Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Balancing Economic and Social Issues

by Neil H. Buchanan

Let us start with two big ifs.  If Trump and the Republicans do not succeed in turning future elections into shams, and if liberals and others who opposed Trump can find their way to a winning political strategy, then the future will not be as bleak as it currently appears to be.

Regarding that first big if, I recently argued that there are very good reasons to worry that Trump and his party will soon change the rules to make future elections nearly unwinnable for Democrats.  I also argued, however, that believers in democracy have no choice but to try to prevent that from happening and, in any case, to compete even in heavily rigged elections.

Even if small-d democrats are successful in preserving free and fair elections, however, we then move on to that second big if regarding a winning strategy.  Unfortunately, the early indications are that the post-election conversation among liberals (and those who claim to be sympathetic) has already gone seriously off the rails.

Part of the problem is that people are acting as if Trump won big.  We evidently need to remind ourselves that stunning is not the same as sweeping.  We must remember that it would only have taken the equivalent of roughly half the population of Erie, Pennsylvania -- spread across only three swing states -- to turn Hillary Clinton's popular vote victory into a win in the Electoral College.

That is not a minor point.  Yes, elections have binary outcomes, and losing is losing.  But acting as if "the voters" en masse repudiated Clinton and the Democrats seriously misses the point.  Acting like you were a big loser makes people think you are a big loser.  More importantly, it makes you think so yourself.

Yet even a sober-minded commentator like Emma Roller approvingly quoted the liberal mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, who faulted the Clinton campaign because "they wanted not just a victory, but a smashing victory — actually, the kind that Donald Trump had."  Clinton might have miscalculated by trying to swing Arizona and Georgia, but Trump did not win big.  He barely eked out a win, and we should not let anyone forget it.

Still, we do need to ask why the election was even close enough for Trump to snake his way to that narrow win.  Was this not a winnable election for the Democrats, and was Trump not the most farcically unqualified and repellent candidate in U.S. presidential history?  Yes, and ohmygod yes.

This means that post-election conversations need to focus on the important lessons from November 8's shocking outcome.  Unfortunately, the leading contender for the new conventional wisdom -- that Democrats focused on "identity politics" rather than real issues -- is both vacuous and dangerous.  It may, in fact, be the single most ridiculous political argument currently on offer.

The most prominent version thus far of the anti-identity politics argument arrived in the opinion section of this past Sunday's New York Times.  A Columbia professor named Mark Lilla argued that "American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing."

Other than offering some snarky and unsupported remarks about liberals being "narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups" and college students being "encouraged to keep this focus on themselves," however, Lilla never actually says why it is such a bad thing to be concerned about the rights of people who have been -- and are being -- discriminated against.

Indeed, even the most overwrought caricatures of campus life from the anti-intellectual right are built upon faulting over-pampered white upper middle class kids for exercising their privilege by caring about things that do not really affect them personally.

After all, the vast majority of college students demonstrating in favor of, say, transgender bathrooms (the favorite example from eye-rolling types like Lilla) are not themselves transgendered.  The people who support Black Lives Matter or who worried about Trump's anti-Muslim hate-mongering or his threats to destroy the lives of millions of Latinos living in America are not being narcissistic or failing to be aware of conditions outside of themselves.

The only point that the anti-identity politics screeds are really making is that liberals supposedly focused on the concerns of the wrong groups of vulnerable Americans.  As I will argue momentarily, that is ultimately also a fatuous argument.  But it is important to emphasize here that the accusation that liberals are only worried about "self-defined groups" is a content-free accusation that can be adapted to any purpose and merely boils down to: "The rest of you liberals are not focused on what I think you should be focused on."

This free-floating indictment of liberals then leads Lilla to make the jaw-droppingly false empirical statement that identity politics "never wins elections — but can lose them."  The entire case against the Clinton campaign, however, has been that she thought that she could reassemble the identity groups that allowed Barack Obama to win two presidential elections.

Of course, because the phrase "identity politics" now stands merely for things that people like Lilla associate with losing elections, he could easily claim that Obama somehow did not engage in identity politics, thus preserving the tautology that liberals in 2016 (but not in 2012 or 2008) were too worried about the wrong people.

The most worrisome part of this argument is how closely it resembles the historic error that Democrats committed after their last epoch-defining loss.  In the aftermath of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection in 1984 (which actually was a landslide), Democrats fatefully accepted Republicans' framing that liberalism was too focused on "special interests."

Like the term identity politics now, blaming Democrats in the 1980's for being a party of special interests also had no actual content.  Yet it served the same purpose, blaming election losses on the idea that protecting and expanding the rights of people is somehow illegitimate.

This false framing is dangerous today for precisely the reason that it was dangerous in the 1980's and 1990's.  Yes, Bill Clinton won twice by bashing labor and ending "welfare as we know it" -- jettisoning those supposedly special interests -- but he did so by adopting the policies that have continued to undermine the lives of the very working class voters who turned against his wife in 2016.

