Yves here. While this article is accurate in defining a path that the Democrats could take to shore up their fading popularity, author Sean Mason does not appear to sufficiently appreciate that the Democrats decided to throw the working class over the side decades ago. One can point to different turning points, some in the 1960s (with the new found enthusiasm for the growth of well educated professionals), the 1980s, or at the very latest, Bill Clinton, who repeatedly threw lower-income voters under the bus, with measures like “ending welfare as we know it,” and his crime bill that intensified US mass incarceration. Let us also not forget that we have the great American heroine, Monica Lewinsky, to thank for Clinton not being able to pursue Social Security “reform” due to the scandal over his affair with her putting his Administration on the back foot.
Admittedly, the press and punditocracy have done a good job of selling the bogus idea that better social safety nets and labor protections are not winners with voters. As reader Richard Kline wrote in 2012 in Progressively Losing:
…let’s dispense with several basic misconceptions regarding why progressives are presently so unsuccessful.
“Progressive goals are not popular.” Even with the systematically distorted polling data of the present, this is demonstrably untrue. Inexpensive health care, progressive taxation, educational scholarship funding, curtailment of foreign wars, environmental protection among others never fail to command majority support. It is difficult to think of a major progressive policy which commands less than a plurality. This situation is one reason for the lazy reliance upon electioneering by progressives, they know that their issues are popular, in principle at least. Rather childishly, they just want a show of hands then, as if that is what goes on really in elections…
“America is a conservative society.” That is demonstrably untrue on any historical analysis. Like the other points here, it is a meme invented and spread by the right wing itself. There are three grains of truth in the contention, however.
More than some West European derived socio-cultures, there is an initial value placed in Christian profession; not faith, profession, and not an enduring one either….This makes the society seem from the outside more Christian, and hence ‘conservative,’ than it is in fact. This has for the majority become the ‘civil religion’ of Bellah, but is in effect a secularized form of Christian pilgrimism; one must profess to belong.
Second, there are specific communities in American culture which are deeply conservative, notably most rural whites. Their society is in fact distinct from the culture of the county as a whole, something they understand but that the majority chooses not to. (This concept is argued, if slightly differently, by David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed, an analysis I endorse and would extend.) The point being that their society in America is conservative, but American society as a whole is liberal if one does a sociological analysis.
Third, American society is not radical because it is deeply suspicious of ‘combinations,’ cabals, cliques, or factions who combine to advance their own interests as distinct from the broader public interest. There are deep socio-historical roots for this antipathy to faction, but they are real. One consequence of this, though, is that American society as a whole has generally been hostile to organized labor as a ‘special interest.’ American society also has a bedrock attachment to personal property and personal liberty—essential liberal values, one might add, not conservative ones—which impede any advocacy of leveling or uniformitariansim; i.e. liberty always trumps equality. The flip side here, though, is that Americans are just as suspicious of ‘sections,’ ‘trusts,’ ‘banksters,’ and oligarchs if they see them as an organized, self-interested force. This distrust is not a conservative preference.
An issue for those seeking economic justice, as Sanders’ presidential bids and now the Mamdani mayoral campaign attest, is that a policy program that is genuinely soft s socialist, as in old-style European democratic socialist, elicits extremely aggressive pushback from the moneyed classes, not just the billionaires who have come to dominate political donations, but also the so-called professional managerial class which has become a strong, arguably a driving force, in the Democratic party.
Perhaps I am lacking in imagination, but I don’t see how Team Dem can hang on to most of its upper income, 1% and 0.1% voters and seriously push for policies that will make a big difference to the working class. Yawning income inequality had greatly widened the gap between their interests. The central role of money in politics means the Democrats won’t abandon their established donors.
However, what this article points to is more concerted efforts to promise things they won’t deliver. It was a winning strategy historically. It worked for Trump. So expect an effort to craft a new improved version of tired, pandering policies.
By Sean Mason, a data scientist and research associate at the Center for Working-Class Politics. His research focuses on analyzing large datasets to understand the appeal of progressive economic policies across demographic groups. Originally published at Common Dreams
The Democratic Party has significant work to do if it hopes to bounce back from its 2024 electoral defeat. Making inroads with the working class is the only way possible, and a new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics and Jacobin shows that economic populism is the best path to bring them back into the party.
