Social Issues for Me, But Not for Thee
Alan Stewart Carl reminded me of something: upscale voters vote against their economic interests all the time, but for some reason Democrats don’t seem to get out of whack about that.
Like Alan’s experience in Washington, living in Minneapolis, I see a whole bunch of liberal bumper stickers on ending the war in Iraq, abortion rights, gay rights and the like. These are all social issues and they wear their positions proudly. There is nothing wrong with that. Social issues do have a place in politics. I mean if they weren’t important, as a black man, I would still face legal segregation and as gay man, I would have to live in the closet. What I think is wrong here is that there is a bit of double standard going on. Why is someone who supports gun rights seen as deluded, but someone who wants to ban handguns seens as a hero by the same party?
The fact is, working class whites are not a simple or simplistic group. Instead of treating them as subjects to be studied, the Democrats really need to try to understand them and listen to them. More importantly they need to be empathetic to their lives. The reason the GOP has been able to woo this group is because , for better or worse, they can speak in that empathic language that connects with them.
I remember listening to a radio story on Minnesota Public Radio chatting with former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro about her 1984 campaign. She was meeting with a group of factory workers and trying to figure out why these workers were voting against their interests for Reagan. The answer was that “he makes us feel good.”
Ferraro didn’t understand that. Reagan was able to appeal to people’s emotions. He could talk about America’s greatness and link to this group’s belief in patriotism. That allowed him to have a opening with the working class.
The Democrats have never really understood that the working class are not simplistic robots, but complex beings. I should say, most Democrats because there was one who did get it and he was able to carry that to the White House, twice.
We laugh now when we think back to 1992 and Bill Clinton saying that he “felt their pain.” But the fact is, it worked. He identified with the working class, he didn’t try to talk down to them. He was able to connect his humble beginnings with autoworkers and steelworkers. He was able win several states that had been in the Republican camp.
Dan Schnur says is best:
rather than diminish these cultural beliefs as a byproduct of economic discomfort, a more experienced and open-minded candidate would recognize and respect the foundations on which these values are based.
There are some other good articles on the “bitter” gaffe. These include, Michael Lind and David Paul Kuhn.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “Social Issues for Me, But Not for Thee”
The problem is that liberals and Democrats have ceded words and phrases like Religion, Family Values, Tough on Defense, and even Liberal to the right wing. It's been effective. You can hardly think of those words in a political context and not immediately conjure up good things for Republicans and bad things for Democrats.
First, I guess I have to apologize because I am an elitist. I value people by their contribution to the work at hand. In the case of a democracy, however, that includes just about everyone–at least if they are willing to take their civic role seriously–because the whole point is to give voice to the “people” and that means all the people.
But I'm trying to reconcile two comments made in the post. First:
“The reason the GOP has been able to woo this group is because, for better or worse, they can speak in that empathic language that connects with them.”
and, second:
“The Democrats have never really understood that the working class are not simplistic robots, but complex beings.”
They (you know, the working class) are complex beings who respond to empathic language (rather than policy positions?). To me, it seems the author is saying that Democrats have condescended to the “working class” by treating them as simplistic robots instead of done the smart thing and condescended to them by treating them like emotionally driven simpletonsl. This attitude is again summed up in this quote:
“We laugh now when we think back to 1992 and Bill Clinton saying that he “felt their pain.” But the fact is, it worked. He identified with the working class, he didn’t try to talk down to them.”
What worked? The fact that he said he felt their pain. That's not identifying with them, that's, at best, understanding their plight and forming policies around them, and, at worst, typical pandering.
Let's all (working class and those other classes) start taking the job of electing leaders a little more seriously, shall we?
A whole lot of separate issues here,.
As to upscale voters voting against their economic interest, the rich can afford to be be idealistic without actually needing to rub elbows with the great unwashed. They don't risk financial ruin by doing so, and it makes them feel good about themselves.
It's different for the financially insecure. They really need to vote for their pocket book. Some, however, don't, because they identifiy with the rich and famous, like movie stars, and feel good about themselves that way.
I heartily dislike Reagan's brand of inspiration. It convinces people they can live on thin air, hope and pride being the compensation. That's using people.
I guess I am elitist, because connecting with people shouln't mean that you adopt all their mores. A good leader educates as he leads; he doesn't pander.or sink to te lowest common denominator for votes.;
Are the rich really voting against their own economic interests? For example, who really pays for all those emergency room visits by the uninsured?