What, after all, was the biggest economic issue that Trump used to bash Hillary Clinton?  Trade agreements, especially the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  I remember well how liberals -- the same liberals who had been accused of being captured by those dreaded special interests -- fought against Bill Clinton's "war room" strategy that resulted in the passage of NAFTA with overwhelming Republican support.

As Monica Potts put it last week, the working class voters who voted for Trump this year apparently blamed Obama (and Hillary Clinton) for "policies they must have known were at least 30 years old—Ronald Reagan–era policies—because that’s how long it’s been since good factory jobs started leaving."

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, completely understood that the Trump base included "people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change."

And it was not as if liberals had not been thinking and writing about this for years.   For example, at least since the beginning of the Great Recession, I have been writing almost obsessively about how economic stagnation could lead to dangerous political possibilities, including the rise of neo-fascist demagogues.

During this year's campaign, I argued that "if there is going to be any hope for political progress in the years ahead, people of good faith will have to learn how to peel off those voters" who, because of their economic pain, are willing to hold their noses and vote for a charlatan like Trump.  Also: "Reaching the good Americans who nonetheless currently support a campaign based on bigotry is one of the keys to future political progress."

It is true that Clinton did not convince enough white working-class voters in the industrial states to vote for her.  Of course, she could have won without them, too, so focusing on this issue is itself indicative of how the post-election conversation is being driven by the choice -- and it is a choice -- to say that white people are not getting enough attention.

I have always believed that the concerns of working people (of all races) should be a central pillar of liberal politics, which means that I agree with Randi Weingarten that social issues and class issues should be part of a "both/and" approach to politics.  That, however, is not the same thing as saying that Clinton, or liberals more generally, care too much about "identity" issues.

After all, the biggest mystery not only of 2016 but of the last generation is why the voters who are most harmed by Republican (and Bill Clinton's Republican-lite) policies -- reducing wages, making workplaces less safe, allowing Wall Street to prey on the economically desperate, and so on -- continue to vote for the people who are most responsible for these voters' pain.

Hillary Clinton, with the help of Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing of the party, advocated policies that would at least begin to ease the pain of the vulnerable middle class.  Trump promised to cut taxes for the rich.

It will be useful and interesting to try to understand why these economically vulnerable voters do not express their economic anxiety by supporting politicians who offer them actual policies that could help ease that pain.  Or why they failed to credit Democrats for the very real economic gains of the past seven years (including, at long last, some much-needed increases in workers' incomes).

But the idea that Clinton and the Democrats did not offer -- or did not campaign on -- bread-and-butter issues is simply to engage in 20/20 hindsight.  "Who didn't vote for her?  White working people?  OK, then obviously she misallocated her time between social and economic issues."  Brilliant.

And it is not just Clinton herself who advocated policies that would help those Trump voters.  David Leonhardt's recent column describing the successful policies of a progressive Democratic governor in Delaware shows how liberals have been able to run on policies that are focused on economic improvement for all, and to be successful when the voters have given them a chance.

When Clinton's win looked like a lock, my concern was that the Republicans' continued obstruction for the next four years would continue the economic stagnation that has caused working class people paradoxically to reward Republicans.  My concern most definitely was not that Clinton and the Democrats did not have pro-worker policy ideas.

It is now possible that Trump and the Republicans will go for broke with their regressive policies, badly overplaying their hands and then being blamed when wages do not go up, when more and more people lose access to health care, and when the people who do work in factories are exposed to poisons and other hazards in the name of deregulation.

If that happens, and if it is still possible for Democrat-leaning voters to vote, then the Democrats' actual liberal policy ideas will allow them to take power back from Trump and the Republicans.  It is a harmful diversion, however, to fault Democrats for caring about social issues.  It is simply not necessary to abandon minorities and other vulnerable groups in order to win.

6 comments:

egarber said...

A few random thoughts:

1. I thought the same exact thing when I saw the column you referenced – in that whatever shortcomings Democrats suffered, it wasn’t because focusing on inclusion was the wrong approach. Perhaps a more muscular message about *economic* inclusion is in order, but the theme itself is and should be foundational.

2. Those rust belt jobs aren’t coming back, pure and simple. It’s just not the way the modern economy works, given advancements in technology, automation and unavoidable global trends. So if that’s the success metric – “bringing back the way it used to be” – the new president and congress are already running uphill.

3. The real question about the rust belt shouldn’t be, “how can we bring those jobs back?” Instead it’s, “how does the rust belt need to evolve economically in 2016 and beyond?”

4. The corollary question to (3) becomes this: Is Trump merely a vessel for conventional Republican orthodoxy, or is he more like an independent who simply rode in via established machinery? If it’s the latter, he has a chance to make modern investments in the workforce – infrastructure, training, heavier trade reciprocity, etc.** And that could result in moving the rust belt and other regions forward through demand-side growth. But if it’s the former, it could be an ugly enterprise, because the traditional Republican platform runs exactly in the other direction. I’m thinking few rust belt voters supported Trump hoping for a return to trickle-down policies.

