The Evolution of the Democratic Party and Identity Politics

[NewGuardBjj]

Democrats are currently searching for new leadership while trying to figure out where they went wrong. The big idea is that identity politics overtook the party and drowned out its message on wages and working conditions.

I wanted to ask the older posters on this board if that holds true. Was the Democratic Party of the 80s and 90s really more attuned to the working class? How was it different in general?

 

[Gunny]

Democrats are currently searching for new leadership while trying to figure out where they went wrong. The big idea is that identity politics overtook the party and drowned out its message on wages and working conditions.

I wanted to ask the older posters on this board if that holds true. Was the Democratic Party of the 80s and 90s really more attuned to the working class? How was it different in general?

They were definitely more union focused. A couple of things happened in the past few decades. First is that a combination of trade agreements and right to work laws gutted unions, robbing Dems of their natural fundraising base.

Simultaneously, Dems fell in love with the idea that there was this emerging shift in demographics that was going to give them a 100 year majority coalition - but to realize that majority they had to burn out the clock as the country realigned itself. Thus for the last 10-15 years (really ramping up in the last 5) the Dems have been abandoning their working class (re. Union) base and have gone all in on the identity politics angle. Of course, this approach leaves them short of campaign cash so, in what they probably see as an emergency stop gap to make up for the loss, they've simultaneously sold out to the globalist/corporatists who are highly tolerant of SJW type identity politics but don't get along well with working class concerns. Unsurprisingly this new conflict of interest did nothing but accelerate the Dems new found disdain for working families and so here we are...

 

[TheComebackKid]

Dems and the left have been a bunch of race baiting hate mongers as far as I can remember. But it is true that the Dems did focus more on the working class in years past then they've done the past 8 yrs or so.

 

[touchedbyjab]

They were definitely more union focused. A couple of things happened in the past few decades. First is that a combination of trade agreements and right to work laws gutted unions, robbing Dems of their natural fundraising base.

Simultaneously, Dems fell in love with this idea that there was this shift in demographics that was going to give them a 100 year majority coalition - but to realize that they just had to burn out the clock as the country realigned itself. Thus for the last 10-15 years (really ramping up in the last 5) the Dems have all out abandoned their working class (re. Union) base and gone all in on the identity politics angle. Of course, this approach leaves them short of campaign cash so they've simultaneously sold out to the globalist/corporatists who are highly tolerant of SJW type identity politics but don't get along well with working class concerns. Of course, this new conflict of interest did nothing but accelerate the Dems new found disdain for working families and so here we are...

Pretty much this.

It was only recently that the dems went full SJW because they thought it would get them all the votes from the minorities/females. They let the extreme liberal socialists take over the narrative, but working class white people had enough of that shit and now we're here. I used to be a democrat, but they have gone full retard and i've jumped ship.

 

[IppoMakanuchi]

There's always at least one pro-union democratic candidate running for the presidency. They always fall short because they're always protectionist. It's a stupid fucking position not backed by reality.

But you'd have to be a fool to think whoever the democratic nominee is won't be more friendly to unions and union members than their republican counterpart.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think they were more attuned to the working class and unions so much as there were more unions to rely on as a voting bloc. As a political power base, unions are shrinking and their former members still need work.

Unfortunately for the Dem's, they can't stop or reverse the declining union enrollment and so, through no particular fault of their own, they've failed their voting base.

I think it's short-sighted to look at the Trump election in terms of larger political trends, at least in the U.S. Trump is a unique candidate in that he brings a certain economic nostalgia that is difficult to emulate. Probably one of the most erroneous insults directed at Trump during this election (and something I mentioned repeatedly) is the mistake of referring to him as a reality TV star.

Trump represents a heady time of American economic success that makes him very appealing to people who want more American economic success. My parents still have a copy of the Art of the Deal. I've read it. Trump was only a reality star because his brand of economic success was so high that it could carry a tv show. To the best of my knowledge, the GOP does not have another such individual waiting in the wings.

Additionally, we can't ignore the Obama backlash. In this age of social media where nothing ever disappears, the members of the losing party spend their entire time reliving their slights, real or imagined, while psych'ing themselves up for the next election.

I think the GOP has bigger long term issues than the Dem's and Trump's win doesn't change that, it simply delays it. Something that I also said during the campaign - that him winning might actually be worse for the GOP in the long run because they wouldn't address some of their structural issues as the victors.

 

[NewGuardBjj]

I don't think they were more attuned to the working class and unions so much as there were more unions to rely on as a voting bloc. As a political power base, unions are shrinking and their former members still need work.

