DU: Do you really want to fight your way into the Republicans' clothes?

At least since Al Smith and FDR, arguably as far back as Andrew Jackson or Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic Party has tried to be party of the little guy, the party of the common man. At least sinc FDR, the Democrats have stood up for average Americans, at least as much and as often as the Republicans have, since then, stood up for the rich, successful, well-connected, and powerful.

But what do I read on DU right now? Crude "humor" pieces aimed at the average people of West Virginia: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5922991

Socio-demographic musings that divide Americans into "Traditionals" - lower income people, "Moderns" -- (money-and-business oriented "middle-to-upper income types") and "Cultural Creatives" ("middle to wealthy".) According to this OP, the "Cultural Creatives" are the rising class, they support Obama, they're hip, they're cool, and they're the future of the Democratic Party http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5921764

And declarations that we don't have to "pander" to the "Clinton Democrats" anymore:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5920614

There is a wide range of opinion, and a great deal of confusion, as to what makes for "left" and "right" or for "liberal" and "conservative." Take a look at the five principles that down-market "conservatives" have to accept, according to that quote:

1)gay marriage 2)sex education 3)government-funded stem-cell research 4)anti-capital punishment 5)gun control.

One thing these principles share in common is that they have NOTHING to do with helping the average man -- they are NOT economic issues, they are social ones. Gay marriage won't help put food on the table. Sex education in schools? I think most people can take it or leave it (probably suspecting it's a little superfluous these days, what with the internet and everything) except for fundies who think it's the work of the devil, and culturally imperialist "liberals" who want to have it mostly for the pleasure of shoving it down the fundies' throats (withot benefit of a dental dam.) Government-funded stem cell research? How about a health-care system that delivers the healthcare we have affordably and consistently to all? Stopping capital punishment? (It's so "uncivilized" -- or at least people tell me when I'm "in London this weekend" (or Tuscany, or Provence, or what have you.)) Gun control?

Look, I myself don't own a gun, and personally I'm not a huge fan of capital punishment. But it's no accident that it is upscale people living safer lives in safer neighborhoods who are willing to throw the electric-chair and the family gun on the ash-heap of history, and that it is downscale people who might actually HAVE a questionable neighbor with a pit-bull or a meth lab who feel more of a need to "cling" to things that offer at least some hope of protection or final justice.

And of course, we've got threads about how the Democrats are now going through "fundamental change" --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5913781

----

There's a great quote out there I'm having no luck googling, about how, since the Civil War or thereabouts, the Democratic and Republican Parties have been like two men in such a close, ferocious, no-holds-barred fight, that what happened in the end was that they gradually, painfully, fought each other out of their clothing into that of the other man. Clearly this happened, in large part (though not entirely) over race. Thus, for example, the old stronghold of the Republican Party, New England, is now the new stronghold of the Democratic Party.

It seems like too many people here are far too comfortable with the idea of fighting our way into one part of the Republican's clothing: they want the Democrats to become the party of the the rich, successful, well-connected, and powerful (especially those "Cultural Creatives.") We'll steal that well-tailored jacket off them! And if the Repukes want to pick up our old work shirt off the floor of battle and put it on, well they're welcome to it, too many people here seem to believe. Let THEM become the party of the little guy, the party of the common man.

Don't look now, but the Republicans already, this year, have gingerly begun to stick their hands into our old work shirt: remember Huckabee? Some of, in fact, a lot of his economic rhetoric was unique in that for the first time a major Republican began to pitch economic populism to the little guy in an old, familiar, Democratic way.

----

We all know about "The Two Americas." We've all heard "the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer." We all have read that for at least the past 10 years, really since the 70s, the real income of average people has remained stagnant. This is all true, but what is happening is that it's NOT just the super-rich who are becoming super-richer: There is a good-sized segment of our society that is getting richer. The upper-middle-class is getting a lot more upper than they used to be. There are a lot more "Cultural Creatives" who get paid huge salaries to design, colorize and sloganize our entertainment/advertising cultural atmosphere on their Mac Airbooks. There are a lot of doctors and lawyers who can afford to pay for their kids' MFAs. And the older, Repuke-type rich can't escape the influence: the trust-fund fruits of their country-club marriages move to Willamsburg to be hipsters.

