mask the real content. It’s more the opposite — fixing bad marketing that has obscured substance. Because at its core, progressivism is about making things fair for everyone, regardless of identity group. Democrats just need to return to that — to cease repelling AWMMs, and to remind AWMMs that their interests are already better aligned with the left than the right. To that end, Democrats need to:
- Stop the rhetoric that repels AWMMs. If Democrats cease making AWMMs feel that they have to risk their own self-interests to support the political left, that by itself will dramatically shift the landscape. To this end, the toxic comments of privileged oppressors and so forth must end. So must the attitude that no non-minority could be suffering. Democrats need to disavow the excesses of the radical left, including political correctness. They need to make clear in no uncertain terms that Democrats are not out to get AWMMs, either by deliberate action or casual disregard for collateral damage from identity politics.
— Reach out to and welcome AWMMs. The Democratic party needs to tell AWMMs that it recognizes that everyone, regardless of identity group, who works hard and plays by the rules has earned a better shot at a good life than the current broken system provides. There should be frequent speeches saying that Democrats are fighting for everyone who wants a fair shake — including AWMMs. When they speak of tolerance, they need to highlight that tolerance extends to conservatives, evangelicals, and so forth, not just leftists. This, too is mostly a rhetorical shift.
— Replace identity politics with messaging and policies that make better opportunities for everyone. Things such as job creation, which helps all groups, should be at the center of Democrats’ efforts. Some such efforts are already underway, such as the ready-to-work program (https://www.whitehouse.gov/ready-to-work). Democrats should hammer home policies of that kind that target the middle class directly, in contrast to GOP trickle-down theories. Of course Democrats shouldn’t stop helping those who need it most. When they address identity-group-specific issues, though, those issues should be framed in terms of how basic principles of justice that are being violated by disparate impact, instead of just how one group needs a special boost. Family leave, for example, isn’t a women’s issue — it’s a human rights issue (and men need time to deal with family matters too). Democrats can thus champion both general and group specific causes in a way that leaves no one feeling left out to the degree AWMMs do now.
— Fix the broader problems that leave the party open to attack. Democrats’ flaws aren’t getting overlooked by voters just because Wasserman-Schultz refuses to acknowledge them. The party needs to take a hard look at itself, to be honest about its errors, and to fix things. For instance, Democrats are often seen as too quick to waste taxpayers’ money, too eager to regulate without regard to burdens, and too hostile to the private sector. The party leadership should also address its own “establishment” problem (e.g., the outcry against the presidential debate scheduling). There is much to be done here, and it goes beyond the scope of this piece, but it could pay particular dividends with AWMMs.
— Fight the other side harder. Show GOP hypocrisies, falsehoods, and promotion of plutocracy for what they are. This should be easy; how hard is it to look and be more friendly to blue collar workers than the party of the 1 percent? However, it’s not something Democrats have done well. Democrats also need to answer the voters willing to favor the one-percent out of a belief that someday they will be rich. Emphasis on how progressives seek to restore the (currently rigged) free market so that everyone can participate in it, and aren’t at all attacking capitalism as the GOP claims, would go a long way — although that again goes beyond the scope of this piece.
In combination, these shifts could make the left acceptable to AWMMs again — and a better option than the GOP offers. The middle class is looking for somewhere to go even now. If Democrats offer them a reasonable alternative, the rest should be history.
Can Democrats keep their lead with non-AWMMs while making these shifts, though? That seems very possible:
— The GOP is so toxic to non-AWMMs that unless it changes far more than its base will permit, there isn’t much risk that non-AWMMs will go there. There is the risk they will go fishing instead, but GOP extremism reduces even that (witness Latino registration reaction to Trump).
- There are indications that broader issues matter more to non-AWMMs than identity plays or hot button proxies (e.g., that while immigration matters to Latinos, it’s not as important as jobs, education, or health care).[8] Democrats have a great advantage on such broader issues, and thus may be able to win with these groups without needing to cast things in group-specific ways. [9]
- Democrats already get the votes of those who want to break glass ceilings — without having to trumpet the matter and risk alienating others. It is unlikely that people who support Hillary Clinton because they want to see a female president really need the reminder of her gender that she gives every chance she gets. Those reminders are rubbing voters unreceptive to “elect more women” mantras the wrong way, though. By backing off the rhetoric, Clinton may not lose anything with those who want to see her make history — and she might gain enough support with others to make that history happen. So it may be with other issues.
Democrats have every reason to compete for the AWMM vote. Making the other side struggle to defend its own base already works out to massive advantage for the left; it means fighting in an arena where even a draw means Republicans have lost the war. It’s feasible too, since it doesn’t mean chasing hardline conservatives, but rather ex-Democrats whose interests actually fall more left than right. And it focuses on items within Democrats’ control — their own rhetoric and focus, removing actual flaws in their own side, and making them more worthy of the trust they ask voters to place in them. A chance for Democrats to fight on these terms is too good to pass up — and the costs of not doing so, too dire to accept. For the Clinton campaign, for the effort to take back the Senate, and for the outside shots at the House and state legislatures, this path offers more promise than any other option on the table now. Whether the Democrats take it or not may well determine who sets the policy agenda for years to come.
[1] Of course, ethnic/gender breakdowns are far from the only factor. This author looks forward eagerly to the day when they are not a factor at all. But that day is not today.
[2] See e.g. Sean Trende, Demographics and the 2016 Election Scenarios, RealClearPolitics 8/26/15; see also Projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
[3] The Challenge of the White Working Class Vote, by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin
[4] “Few sane people are going to waste a vote on a sob story about how rough things have gotten for white people.” Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone, The GOP Is Now officially the party of Dumb White People 9/4/15; see also http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html?_r=0
[5] See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html?_r=0 (“[M]ost said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them”….“I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.”); see also http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/white-working-class-issues-free-trade-american-south.
[6] See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/opinion/campaign-stops/how-both-parties-lost-the-white-middle-class.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
[7] This problem is aggravated in that some on the right lament, consciously or unconsciously, not just the loss of “their” culture’s dominance, but of the dominance of their demographic during the bad old Mad Men days. Republican candidates often play to that sense of loss (either via dog whistles or overt racism/sexism) — and have difficulty disavowing that without facing problems with their own base.
[8] http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/10/29/chapter-4-top-issues-in-this-years-election-for-hispanic-voters/
[9] This may be a tougher nut to crack in primaries, which tend to pull candidates to the left (especially given that some of the things that repel AWMMs appeal to radicals, who have a louder voice when only the left is voting). Still, the increased chance of victory that candidates who don’t repel AWMMs would have should be sufficient to offset that tendency to at least some degree.
c�G3�ݘ�
