Great piece, and I responding now due to when I found it. You asked readers for where they fall on the spectrum? 'Outsider left' was my classification, and my split ticket vote seems to reflect that (although I am not young like most outsider left individuals).
What I'd be curious about is what positions made you 'ambivalent right' on the survey. For instance, I said government gives too much help, that whites don't have as much of an advantage, that we should respect trans adults (it did not let me go into nuances about athletics or minors), that often powerful interests are favored. Like most people, my politics are incomprehensible.
We wish that self-deception always failed, for then there might be less of it; but the battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but time and chance happeneth unto them all. I am not the first to make the latter observation.
I'll be the first to admit that I am a smug liberal with nothing but contempt for the "lower class" from which I came andl clawed my way out of to relative affluence. Personally, my prescription has always been forced wealth distribution. I don't see these people as having anything of value to contribute... so give them free money. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think this is a bad idea (neoliberal economics) or refuse to accept the free money (supposedly since the lower class hates "socialism") The Democrats are still captured by Clinton era thinking and their wealthy donors ironically driving people to Trump.
Run the "free money" candidate. If they fail I'll back down.
I don’t think this is advisable. People don’t want free money but dignity. Many people surveyed by the Times for example and in Batya Ungar-Sargon’s book said they want to earn their living and not just be given money. They also don’t like Dems for only offering solutions that strip them of the dignity of having earned their life. They also see that Dems disproportionately defer to the wealthy. I once thought forced redistribution was the answer too.
I guess the problem here is that it is policy lite. What actual class focused policies do you think a revitalized and class forward democratic party would have? Instead it is mostly a critique of the bankrupt morality of the modern D. While I agree I think beside the point as a newly revitalized party that appeals to the.working class has to be seen as "caring about voters like us".
The most important thing I can think of right now is stopping unskilled immigration. It does drive down the wages of people without degrees, and I think it’s patently ridiculous for this argument to be dismissed out of hand. How would it not cause a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions? Secondly - forcibly expanding Medicaid and making a public option. Third, actually doing the infrastructural projects Obama claimed he wanted to do. They’re not shovel ready, but would at least provide stable employment. Finally, straight up outlaw the ability to require college degrees for most jobs. The competition for these office jobs is artificially low, enabling totally mediocre people with degrees to take both jobs requiring and not requiring them when they can’t get the former. And then to prevent proxies for degree discrimination, affirmative action should also be eliminated at all levels plus and enforcement of blind hiring. I recognize this is difficult but that’s the kind of bullshit discrimination that prevents people from climbing. Class based affirmative action at elite universities, which aren’t going away, so they need to be forced to be the engines of mobility they claim to be. I also think there’s plenty of reason to reduce legal immigration. The claim is there aren’t enough people with skills for those jobs, but foreign born grad students from American degree farms are definitely driving down wages because they can be exploited and increasing competition where there is no justification to do so. One of the most discriminatory aspects of corporate America is their justification for hiring already well off Indians instead of putting their money where their mouth is and hiring black and Latino applicants who they claim are underrepresented. And that’s the case because Indians, for example, are over represented in corporate America.
I strongly agree with the point that the societal divide is probably delineated on educational lines (college yes or no), and on a financial basis. I wouldn't really say it's the 0.1% or the 1% or the 10% though. I would say it's those who can afford to continuously accumulate capital vs those who cannot.
"But people of color tend to be socially conservative and contemptuous of those getting ahead at their expense. They want to climb like anyone else. They don’t share the concerns of elite black and brown creatives; there’s a diploma and class divide in every community."
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets. No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
This is an interesting take on this election. It is also interesting to read about your former loyalty to the democrats because they have historically been the party who represents black and brown people - despite its recent takeover by the white, liberal capitalists.
I would challenge you from an historical perspective to ascribe either pure motives or give the mantle of 'the party of black and brown people' to either side. Both parties seek power and throughout the course of history their policies have appealed to different races and classes at different times. There have been many black and brown Americans who have been republicans or conservatives at the very least.
