Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
September 8, 2008 10:29 AM
Trampling Working-Class Voters With the Professional Ideal
To start this post, let's first stipulate that the Republican Party of artistocrat George W. Bush labeling "elitist" the Democratic Party of up-from-the-bootstraps Barack Obamais about the silliest, most intelligence-insulting frame ever attempted by a major political party in contemporary American history. But let's also consider the very important point in this fascinating article by Aziz Rana in N+1 magazine.
Rana suggests that the reason Obama - and Democrats in general - have had trouble with working-class voters has to do with the underlying assumptions in their most favorite contemporary narrative - you know, the ones about people working hard, going to college and becoming high-paid professionals. That's Obama's whole life story, and the story that countless Democratic politicians tell as their version of "The American Dream."
The problem is that's not the only American Dream.
There's also a long history of the dream being one of making a living and - just as important - attaining social status through farming, small-business development and factory work. That is, a dream whereby the aspiration is not to emerge from blue-collar-dom into the professional class, but to achieve the dream WITHIN blue-collar-dom:
"Three earlier accounts of the American dream not only survived but were real competitors [to professionalism] for social preeminence. In Thomas Jefferson's founding republican vision, yeoman farmers were 'the most valuable citizens...the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous,...tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interest by the most lasting bonds.' To this Jeffersonian vision of 'the cultivators of the earth,' a rapidly urbanizing nineteenth century added the small-business owner and the unionized industrial worker...These three versions of the American dream each still constituted a viable route to meaningful political and social life."
The problem is that over time, our political culture has promoted just "the professional ideal, which values only certain types of work and thus implicitly disdains the rest." That phenomenon hasn't happened because of Obama (obviously). It is due to many factors. A big one, for instance, is a media dominated by millionaire pundits and commentators who regularly bill their white-collar professional path as the only respectable career trajectory - and one that is supposedly open to everyone (when, of course, it isn't). Another is an activist political class dominated by adherents to and products of that professional American Dream - an activist class, in other words, that is largely run by those who have no connection to, appreciation of (and this is the most critical one) or belief in that working-class American Dream.
However, Obama's own personal story, his rhetoric and the DLC-ish, Third Way-esque posture of Democrats when they address economic issues undeniably reinforces the image that the party, indeed, subscribes ONLY to this professional ideal of the American Dream - one that inherently looks down on blue-collar America because "it is an inherently exclusive ideal, structured around a divide between those engaged in high-status work and those confined to task execution."
What references to blue-collar America that are typically made by Democrats are those that hearken back to an earlier "Golden Age" - rather than those implying that blue-collar America remains a vibrant, honorable and important part of our country - beyond its historical hagiographic value in sepia-toned campaign ads. Those who have chosen blue-collar work are not to be mourned over as those who tragically failed in their supposed real goal of becoming a lawyer, nor are they to be celebrated for their quaintness - they are to be held up as equally as economically valuable, culturally important and worthy of political power as the white-collar crowd that preens around with a hubristic air of entitlement and superiority.
Here's the real crux:
"The professional and educational meritocracy justifies a basic hierarchy in which only those with professional status wield political and economic power [and] Barack Obama's political ascent reiterates the current dominance of the professional ethic...From 1932 until 1968, the Democratic Party rested on two descriptions of American life--the American dream as embodied by the rural farmer and the industrial worker. It gained sustenance from a respect for these accounts of middle-class achievement, economic independence, and democratic inclusion. Today's party, however, has given up on establishing new forms of solidarity for nonprofessional citizens. All it has to offer is a lose-lose proposition: join the competition for professional status and cultural privilege at a severe disadvantage, or don't join it at all. The party holds on to the social programs of the past, but in ever more truncated form. It presents a politics of consensus while ignoring the fact of basic division...If Obama hopes to save his party and to address the interests and experiences of working-class citizens, he will have to challenge the hegemony of the professional and with it the closing of the American dream."