** In doing so, he would likely have substantial Democratic congressional support, which would certainly be a new political dynamic.

David Ricardo said...

This post is emblematic of Democrats who think only at the Presidential level and do not recognize the near total collapse of the Democratic party.

Yes the Presidential election was won by Ms. Clinton with respect to the popular vote, and the electoral vote was very narrow by historical standards, but this sentence in the post,

“Part of the problem is that people are acting as if Trump won big. We evidently need to remind ourselves that stunning is not the same as sweeping.”

is simply not true if one means ‘Republicans’ for the word Trump and recognizes the devastating and sweeping loss the Republicans have handed the Democrats not just in 2016, but in 2014 and 2010. Republicans won big in 2016. Republicans swept in 2016.

And then there is this

“If Trump and the Republicans do not succeed in turning future elections into shams”

Wow, where has Mr. Buchanan and those who share that thought been for the last 8 years? Have they not seen the voter suppression, the gerrymandering and the rest of the Republican lies, distortions and outright manipulation of the democratic process? Citizens United anyone? Between dark money, phony voter ID laws, voter intimidation, lack of poll resources in Democratic areas and a whole bunch of other stuff, guess what, elections are turning into shams, in fact they are just about there.

And finally there is this.

“if liberals and others who opposed Trump can find their way to a winning political strategy, then the future will not be as bleak as it currently appears to be.”

Well strategy for the Senate has been doomed since the Constitution apportioned two senators to each state. Strategy for the House requires Democrats to organize at the state and local level, something they are so incapable of doing that today Republicans control more state houses than they have since the 1920’s.

So maybe Republicans will pull a Nixon or a George W. Bush and be so unpopular and incompetent that the election will go to the Democrats by default. Or maybe after the 2018 midterms Republicans will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and sufficient control of the states to gerrymander for the next decade, putting Democratic hopes off until 2032. Not hard to tell which of those outcomes is more likely.

keren manzo said...




Я здесь, чтобы дать показания о том, как я вернулся мой муж, мы поженились уже более 9 лет и получили двое детей. вещь шли хорошо с нами, и мы всегда рады. пока в один прекрасный день мой муж начал вести себя таким образом, я не мог понять, я был очень смущен тем, как он относиться ко мне и детям. в конце этого месяца он не пришел домой, и он позвонил мне, что он хочет развода, я спросил его, что я сделал не так, чтобы заслужить это от него, все, что он говорил, что он хочет развода, что он меня ненавидеть и не хотят видеть меня снова в своей жизни, я сошел с ума, а также разочарование не знают, что делать, я был болен в течение более 2-х недель из-за развода. Я люблю его так много, что он был для меня все без него моя жизнь неполна. я сказал моей сестре, и она сказала мне, чтобы связаться с заклинателя, я никогда не верю во все это заклинаниями вещи. я просто хочу попробовать, если что-то выйдет из него. я связался (Dr.azukasolutionhome@gmail.com~~dobj) для возвращения моего мужа ко мне, они сказали мне, что мой муж был взят другой женщиной, что она заценил на него, поэтому он ненавидит меня, а также хотят, чтобы мы развестись. Затем они сказали мне, что они должны околдовать его, что заставит его вернуться ко мне и детей, они отлиты заклинание и через 1 неделю мой муж позвонил мне, и он сказал мне, что я должен простить его, он начал извиняться по телефону и сказал, что он до сих пор живет со мной, что он не знал, что случилось с ним, что он оставил меня. это было заклинание, что он традиционное заклинание больницы отлиты на него, что сделает его возвращение ко мне сегодня, я и моя семья теперь счастливы снова сегодня. спасибо доктору Azuka за то, что вы сделали для меня, я не был бы ничего, если сегодня не для вашего большого заклинания. я хочу, чтобы вы мои друзья, которые проходят через все такого рода любви проблема возвращения своего мужа, жену или бывшего друга и подругу, чтобы связаться с Dr.azukasolutionhome@gmail.com~~dobj .or позвонить +2348132777335 веб-сайт HTTP: // reallyrealspellcasters. blogspot.com, и вы увидите, что ваша проблема будет решена без каких-либо задержек.

keren manzo said...

i am here to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for more than 9 years and have gotten two kids. thing were going well with us and we are always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treat me and the kids. later that month he did not come home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted ( Dr.azukasolutionhome@gmail.com ) for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he traditional spell hospital casted on him that make him comeback to me today,me and my family are now happy again today. thank you Dr Azuka for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact Dr.azukasolutionhome@gmail.com .or call +2348132777335 web site http://reallyrealspellcasters.blogspot.com and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay.

Shag from Brookline said...

I think it loses something in the translation.

Joe said...

calling Bill Murray