The example you give that you believe the democrats are still getting an electoral 'glow' from is the passage Civil Rights Act by LBJ. You're correct that it was Kennedy's department of Justice that integrated the schools and initially proposed the act prior to his assassination. But the people who fought the passage of the act (through the longest filibuster in our history) were almost entirely Southern democrats with only one republican from Texas (LBJ's home state). Most of them were LBJ's friends and it was well documented that his rationale for getting his friends in congress to finally pass the law was stated clearly at the time, "We'll get those (n-word - plural) voting for us for the next X number of years." The act had near universal support among republicans.
Similar for the opening up of immigration. The motives ascribed to the democrats as the party 'wanting to help people' is mostly for power (permanent loyalty of a voting bloc) and economic gain (cheap labor) which creates a permanent underclass of people who will work for less than working class Americans. To be sure the latter has benefitted the republicans as well.
What now matters to everyone - both class and race alike - appear to be results. Since the parties seem to be shape-shifting, what's next for the working class?
Thanks very much for this post. I enjoy your writing and your perspective.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and for reading! I agree, you’re right that I glossed over the fact that racial groups have realigned around the parties multiple times, and great point about the civil rights act actually being opposed by democrats who passed it rather than republicans, though those republicans aren’t the same as today’s. Totally agree about immigration, hence the qualification “less racist” because it was less out of the goodness of our hearts and more for capitalism. Which is why liberals arguing for a koch brothers (as Bernie said) proposal is maddening, bc they do it from the moralizing perspective.
Your writing makes me think and, while I appear to want to help the working class in a different way than you, I would be the poorer without your perspective. Thank you.
This might be a good place to ask this question: Can anyone suggest a good book about the history of liberalims that's neither Tucker Carlson- nor AOC-crazy? Somethign kinda middle of the road, honest about liberalism's triumphs and failures?
The two Johns have what you're looking for (the core of liberalism):
1. John Stuart Mill - explains individual freedom, civil liberties, and free speech—the foundation for modern social justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equality. He also touches on social welfare ideas (healthcare, progressive taxes, and safety nets).
2. John Locke - discusses in detail the concept of natural rights (life, liberty, property), government by consent, and “negative rights” (freedom from interference by the state).
Thanks, but maybe I should have been clearer....a history including *modern* liberalism, particularly where it's gone in the 20th & 21st centuries. But point taken, I can find the Johns' work online.
Well I just left the longest prologue in the history of Substack restacks on my restack of this, LOL, so I'll just say this, Radha: Thanks for the reminder that we all need to be nice to each other and please can we stop demonizing men??? Crazy-ass man-hating feminists (I'm going to bitch slap the first woman who claims that's just a 'stereotype' with a rubber Santa Claus wearing a pussy hat :) ) pushed a lot of these men away and they weren't all Andrew Tate wannabes. And let's try to counter the already much-fatigued canard that it was 'right wing racism & sexism' that lost this for the Democrats. T'other side is deeply flawed too, but they simply ran a better campaign, hands down, now suck it up, suck down some turkey and Christmas wine, and ban political talk at the table ;)
Thank you! What’s annoying me the most: I don’t like siding with the moral police, but I also don’t want to side with the people leading the revolution against the police.
It’s why so many of us voted Neither; both sides offered something pretty execrable in one way or another—and both sides offered policies I approved of as well. But Trump is a convicted felon and Harris & the Dems support those horrible sex change operations and trans (men’s) rights over women’s rights. We have to demand better!
However, I really hate how Pew conflates the 'Progressive Left' with mainstream liberals. Actual progressives and leftists care about class - and then Hillary decided to co-opt the phrase from the Sanders movement.
Great piece, and I responding now due to when I found it. You asked readers for where they fall on the spectrum? 'Outsider left' was my classification, and my split ticket vote seems to reflect that (although I am not young like most outsider left individuals).
What I'd be curious about is what positions made you 'ambivalent right' on the survey. For instance, I said government gives too much help, that whites don't have as much of an advantage, that we should respect trans adults (it did not let me go into nuances about athletics or minors), that often powerful interests are favored. Like most people, my politics are incomprehensible.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology/
This is the essence of the problem, as I have been telling anyone who will listen:
“It matters not that Democrats have policies better for the working class; it’s that their attitudes and rhetoric cancel out the policies.”
Self-deception sometimes loses elections. If it did so consistently it would be less dangerous.
