Why did the white working class abandon the Democrats?
The conventional answer is that Republicans skillfully played the race card.
In the wake of the Civil Rights Act, segregationists like Alabama Gov. George Wallace led Southern whites out of the Democratic Party. Later, Republicans charged Democrats with coddling black “welfare queens” (the term gained traction during Ronald Reagan‘s 1976 presidential campaign), being soft on black crime (George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ads in 1988) and trying to give jobs to less qualified blacks over more qualified whites (the battle over affirmative action).
The bigotry now spewing forth from Donald Trump and several of his Republican rivals is an extension of this old race card, now applied to Mexicans and Muslims — with much the same effect on white working-class voters, who don‘t trust Democrats to be as “tough.”
But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Democrats also abandoned the white working class.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years and in that time scored some important victories for working families — the Affordable Care Act, an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example. But they‘ve done little to change the widening structural imbalances in the economy that have taken a huge toll on the working class.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements, for example, but didn’t provide the millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They also stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class. Clinton and Obama failed to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violated them, or enable workers to form unions with a simple up-or-down vote.
I was there. In 1992, Clinton promised such reform but once elected didn‘t want to spend political capital on it. In 2008, Obama made the same promise (remember the Employee Free Choice Act?) but never acted on it.
Partly as a result, union membership sunk from 22 percent of all workers when Clinton was elected president to fewer than 12 percent today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.
The Obama administration also protected Wall Street from the consequences of the Street‘s gambling addiction through a giant taxpayer-funded bailout, but left millions of underwater homeowners to drown.
Both Clinton and Obama allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify — with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated.
And they turned their backs on campaign finance reform. In 2008, Obama was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon to reject public financing in his primary and general-election campaigns. And he never followed up on his re-election campaign promise to pursue a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to big money in politics.
What happens when you combine free trade, shrinking unions, Wall Street bailouts, growing corporate market power and the abandonment of campaign finance reform? You get an economic structure favoring the wealthy and a political system favoring the powerful, while workers without college degrees suffer declining real wages and dwindling job security.
Why didn’t Democrats tackle the structural problems of the economy — in some cases making them worse? True, they faced increasingly hostile Republican congresses. But they controlled both houses of Congress in the first two years of Clinton and Obama’s administrations.
In part it was because Democrats bought the snake oil of the “suburban swing voter” — so-called “soccer moms” in the 1990s and affluent, politically independent professionals in the 2000s — who supposedly determined electoral outcomes.
Meanwhile, as early as the 1980s, Democrats began drinking from the same campaign funding trough as the Republicans — big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
“Business has to deal with us whether they want to or not” crowed former Democratic Rep. Tony Coelho, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, when in the early ’80s Democrats assumed they‘d continue to run the House for years.
Coelho’s Democrats soon achieved a rough parity with Republicans in contributions from corporate and Wall Street campaign coffers, but it proved a Faustian bargain as big corporations and Wall Street gained increasing influence in the Party.
Nothing in politics is ever final. Democrats could still win back the white working class, putting together a coalition of the working class and poor — of whites, blacks and Latinos.
This would give them the political clout to restructure the economy, rather than enact palliative programs papering over the increasing concentration of wealth and power in America.
But to do this, they’d have to stop obsessing over upper-income suburban swing voters and end their financial dependence on big corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy.
Will they? That’s one of the biggest questions underlying the 2016 elections, and beyond.
By Robert B. Reich
(Tribune Content Agency)
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is the chancellor’s professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. – Ed.