The Democratic Party lost big in 2024, badly enough to raise the question: Where are the votes they need to win going to come from now, especially in purple states and districts? Major demographic groups, some of which were mainstays of the Democratic Party in the past, swung to the GOP, especially Latino men and even a significant number of Black men.
By the time of the 2024 election, the Democratic Party had firmly committed to its strategy of appealing to suburban moderates at the cost of blue-collar voters. Back in 2016, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) famously said, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Fast forward to 2025 and the Democratic Party’s options for remaining competitive in swing districts seem more limited than ever. Is it too late for the party to turn back to the blue-collar voters it left behind years ago?
Even more surprising, support for a millionaire’s tax—part of Mamdani’s campaign but not his challenger Andrew Cuomo’s—was 44% among working-class 2020 Trump voters.
Our new report, which analyzes responses to 128 survey questions from gold standard academic surveys, finds that championing progressive economic policies can reverse the exodus of blue-collar voters from the party. It can also help us understand why those policies resonate most with working class voters.
Two key findings prove the potential of leaning more heavily into economic populism. First, contrary to what many might expect, the working class has become both more progressive on economic issues and less conservative on social issues in recent decades. From abortion and gun control to gay rights and views on racial inequality, the working class today is, if anything, more progressive than the working class that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008.
What keeps this leftward shift from being a common part of narratives that describe the working class, however, is that the upper and middle classes have moved left at an even faster rate over the same time period, making it seem like working class voters have become more conservative over that time.
Second, relative to the middle and upper classes, economic populist policies resonate more with working-class voters, while socially progressive policies resonate less. While our first finding means that the working class is still within reach of the Democratic Party, the second makes clear that campaigns centered on economically progressive policies maximize their chances of winning working-class votes. Our report shows the overwhelming popularity of a host of economic populist policies. Increasing the minimum wage, increasing government spending on healthcare and social security, protecting jobs with import limits, and spending more on the poor are all examples of policies that we found resonate with an overwhelming majority of the working class.
Our analysis challenges oft-repeated stereotypes about the supposed conservative drift of the working-class. For example, there are many who seem certain that the economic policies that helped propel Zohran Mamdani to victory in New York City’s recent Democratic mayoral primary would be disastrous outside of the city’s liberal bubble.
That conventional wisdom doesn’t hold up in polling. For example, we found that about 1 out of every 5 working-class people who voted for President Donald Trump in 2020 also favored a four-policy package that included increasing income taxes on million-dollar-per-year earners, federal spending on public schools, federal spending on social security, and the federal minimum wage. Even more surprising, support for a millionaire’s tax—part of Mamdani’s campaign but not his challenger Andrew Cuomo’s—was 44% among working-class 2020 Trump voters. This is only one example, but we’ve identified quite a few ways Democrats can appeal to working-class voters without sacrificing a strong economic program.
Our analysis shows that winning back working class votes from the GOP is still possible. And doing so does not require abandoning the bedrock principles of the Democratic Party by championing regressive social policies. It does, however, require leading with bread-and-butter economic policies that are overwhelmingly popular with working-class voters. The potential for the Democratic party to win back the support it needs to turn the tide on Trumpism is clear from our report. Let’s hope the Democrats pay attention.
What keeps this leftward shift from being a common part of narratives that describe the working class, however, is that the upper and middle classes have moved left at an even faster rate over the same time period, making it seem like working class voters have become more conservative over that time.
This bit of linguistic gymnastics scores a 10 at the meritocracy olympics.
I guess if you’re a republican and your martini has a glance at reagan in it then sure, you’ve moved left…
well put
This phenomenon is exactly what Musa al-Gharbi describes in We Have Never Been Woke.
“Left” has essentially been redefined to include only performative action on social issues the oligarchs don’t care about.
aye! and that redefinition has been one of the most bipartisan things in history.
i live in a very red place…inasmuch as folks are cognizant of politics, etc, at all…and often overhear(mostly older ) folkls parroting trump, et alia about whatever dastardly thing the Far Left has done recently…like all things woke and dei and trans and a bunch of other crap recycled from Reagan Times…all of which are definitely NOT Of The Left.
none of it has to do with economic reality, nor the actual lived experience of non-rich/non-pmc people.
i dontdo so much any more…but it’s rather easy to counter this nonsense, given the right set and setting…like if its one on one, and unhurried….and with no visible weaponry.
but most of the time, i just dont bother, any more.
its become tiresome.
My two cents.
