The "blue-collar" white male problem

There's been a lot of worry (or hope) among different factions of the US Democratic Party's blog presence about strategies for reframing or refocusing the party's image among voters that might help them escape from their apparent geographical handicap in US presidential elections.  It is often remarked that the geographical problem masks a deeper problem, which is a gender problem: in parts of the country the "white male" vote dominates to make the Republicans win.  Hence the angst: should Democrats soft-pedal the feminist and minority issues that are supposed to distinguish them from the Republicans? 

I would argue that this is a hole into which the Democrats themselves have dug, assuming that the Democrats do have a white male electoral problem that is seriously impeding their ability to win what should have been, in a sane world, a much easier contest than it was.  Here's what happened: the Democrats, to their credit, became known as the home of civil rights and feminism in mainstream US politics, and this is perceived as, rightly or wrongly, costing white males some opportunities that they used to have.  (If so, probably rightly, since discrimination meant they had greater access to them.)  At the same time, however, the Democrats eventually started to embrace free trade dogmas, whose material effects have been to remove a lot of jobs disproportionately held by white males in manufacturing and so on to other countries.

So not only has the mythical average US white man lost some opportunity due to discrimination-correction, he has lost opportunity to Mr. Wang and Mr. Lopez and Mr. Bhavan.   And this has made him feel undermined at home and at work, in one way or another.  And what the Democrats collectively forgot is that if one is going to pursue such policies, one has to let the losers (even if, perhaps, rightful losers with regard to affirmative action, etc) at least perceive they are being compensated or given some way to save face.   Now I would oppose measures that undermined the correction of discrimination...but even on the trade front, none of the promised cushions or benefits of free trade seem to be playing out.  Wages are stagnant, unemployment undercounted, benefits shrinking...

Obviously, this is a major opportunity for the Republicans.  It's an opportunity for them to appear to be on the side of the white male in something.  It allows them to say, "They undermine you in your home, they hate your sexuality, they hate what you want for your children, they hate the fact that you aspire to live like your father and grandfather, they give your opportunities to the lazy underclasses and encourage your wives to leave you, ..." and other such noxious whispers.  None of this really returns the sense of opportunity to this segment of the US population the (in particular) "blue-collar" white male.   In fact, the Republicans give away the farm even more enthusiastically, to rich white males in particular.  But it returns a sense of hope through revenge, and perpetuates the vicious cycle that brings about this malaise in the first place. 

Democrats have invested a lot in economists and abstract economic theories.  But it is high time that they noticed that this isn't working: they shouldn't have to start talking about sacrificing social justice, feminism, etc. on the altar of stopping Bush et al.  If they do, then they've made a terrible mistake somewhere else. The compensatory policies that the rank-and-file supports will never be passed...because of the politics and interests behind those who most strongly benefit from free trade in the first place.  But it may be too late to extricate the US from this mess.

Comments

[Mustafa Hirji]

I'm not sure it's quite so underhanded. The "whispering" about helping white males does go on in some places, but not everywhere. In many cases I think it's just co-incidental that ideological opposition to affirmative action and pragmatic support (based on polling) support of free trade results in the Republicans (allegedly—I haven't seen polls that show this is actually why they receive more while male votes) winning more white male voters.

That being said, I agree with you on the Democrats weak regard for principle and unwillingness to try and argue that they are right.

- Mustafa Hirji