Unfortunately for the Dem's, they can't stop or reverse the declining union enrollment and so, through no particular fault of their own, they've failed their voting base.

I think it's short-sighted to look at the Trump election in terms of larger political trends, at least in the U.S. Trump is a unique candidate in that he brings a certain economic nostalgia that is difficult to emulate. Probably one of the most erroneous insults directed at Trump during this election (and something I mentioned repeatedly) is the mistake of referring to him as a reality TV star.

Trump represents a heady time of American economic success that makes him very appealing to people who want more American economic success. My parents still have a copy of the Art of the Deal. I've read it. Trump was only a reality star because his brand of economic success was so high that it could carry a tv show. To the best of my knowledge, the GOP does not have another such individual waiting in the wings.

Additionally, we can't ignore the Obama backlash. In this age of social media where nothing ever disappears, the members of the losing party spend their entire time reliving their slights, real or imagined, while psych'ing themselves up for the next election.

I think the GOP has bigger long term issues than the Dem's and Trump's win doesn't change that, it simply delays it. Something that I also said during the campaign - that him winning might actually be worse for the GOP in the long run because they wouldn't address some of their structural issues as the victors.

Great thoughts.

But don't you think Trump could allow the Republican Party to reset and give room for a moderate like Kasich or Romney to grab people's attention? Trump won in part because people really, really wanted to put an emphatic stamp on their backlash to Obama. Now that it's out of their system, and we will inevitably undergo Trump fatigue at some point, the Republican Party can safely shift back to the center.

 

[panamaican]

Great thoughts.

But don't you think Trump could allow the Republican Party to reset and give room for a moderate like Kasich or Romney to grab people's attention? Trump won in part because people really, really wanted to put an emphatic stamp on their backlash to Obama. Now that it's out of their system, and we will inevitably undergo Trump fatigue at some point, the Republican Party can safely shift back to the center.

But they won't do it during these 4 years. And, despite the campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Trump isn't bringing minorities (black, Hispanic, and Asian) and gays into the fold. Hillary lost more minority voters that previous (D) candidates but Trump didn't pick them up. So he did better in terms of margin but not in terms of absolutes.

However, with a victory, Trump and the GOP at large are unlikely to continue the kind of outreach work they started in 2008 and continued right up until 2016. We didn't roll out 2 Hispanics, 1 black guy, 1 woman and a Bush married to a Hispanic wife by accident.

4 years from now the Dem's aren't going to be running Hillary again (unless they're idiots) but we will be running Trump again (it's a long shot that he loses the nomination as the incumbent). And the demographics of the nation will have shifted further. The Obama backlash will have dissipated, the HRC target will be gone and we won't be better set up to take advantage of it.

This has all of the makings of a Pyrrhic victory unless Trump is very different as President than he was during the campaign.

 

[ripskater]

If the democrats want to lose, they'll hire that Islamic politician to lead their party.

 

[ripskater]

The Democratic party needs to jump off the Loony Train of Islam, trannies and black lives matter.

And they need to get back to helping the working middle class.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Democrats are currently searching for new leadership while trying to figure out where they went wrong. The big idea is that identity politics overtook the party and drowned out its message on wages and working conditions.

I wanted to ask the older posters on this board if that holds true. Was the Democratic Party of the 80s and 90s really more attuned to the working class? How was it different in general?

Lots of posters in this thread are really misinformed.

Look at the results of presidential elections between 1968 and 1988. http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

What was happening was a lot of social change (and rapidly rising crime) that had a lot of people freaked out but Democrats embracing it. In 1992, the party nominated a Southerner who, in a very high-profile incident, repudiated toxic left-leaning identity politics and talked about being tough on crime and pushing to reduce debt (which was a legit problem at the time that was, bizarrely, associated with Democrats) while maintaining support from traditionally strong Democratic-leaning blocs. That finally broke the long drought and began a leftward move on economic policy for the country. Obama's win had almost nothing at all to do with identity issues (a little different because there was an ongoing financial crisis and we were fighting an unpopular war). The opposition was driven by identity issues just because he happened to be black and because his policy ideas were so obviously superior. Last year it was a little tougher to craft a resonant economic message precisely because the economy was doing so well (with median wages rising at their fastest-ever rate the previous year), but the focus was still on economic policy for the party. Again, the opposition was driven primarily by identity politics, as Trump didn't have many coherent policy ideas other than that he was going to deregulate finance and energy and cut taxes for rich people.