20 May 2017 — 1036 mdt

Not only are blue-collar whites no longer the center of the progressive coalition, in some circles, they are no longer seen as part of it. In 2016 the Clinton campaign acted on the accepted wisdom that working-class whites were no longer even a part of the coalition. Bill Clinton warned repeatedly that Hillary’s campaign needed to address working-class issues. But these warnings “fell on deaf ears” as he waged “a lonely, one-man war … to appeal to working-class and white rural voters.” His advice was “often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team as a personal vendetta to win back the voters who elected him, from a talented but aging politician who simply refused to accept the new Democratic map,” noted Politico.

Why can’t Democrats just ignore this group and count on their coalition of professional-class whites and minorities to deliver elections? That didn’t work in 2016 and here’s why: the Electoral College gives the white working class outsized political power. The Electoral College was designed to overweight the rural vote— today, that means working-class whites. We’ve all seen the electoral maps that show that vast interior of rural red rimmed by the thin blue lines of the East and West coasts. Unless hipsters move to Iowa, an infuriated rural electorate will continue to hold disproportionate power. For the 112 years of American history prior to the 2000 election, the candidate who won the popular vote also won the Electoral College vote. In the five elections since, two Democratic candidates who won the popular vote have lost the Electoral College. The system is flawed, but it’s the one we have.

The white working class is important not only for strategic but also for ethical reasons. Ideally, no politician should ignore whole swaths of the country. And the left professes to care about diversity and level playing fields. But they can barely look class issues in the eye.

In elections past, none of this mattered, because unions were influential in delivering white working-class votes for Democrats in key states, notably Michigan. But unions’ strength has contracted, from a third of the workforce 50 years ago to 6.4% of the private workforce today. The political impact of unions’ decreased strength cannot be overestimated. And with unions so embattled, they have less money to fund massive get-out-the-vote efforts. In 2016, union leaders openly worried about Trump’s strength even among union members. Most astonishing is that one out of five members of the American Federation of Teachers voted for Trump, despite the Republican assault on teachers’ unions, particularly in Wisconsin. Most of the country’s largest labor unions endorsed Clinton as early as 2015, yet many union members voted for Trump. One article quotes a union member: “Growing up we were very strong Democrats, but the Democrat party left us,” he said, and “the unions have left us, too.” Working-class whites blame not only government but also unions for the loss of good jobs.

Is this just “false consciousness?” Not really. The working class just wants what the professional elite already has: jobs that sustain them in their vision of a middle-class life. “The thing that really gets me is that Democrats try to offer policies (paid sick leave! minimum wage!) that would help the working class,” a friend wrote me right after Trump was elected.

A few days’ paid leave ain’t gonna support a family. Nor is minimum wage. Working-class men aren’t interested in working at McDonald’s for $ 15/hour instead of $9.50. What they want is a job that paves the way to a modest middle-class standard of living. Trump was the first politician in a long time to promise that. Many voters deeply appreciated the fact that at least he understood what they need.