First, better messaging that acknowledges people and not just classes, in language that they don’t just reject or ignore. Don’t talk down or presume that they’ll do as they are told. People can read and watch and learn, even with agency, what a concept! Try authenticity, not manufactured focus group bulls**t.
Second, tell pols to STFU and not blurt out stupidities that get used against their purported cause. Cases in point are the deplorables, bitter clingers and other Upper West Side or Inside the Beltway articles of faith. In the sports world, that is providing locker room bulletin board material for team members to read for more motivation to defeat the opponent.
I do not think that the Democrats are capable of winning back support as they seem to virally hate doing anything for ordinary Americans, even though doing so would get their votes. As an example and using a link from another post, the Biden regime blew $42 billion to connect Americans with broadband and after four years not a single household had been connected. Here is why-
https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1905591976876990670
It would have been a vote winner but they could not bring themselves to do it.Same with another program to set up recharging stations for EVs that spent a boatload of cash and delivered virtually nothing. And until they can break this mind set and deliver concrete material benefits to ordinary Americans they will never succeed.
The cash deliveries were to all the right money launderees. Audit, shmaudit.
As usual, the Rev Kev says it all.
Really, it ain’t that complicated. If Kamala, and her dreary campaign consultants had made Universal Healthcare a principal issue in the last election, we wouldn’t have this catastrophe we are now dealing with. In the so-called “socialist” countries, e.g. Norway, et.al., bankruptcy due to medical bills is unheard of. And if Americans got a taste for affordable healthcare, free college education wouldn’t be far behind. But the DNC is nothing more than Republican-light, so we can all hold our collective breath waiting for reform.
So so true. She didn’t even have to deliver on Medicare for All, but simply pretend she was for it–just as she had done when she ran on it four years earlier, of course with total cynicism. Instead, her handlers couldn’t stand the idea and forced her to come out and formerly renounced it. Too scary to even have decent ideas floating around out there…..
The underlying assumption is that the US has some sort of democratic line of accountability and legitimacy. Authors need to define terms: what is “democracy”? We all think we know, but what is it exactly? Does the US system offer accountability? Don’t like the Ds? Too bad, whaddya gonna do? Vote R? Ha ha ha, what a cruel joke. You will “vote” for whoever the oligarchy-controlled MassMedia tell you to. When a system does not offer meaningful policy choices, democracy is reduced to an expensive PR stunt. (But very lucrative for the mass media and Elections Inc. industry).
Western academics, “journalists”, pundits etc. all assume that the US has one of the best “democratic” systems in the world. Those “other” countries are “autocratic” or “dictatorships” (e.g. Russia/China/Iran etc.)
When a country flagrantly ignores its own laws, and breaks those still on the books with impunity, how can we speak about the “rule of law” and so-called democracy with a straight face?
Yes I fully agree, the Ds threw the working class under the bus decades ago…I still don’t believe that the US has any genuine democratic accountability. The US system does not offer meaningful choice. We can vote for kleptocracy/genocide/war with a rainbow flag pasted over it, or we can vote for kleptocracy/genocide/war with a stars and bars flag pasted over it. Is that meaningful choice?
The system appears to conveniently divide and distract the plebs into fighting about social/cultural/religious and emotionally-charged issues while the D/R Bipartisan Consensus continue anti-labor policies, warmongering foreign policy, genocide, and kleptocracy. It’s a game of emotional manipulation and psy-ops.
No matter which faction “wins’ the sham elections, the institutional corruption will worsen, and the US will continue to rot. The process has been ongoing for many years. For decades, we have seen D and R Congresses and presidents, yet the institutional corruption worsens, the crimes more brazen.
Genocide is about the worst crime humans can do to each other. So which brand of genocide do we want to vote for?
The first thing folks can do is emerge from the denial phase: the US is offers no democratic choice, its institutions are corrupt, and it is committing crimes on a historical scale. After enough people admit the ugly truth, we can perhaps agree on how to proceed.
Best we can do is abundance.
I’m old enough to recall that the GDP was pronounced dead after the reign of Bush the junior. Is elaboration needed?
The Dem wing of the uniparty will bounce back when enough people deem the GDP more unworthy of holding office than the “alternative.” The Dems will wait this out while tweaking some propaganda. Consultants need to eat.
Doug Macgregor has an article in the American Conservative today drawing parallels between our current elites and the French monarchy on the eve of revolution. If nothing else it is a nice break from invocations of the fall of the Roman empire or Berlin in the 1930s. Still, I would point such commentators to Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast. Broaden their repertoire. Maybe throw in a Cassandra reference for the remaining classicists gathering in a phone booth somewhere.