Not following
We wish that self-deception always failed, for then there might be less of it; but the battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but time and chance happeneth unto them all. I am not the first to make the latter observation.
Ok, I can agree with this. But we still should strive to take an honest look at ourselves because it’s just the right thing to do.
I'll be the first to admit that I am a smug liberal with nothing but contempt for the "lower class" from which I came andl clawed my way out of to relative affluence. Personally, my prescription has always been forced wealth distribution. I don't see these people as having anything of value to contribute... so give them free money. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think this is a bad idea (neoliberal economics) or refuse to accept the free money (supposedly since the lower class hates "socialism") The Democrats are still captured by Clinton era thinking and their wealthy donors ironically driving people to Trump.
Run the "free money" candidate. If they fail I'll back down.
I don’t think this is advisable. People don’t want free money but dignity. Many people surveyed by the Times for example and in Batya Ungar-Sargon’s book said they want to earn their living and not just be given money. They also don’t like Dems for only offering solutions that strip them of the dignity of having earned their life. They also see that Dems disproportionately defer to the wealthy. I once thought forced redistribution was the answer too.
Beautifully written piece.
Thanks for reading good sir!
I guess the problem here is that it is policy lite. What actual class focused policies do you think a revitalized and class forward democratic party would have? Instead it is mostly a critique of the bankrupt morality of the modern D. While I agree I think beside the point as a newly revitalized party that appeals to the.working class has to be seen as "caring about voters like us".
The most important thing I can think of right now is stopping unskilled immigration. It does drive down the wages of people without degrees, and I think it’s patently ridiculous for this argument to be dismissed out of hand. How would it not cause a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions? Secondly - forcibly expanding Medicaid and making a public option. Third, actually doing the infrastructural projects Obama claimed he wanted to do. They’re not shovel ready, but would at least provide stable employment. Finally, straight up outlaw the ability to require college degrees for most jobs. The competition for these office jobs is artificially low, enabling totally mediocre people with degrees to take both jobs requiring and not requiring them when they can’t get the former. And then to prevent proxies for degree discrimination, affirmative action should also be eliminated at all levels plus and enforcement of blind hiring. I recognize this is difficult but that’s the kind of bullshit discrimination that prevents people from climbing. Class based affirmative action at elite universities, which aren’t going away, so they need to be forced to be the engines of mobility they claim to be. I also think there’s plenty of reason to reduce legal immigration. The claim is there aren’t enough people with skills for those jobs, but foreign born grad students from American degree farms are definitely driving down wages because they can be exploited and increasing competition where there is no justification to do so. One of the most discriminatory aspects of corporate America is their justification for hiring already well off Indians instead of putting their money where their mouth is and hiring black and Latino applicants who they claim are underrepresented. And that’s the case because Indians, for example, are over represented in corporate America.
This is worth a much longer response ut I would recommend David cards paper on immigration (or this nice summary from npr). There is also a good set of empirical literature that suggests immigrants and domestic labor compete for different jobs. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/11/nx-s1-4992292/planet-money-do-immigrants-really-take-jobs-and-lower-wages
Ok, I will check this out. Thank you!!
I strongly agree with the point that the societal divide is probably delineated on educational lines (college yes or no), and on a financial basis. I wouldn't really say it's the 0.1% or the 1% or the 10% though. I would say it's those who can afford to continuously accumulate capital vs those who cannot.
This is a fair point, and I agree. It’s those who can save versus those who can’t, to put it crudely
🔥🎯
I appreciate your very sage and well written critique of the Democratic debacle.
I also favor your attention to the question of class. I have a few ideas, regarding the Democratic collapse, in this article
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/are-you-tired-of-the-same-old-explanations
Please offer your comments and criticisms
"But people of color tend to be socially conservative and contemptuous of those getting ahead at their expense. They want to climb like anyone else. They don’t share the concerns of elite black and brown creatives; there’s a diploma and class divide in every community."
100%.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets. No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
XXX
Same page my man. Disaffected Dem.
This is an interesting take on this election. It is also interesting to read about your former loyalty to the democrats because they have historically been the party who represents black and brown people - despite its recent takeover by the white, liberal capitalists.
I would challenge you from an historical perspective to ascribe either pure motives or give the mantle of 'the party of black and brown people' to either side. Both parties seek power and throughout the course of history their policies have appealed to different races and classes at different times. There have been many black and brown Americans who have been republicans or conservatives at the very least.