So I think this is where a lot of the Obama people are coming from: they look around at their world - the world of the top fifth, and see an increasingly over-designed world of growing prosperity, advancing gentrification, and strengthening hipsterfication. They see a world where, suddenly, everyone's eating ceviche and risotto (and arugula) and think, "Yeah, we're on the move, our numbers are growing, our bank accounts are growing, we just don't need the little guy anymore in our Party to win."

That thought IS true in part, but only on the level of certain Congressional districts, or certain states. In places like Orgeon, or the Hudson Valley, Vermont or Santa Fe, rich places are becoming richer AND more "Democratic" all the time.

There's two problems though: MOST people are not part of this upward trend: the little guy's wages are stagnant (if not declining) so the Democrats transitioning into the party of the rich right now, in my humble opinion, causes grave problems for their national Presidential campaigns. And more importantly, it will be a tragedy for the common man if the Democrats abandon him now. Sure, in 20, maybe 30 years, the Republicans might take up the fight for the true economic intrests of the average person. But the average man, right here right now, doesn't have the time or the luxury to wait a generation before they have a champion again.

Think how much harder his life got over just the past one year at the gas-pump and in the supermarket. And THIS is the year the Democrats (or at least far too many of the supporters of Barack Obama) this is the year they want to tell the little guy to shift for himself? Couldn't come at a worse time.

There is nothing that I could add.

Bravo. K&R

1. The first two posts you link to--did you check the profiles? They're even newer 'round these parts than you are. It is not that new people don't have worthwhile things to offer--because they sure as hell do--but that to hold up people who have been Du'ers a couple of months as being somehow representative of all of DU is a little sketchy.

2. The entire last third of your OP is bullshit. From your make-believe about rising incomes, to your MacBook--arugula--Vermont slur, it's all fantasy. And shameful fantasy at that.

I've tried to ratchet down from full-throated rants to more thoughful OPs. Unfortunately, the internet being what it is, as a result, the responses are also ratcheting down in number. :(

/nt

The losing candidate was the most corporate democrat we ever had.

She voted for the bankruptcy bill that is killing a lot of those hard working Americans that she talks about so frequently. A bill written by the banks.

She also voted for a war that put billions in the coffers of the defense industry.

Just because you go into a bar and drink a shot of Whiskey doesn't make you one of us.

It's Karl Rove style campaigning take your opponents strength and your weakness and turn it into your strength and their proposed weakness

Hillary was never ever one of us. She was always in the upper middle class. Trying to rewrite her as the working person's hero didn't work.

I don't know about this "most corporate democrat" stuff; I do know that Hillary and Barack ran on virtually the same platform. It just so happened that Barack's base ended up being African-Americans and upscale Democrats. Because of this, Hillary went hunting where the ducks were -- viz, the non-African-American working class.

What I'm talking about here is what I've seen on DU over the past few days: the upscale Dems here seem to now be more than willing to write off the "Clinton Democrats" along with the "Reagan Democrats" and basically anyone who isn't an up-and-coming "cultural creative" "middle class to wealthy" non-African-American.

In Indiana who was one of 13 children. She was a born again home school educated nice person most of the time. She was constantly ranting about Welfare. Till one day we were talking about taxes and she bragged about how much her dad got back each year. I was perplexed. Her parents were good people but by no means people that should have gotten the taxes back that they got. I then realized it was the child credit. She had 12 brothers and sisters under 18. I kindly pointed to her this was a form of Welfare which made her head spin. I never heard another word about welfare again from her.

The upper middle class democrats aren't against the working class. However the people who are voting on "values" need to make a choice between gay marriage and employment. They fell for it twice. I'm hoping now that we are GE mood we can communicate it clearly to this group in a way that they can understand.

I really wish we had 4 political parties and a prime minister. It would make elections a lot easier in this country.

"blame the working class first." And yes, that is a re-working of an old right-wing attack (Oh Noes) -- remember how they used to say that the Democrats were the "blame America first" crowd? From what I'm seeing on DU right now, far too many Obama supporters are now the new "blame the working class first" crowd.

Blame them for having too many kids. Blame them for being uneducated. Blame them for living their lives in god-forsaken places like Pennsylvania and Kentucky, rather than picking up and moving to NY or LA, the way all self-respecting young people do. Blame them for not swooning over Obama. etc. etc. etc.