It’s early fire season here in Socal, time to grab my fiddle.
It will never happen.
That “Democrats could win back the working class with economic populism” isn’t anything new. It’s just like what Lambert used to say about concrete material benefits. The thing is, it’s also like saying “The Republicans could win back college students by embracing the phrase Free Palestine.” Yes they could, but that would only happen under conditions that don’t remotely exist.
It’s special pleading, and frankly I’m tired of listening to it from progressives. It’s been said here thousands of times, the Democrats are where social movements are sent to die, and year after year, decade after decade, campaign cycle after campaign cycle, progressives seem just as determined as ever to prove that it’s true.
Thank you. I hear the author of this article’s pseudonym is Captain Obvious.
Once again, it’s all about the messaging for these people – they can win by “leaning more heavily into to economic populism”. The problem for the Democrat party is that they are devoid of actual economic populists, and cater to their squillionaire donors instead.
In order for the Democrats to work for the benefit of the public, they would have to upset their wealthy donors. Since 2016 in particular, we know that that is not going to happen. So, they have been left with variations of “Look at the other guy…” which is in supposed contrast to the mythical, golden age of the status quo. That was what Biden promised to bring and true to his word, here we are in Cold War 2, the only status quo they know, which with EU help is now a simmering and growing ever more dangerous War.
when i stop moving fer a minnit and peruse the newsfeed…either here, or on X, generally*…i am often reminded of Morpheus’ soliloquy in the first Matrix film…where he says that the fake world is just the Late 90’s on and endless loop.
of course, with the GOP, its the 80’s…
regardless, its still End of History/Groundhog Day.
and remember, Buckley defined his strange version of “conservatism” as “standing athwart history, yelling “Stop!”‘…
and that reminds me of long ago…early Wild Years…and this chick i did Acid. etc with would…as we’re waiting in the apartment for whatever to kick in, would run around and remove the batteries/unplug all the clocks in the place…”hold on…i gotta stop time…”.
it was a necessary part of her hallucinogen experience…and i can still see her rapt concentration while performing this apparently necessary step.
The Democratic Party’s business model is similar to that of the mafia. They essentially act as a protection racket, demanding donations from billionaires in exchange for not targeting them. Their pro-labor stance is merely a tactic to intimidate the wealthy and solicit more donations.
What pro Labor stance? They stopped even pretending a while ago.
America has reached the point where “playing by the rules” is a mugs game. The elites have already made this plain. Their lack of shame at their misdeeds, or even faked shame, signals a basic realignment of the social values of the culture. Considering that money is power in American politics, the system has adopted a pure and simple “might makes right” policy in social relations today.
Seeing the above, it is past time for the Left in America, and I will suggest that a true Left is nascent in the populace now, to stop playing “by the rules” and forge ahead in their own direction. As mentioned above, as long as money is speech and bribery normalized, the system itself is the greatest obstruction to the wellbeing of the nation.
Many will warn that the powerful and wealthy will not cede an inch without a fight.
Then fight it must be. This is an existential struggle and always has been. When people argue with you that blood will flow if real reforms are espoused and fought for, tell them that blood is already flowing. The blood of the poor and the downtrodden is wasted with blithe unconcern. The only effective way to make changes in this dynamic is to “spread the wealth” of hurt and suffering upwards to the ruling castes.
Electoral politics has failed. It is time for direct action.
Stay safe in these perilous times.
The “Left” of the upper and middle classes is based on wilful avoidance of class politics, and is thus not a Left at all.
The results are pretty obvious: pwogwessives got pronouns, Latinx and “Persons giving birth,” while the the Repugs got control of the State.
The democrats have no interest in courting the working class. They abandoned them in 1970 when they were at their strongest, when about 1 in 3 jobs were union, blue collar and manufacturing. A lot has happened since then, and that 1 in 3 has dropped to about 1 in 8, and the class identity that was there then barely exists today. Even if they had an interest, they burned that bridge long ago, and even if they didn’t, and if they could somehow rebuild the trust they pissed away, it would make no sense. And while we’re at it, no more hope and change, no more opportunity economy, and definitely no abundance agenda, which is nothing but a democratic re-branding of the oligarch’s favorite form of capitalism, neoliberalism, but one stripped of the MAGA yokels who brought Trump to power, again.