I disagree with Rana in ascribing any kind of blame to Obama for living the life he lived, and having the success he's had. Obama should be proud of that story, and talk about it often. I also disagree with Rana in the either/or proposition that suggests you either voice the professional American Dream, or you voice the blue-collar American Dream. I actually think progressives can walk and chew gum at the same time by voicing both. And, of course, Obama's trouble with working-class voters is at least partially due to America's persistent struggle to be comfortable with African American (and other minority) political leaders.
All of that said, I agree that Obama's (and the Democratic Party's) insistence on avoiding major issues that raise class conflict (like, say, trade reform or confronting corporate power) is a product of a fealty to the professional American Dream. I mean, as I noted in an earlier newspaper column, here we have a Democratic Party that could skewer John McCain on the class-based issue of NAFTA - and there has been almost complete silence on that set of issues since the Democratic primary.
And let's be clear: it's not just avoidance and silence, either. It's often times more overt, like when every Democratic politician has to preface any vaguely populist declaration about trade and outsourcing by saying they aren't a "protectionist." What they are really asserting when they say that is that they believe protecting blue-collar jobs isn't really all that desirable, because they believe Americans think blue-collar work isn't really a desirable ends - that if anything, Americans see factory, small-business and agriculture jobs as merely a means to a white-collar professional ends.
But that's not the way working-class America sees the world, says Rana - and says American history. And until Democrats realize that - until they present an agenda that proves they truly believe there is value in the non-professional path - they will struggle to win over working-class voters drawn to the the GOP's culturally populist appeals.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- "Center-Right Nation" Meme On Tape
- "Center-Right Nation" - Election Day Watch
- Promoting the Guy Whose Lies Boosted Ratings & Killed Thousands
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Mark Penn Edition
- Mandate Watch - Bellwether Races/Initiatives To Watch Below the Presidential Contest
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Doug Schoen Edition
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch
- Writing Lessons
- Court Says Colorado's Katherine Harris Is Violating Federal Law With Voter Purges
- NEWSFLASH: America Doesn't Like Its Jobs Shipped Overseas
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008 -
October 2, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
That is so right-on! That's the silver bullet I think we have been waiting for in so-called "progressive branding." Folks throughout the midwest and the interior west and south are so sick of being told if only they could go to college they would be set when a lot of these folks hardly made it through high-school. Have we forgotten all of the unwed mothers and unplanned young families that cannot afford college or just don't live in a culture that supports spending 3-5 years at school, especially when there's mouths to feed?
Kevin P. Phillips said it best: "The Democrats' biggest problem is that they stopped talking like Woody Guthrie, and started talking like Woody Allen!"
Very interesting article. I think we really need to look at some basic problems with the Democratic Party. For instance three main issues that are hitting working class people.
First the trade issue, which is a truly catastrophic issue for millions of working class Americans, with literally millions of decent working class jobs being lost due to our country's multi-national corporate written trade policies. This is a huge issue for working class Americans, and if you want to vote largely based on this issue, there is really no option if you are voting for a major party. Sure you can say there are some Democrats out in the political wilderness strongly raising the issue, but no one really thinks that the national Democratic Party will do anything substantive about our trade policies or how multi-national's control that policy. In fact, if you consider this a critical issue for you and your family, some of your biggest enemies are Democrats, and it is often surprising for many to find out who they are. A Charlie Rangel and a Sander Levin are the first couple to come to mind, but there are literally at minimum 135 Democrats in Congress, strongly fighting against the working class on this issue, and this is probably an under-count due to the misleading nature of how Congress really votes.
Second the immigration issue. This issue has also hit working class Americans very hard, especially laborers of any kind but not just laborers. It is really a simple supply and demand calculation. If you flood the supply of labor with tens of millions of immigrants, it will literally destroy wages. That is simply a fact. Again if you think this is a crucial issue and think immigration should be regulated and controlled to promote the general welfare of our citizens, the major parties are not an option. Interestingly on this issue you have a strange alliance of corporate politicians and pro-mass immigration groups on the left, that effectively keep any regulation or control of immigration from taking place. In fact, if you are for regulating and controlling immigration you are liable to be labeled a racist of some type by certain Democrats. Working class allies in Congress on this issue are just as likely to be Republicans in the political wilderness, than they are anything, a Tom Tancredo comes to mind.
The third major issue that may have a more detrimental effect on the working class than any other issue is the power of Corporations and there virtual control of our government. The effect of this is far reaching and touches on literally hundreds of issues from new Bankruptcy Laws, reduction and removal of regulations that protect consumers, to reduced Capital Gains taxes, as well as including the two major issues listed above. There once was a time that the Democratic Party was an ally to working Americans on this issue, one just needs to recall Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal and figures such as Harry Hopkins. However, the Democratic Party of today and for almost a full generation now is a party that has surrendered to corporate interests. In fact it is often powerful Democrats who co-sponsor some of the worse pro-corporate and anti-worker legislation. Even in this Presidential election Obama's single top contribution is from employees of Goldman Sachs, the virtual epitome of corporate America.
So here you have three main and critical working class issues where people want action taken, and the Democratic Party is basically a no-show and sometimes worse. In many ways they are the enablers of those who make themselves the adversaries of working and middle class Americans.
Not addressing the issues above I think will be a central reason why the Democrats lose the Presidential Election this year, and what even compounds this is even if they did say they would address these issues head-on, I do not many people would believe them.
Regards,
Very interesting article. I think we really need to look at some basic problems with the Democratic Party. For instance three main issues that are hitting working class people.
First the trade issue, which is a truly catastrophic issue for millions of working class Americans, with literally millions of decent working class jobs being lost due to our country's multi-national corporate written trade policies. This is a huge issue for working class Americans, and if you want to vote largely based on this issue, there is really no option if you are voting for a major party. Sure you can say there are some Democrats out in the political wilderness strongly raising the issue, but no one really thinks that the national Democratic Party will do anything substantive about our trade policies or how multi-national's control that policy. In fact, if you consider this a critical issue for you and your family, some of your biggest enemies are Democrats, and it is often surprising for many to find out who they are. A Charlie Rangel and a Sander Levin are the first couple to come to mind, but there are literally at minimum 135 Democrats in Congress, strongly fighting against the working class on this issue, and this is probably an under-count due to the misleading nature of how Congress really votes.
Second the immigration issue. This issue has also hit working class Americans very hard, especially laborers of any kind but not just laborers. It is really a simple supply and demand calculation. If you flood the supply of labor with tens of millions of immigrants, it will literally destroy wages. That is simply a fact. Again if you think this is a crucial issue and think immigration should be regulated and controlled to promote the general welfare of our citizens, the major parties are not an option. Interestingly on this issue you have a strange alliance of corporate politicians and pro-mass immigration groups on the left, that effectively keep any regulation or control of immigration from taking place. In fact, if you are for regulating and controlling immigration you are liable to be labeled a racist of some type by certain Democrats. Working class allies in Congress on this issue are just as likely to be Republicans in the political wilderness, than they are anything, a Tom Tancredo comes to mind.
The third major issue that may have a more detrimental effect on the working class than any other issue is the power of Corporations and there virtual control of our government. The effect of this is far reaching and touches on literally hundreds of issues from new Bankruptcy Laws, reduction and removal of regulations that protect consumers, to reduced Capital Gains taxes, as well as including the two major issues listed above. There once was a time that the Democratic Party was an ally to working Americans on this issue, one just needs to recall Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal and figures such as Harry Hopkins. However, the Democratic Party of today and for almost a full generation now is a party that has surrendered to corporate interests. In fact it is often powerful Democrats who co-sponsor some of the worse pro-corporate and anti-worker legislation. Even in this Presidential election Obama's single top contribution is from employees of Goldman Sachs, the virtual epitome of corporate America.
So here you have three main and critical working class issues where people want action taken, and the Democratic Party is basically a no-show and sometimes worse. In many ways they are the enablers of those who make themselves the adversaries of working and middle class Americans.
Not addressing the issues above I think will be a central reason why the Democrats lose the Presidential Election this year, and what even compounds this is even if they did say they would address these issues head-on, I do not many people would believe them.
Regards,
Join the Discussion