The example you give that you believe the democrats are still getting an electoral 'glow' from is the passage Civil Rights Act by LBJ. You're correct that it was Kennedy's department of Justice that integrated the schools and initially proposed the act prior to his assassination. But the people who fought the passage of the act (through the longest filibuster in our history) were almost entirely Southern democrats with only one republican from Texas (LBJ's home state). Most of them were LBJ's friends and it was well documented that his rationale for getting his friends in congress to finally pass the law was stated clearly at the time, "We'll get those (n-word - plural) voting for us for the next X number of years." The act had near universal support among republicans.
Similar for the opening up of immigration. The motives ascribed to the democrats as the party 'wanting to help people' is mostly for power (permanent loyalty of a voting bloc) and economic gain (cheap labor) which creates a permanent underclass of people who will work for less than working class Americans. To be sure the latter has benefitted the republicans as well.
What now matters to everyone - both class and race alike - appear to be results. Since the parties seem to be shape-shifting, what's next for the working class?
Thanks very much for this post. I enjoy your writing and your perspective.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and for reading! I agree, you’re right that I glossed over the fact that racial groups have realigned around the parties multiple times, and great point about the civil rights act actually being opposed by democrats who passed it rather than republicans, though those republicans aren’t the same as today’s. Totally agree about immigration, hence the qualification “less racist” because it was less out of the goodness of our hearts and more for capitalism. Which is why liberals arguing for a koch brothers (as Bernie said) proposal is maddening, bc they do it from the moralizing perspective.
Your writing makes me think and, while I appear to want to help the working class in a different way than you, I would be the poorer without your perspective. Thank you.
You make reading about politics palatable. The personal is political is a religious mantra of a religion that worships itself.
!!! Yes.
Thank you for reading as always!
This might be a good place to ask this question: Can anyone suggest a good book about the history of liberalims that's neither Tucker Carlson- nor AOC-crazy? Somethign kinda middle of the road, honest about liberalism's triumphs and failures?
The two Johns have what you're looking for (the core of liberalism):
1. John Stuart Mill - explains individual freedom, civil liberties, and free speech—the foundation for modern social justice, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equality. He also touches on social welfare ideas (healthcare, progressive taxes, and safety nets).
2. John Locke - discusses in detail the concept of natural rights (life, liberty, property), government by consent, and “negative rights” (freedom from interference by the state).
Thanks, but maybe I should have been clearer....a history including *modern* liberalism, particularly where it's gone in the 20th & 21st centuries. But point taken, I can find the Johns' work online.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Francis Fukuyama.
Oh, good idea! I'm familiar with FF but haven't read any of his books. Heading over to the Amazon Wish List now. Which do you recommend?
Identity, Liberalism and its Discontents. He's not always correct in my view, but he is serious.
Poifect! Thank you!
Well I just left the longest prologue in the history of Substack restacks on my restack of this, LOL, so I'll just say this, Radha: Thanks for the reminder that we all need to be nice to each other and please can we stop demonizing men??? Crazy-ass man-hating feminists (I'm going to bitch slap the first woman who claims that's just a 'stereotype' with a rubber Santa Claus wearing a pussy hat :) ) pushed a lot of these men away and they weren't all Andrew Tate wannabes. And let's try to counter the already much-fatigued canard that it was 'right wing racism & sexism' that lost this for the Democrats. T'other side is deeply flawed too, but they simply ran a better campaign, hands down, now suck it up, suck down some turkey and Christmas wine, and ban political talk at the table ;)
Thank you! What’s annoying me the most: I don’t like siding with the moral police, but I also don’t want to side with the people leading the revolution against the police.
It’s why so many of us voted Neither; both sides offered something pretty execrable in one way or another—and both sides offered policies I approved of as well. But Trump is a convicted felon and Harris & the Dems support those horrible sex change operations and trans (men’s) rights over women’s rights. We have to demand better!
Woot woot!!!
This was wonderful, thank you for this!
However, I really hate how Pew conflates the 'Progressive Left' with mainstream liberals. Actual progressives and leftists care about class - and then Hillary decided to co-opt the phrase from the Sanders movement.