What we need is political planning that addresses the here and now, and the incredibly important issues we know we will have to face in the near future. The entire republican party has fully prostrated itself to Donald Trump and the oligarchs who own them, so they are utterly incapable of doing what needs to be done. So for that to happen, the good elements within the democratic party will need to rise up, and completely rid the party of its corrupt leadership (including the Clinton’s and the Obama’s), and completely ween itself off of the campaign contributions, bribes and payoffs, coming from the oligarchs, that they are currently addicted to. Nothing good will happen until that happens.
When you think about it from that perspective, Trump throwing the Clintons and the Obamas in jail might be the best thing he could do for the re-emergence of real democracy.
Trump breaking the uniparty consensus on the republican side could open up room on the other side, although I hope the emergent other side will have the sense to abandon all ties to the moribund democratic faction of the uniparty.
Sorry, but criminals prosecuting criminals aint gonna do a damn thing but rearrange the deck chairs while the ship sinking. Real democracy? What does that mean? .
Yes it can be done but not by these dems.
In 2016 if i remember right Bernie went on a fox town hall with a hand picked audience.
He got a standing ovation after he laid out Medicare for all. It was and is a simple idea and is to explain why it’s better for you and and country.
That still gives me hope but I don’t think the Dems will allow a popular vote for president, they will rig the primaries. See Hillary, joe, harris.
This rube will vote my conscience.
By the way, the other obvious lesson here of the Mamdani moment is that the Democrats will NEVER generate any youthful energy without directly challenging the pro-Israel consensus of the party. That was the clear wind in Mamdani’s sails. And without young energy, they can kiss their chances goodbye, period.
I have two kids in their twenties and both they and their friends are so estranged from the Democrats over Gaza that it’s been interesting to watch their general radicalization over all things as a result. They won’t touch the Democrats without some meaningful rejection of Israel–and many of this group are Jewish as well.
Someone running for office somewhere is going to stand up and say: Enough with the AIPAC control of my Democratic colleagues!–and everyone will be shocked at how instant and electric their stardom will be, and how interesting it all gets from there.
The only thing left to do with the Democrats is decide how to demolish the party.
The DSA debates the ‘clean break’ vs. ‘dirty break’. The Democrats cannot be reformed but third parties are getting no-where. So the DSA hand picks socialists that run on the D ballot in the dirty break.
Like a deadly parasite, the DSA prepares the groundwork for a true independent socialist party within the ranks of the Dems. All socialists finally evacuate the sinking ship after a period of time. Its a complicated plan unfortunately and always risk the constant threat of socialists being disarmed and becoming more AOC’s. Its easier getting ballot access and trying to hijack their electoral resources. That’s my interpretation of the dirty break.
In the ‘clean break’, the DSA gives up entirely on supporting candidates registered under the D ballot. This is simple but utterly brutal and difficult. Socialists will have to heroically struggle to win local ballots, just look at the Green Party.
Economic populism? Never with these liberals. The party can only die now. It’s the socialist job to make em’ history sooner.
I personally love the dirty break doctrine even with its many risk. I would take great joy in watching the Democratic party writhe and panic until the socialists burst out of the rib cage like in Alien. A deserved fate.
Sorry. A mobile post and a quick jotting of the idea down. I may not of explained it well.
I used to be a DSA member—for about 25 years.
In the late 2010’s they suddenly became popular among young progressive-types, and their membership exploded. (From negligible to almost negligible!) In the last ballot they sent out for DSA positions, candidates listed their backgrounds and positions. It was all identity, identity, identity. Mostly cultural “left” moral posturing rather than much with economic substance. I decided these were a bunch of college-educated narcissists cosplaying with the label “socialist” for some reason, and I didn’t want anything to do with any of that. I didn’t renew my membership.
I suspect that the party began dismantling the New Deal when the people in the back room refused to let Wallace run as Roosevelt’s running mate.
Both parties choose capital over labor regardless of their rhetoric.
Genocide is proving to be very profitable so both parties are on board
Our socialist darling AOC just voted yes to genocide.
True, you summed it up more succinctly than I did. And MTG knew damn well that the resolution had no chance and the DT would have vetoed it anyway. Just more cynical political pandering and game playing.
“The US is an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery” (Jimmy Carter). But folk aint tryin to hear all that. It’s too disturbing, far easier to go along with the charades