Is a mix of an isolated childhood and listening to Rush and Hannity.


What the hell are we supposed to do? I live in PA BTW....we are hardly Kentucky.

And maybe come up with some bolder proposals (Obama and Hillary both fall down here.) Promise us single-payer healtcare. (You can actually make that one an issue of freedom: freeing us from our employers.) How about an FDR-style large-scale public works project? Everyone knows our infrastructure is falling apart: lets rebuild and improve our roads and our bridges, build a new high-speed rail system, even build bike paths (yes, there is a place for some latte liberal enthusiasms). And lets do all this with a strict governmental oversight that will ensure that EVERY person hired to rebuild America in this program is an American or a legal immigrant -- this might help to re-create a new young class of Americans who would actually gain the skills and the ability to make a living wage working outdoors with their hands. Not everyone is built for the college-to-cubicle track.

You might have some ideas along this line yourself. Offer them real economic help: don't just scold them to accept gay marriage if they know what's best for themselves.

Why the bloody hell do you think that this is some kind of an excuse for pushing the 100% pure Repuke "elitist" meme? Of the two corporate candidates, I'll go for the organizer with the biggest small donor base, thankyewvery much. Neither Obama and Clinton are campaigning on universal health care, but one candidate is urging his supporters to stay organized AFTER the elections. That should help grassroots people to pass HR 676--either candidate would sign it, and you know it.

being really honest here. It isn't about blaming them for their lives, social/moral values, or culture. Many of us live those lives and share some of those values. I think you mistakenly fall into the argument that most Obama supporters are of the "elitist" crowd. The problem with that is it's false. You presume that we all sit here and look down our noses at them, because Hillary said so, when the truth is, many of those very people are our moms, sisters, brothers, friends.

That aside, it isn't even about Obama, it is more utter disbelief about how so many people continue to vote against their own economic interests. I mean what in the world will it take for them to wake up to the fact that Republicans keep using wedge issues, distractions like gay marriage bans and "they're gonna' take your guns" to keep them in their economic situations, ignoring the fact that only their rich friends are getting the economic handouts. $10 gas? Time and time again, Republicans use social issues, appealing to their emotions, rather than what makes sense for them.

We can't force them to vote Democratic, only appeal to them, and at some point they do have to take responsibility for their vote. They are after all adults, and they make that choice to vote on issues that will likely never affect them personally because it feels good, or they can vote what makes sense for them, especially economically. It is not disdain, but it is frustration and I feel sorry that they continue to fall for it. I feel worse for the people like some I know who are struggling to make ends meet, for the people losing their homes, for the people who have to choose between medicine and groceries, who have to suffer because people bought George Bush's spiel a second time, even though it was quite clear he didn't give a damn about them after the first 4 years. But phew, at least the terrorists aren't getting them because we didn't elect pansy Kerry. Maybe if they vote for McCain, and we have another 4 or 5 years of this war, and the economic downfall continues, THEN they'll begin to rearrange their voting priorities.

Single-payer healthcare. A massive public works project. Could we re-jigger our agricultural policies to actually encourage food production rather than discourage it?

The answer is NOT to tell them, the Republicans will actively screw you over: us Dems won't go that far: so suck it up, give up your guns, say good-bye to the death penalty and hello to gay marriage, pay over-inflated cigarette taxes (fat taxes coming next) and like it.

I bet you'd have difficulty telling me off the top of your head any substantive economic policy put forward by Barack Obama that differs from those of Hillary Clinton or John McCain in any meaningful way (no googling now!)

To be clear: Barack Obama supports:

NAFTA
WTO
"free trade" in general
Increasing H1B visas
subsidies for agrobusiness and the defense industry
For profit healthcare/insurance industry
War on Drugs/For Profit prison industry

Out of curiosity, which of these policies is in the the economic interest of working Americans? :shrug:

He repeated it word for word, ferchrissakes! I'm not blaming the working class--I'm blaming the Clintons for campaigning as Republicans.

is only getting stronger and more vociferous as each day passes. I shudder to think what the spirit of GD:P will be next Wednesday, after Hillary wins West Virginia. :shrug:

Go Hillary! :woohoo:

Go Hillary! :woohoo: