Follow by Email

Friday, December 9, 2016

Re: [CCDS Members] The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored The Working Class

the author makes some interesting points. But the conclusion (lose lose lose) indicts the central theme, which is defeatist, and wracked with fear. Fear of what?

Many of the Clinton campaign defeat apologies (excusing the inexcusable, defending the indefensible, making fascism appear unbeatable), and the scab Left denials (that there were VITAL, life and death IMPORTANT,  differences between Clinton and the Creep leading to spoiler votes for pointless third party candidates, or sit-out-the-elections Narcissism), have, I believe a common thematic unity. To  keep it in simple, understandable terms: I call it: Fear of Bernie Sanders example. Sanders illustrated exactly how a consistent, uncompromised class line in American politics can garner millions of votes and exercise real power. On the one hand he proved that effective, powerful, winning politics can be engaged without a sellout to ANY billionaire interest. On the other, he proved that such politics can actually govern, effectively,  in ANY environment. The first proof negates the prolific sectarianism on the Left that has over decades led to its electoral, and therefore democratic, irrelevance unless hiding under the protection of an acceptable bourgeois liberal. Not having that protection takes considerable courage. Not surprising that those without a genuine BASE fear to follow Bernie down that path. The second proof is the rush of the deniers away from electoral politics and broad democratic coalitions. 

Now. Candidates that follow Bernie's example will not and cannot be carbon copies of his. They will reflect the particular class democratic consciousness and experiences of their own regions, communities, including unique stamps of their racial, national, ethnic and gender constituencies from which they arise. They may have a different emphasis on a range of issues -- But they will ALL follow the fearlessness, the sincerity, the class solidarity.


On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:17 AM, <> wrote:
Secretary Clinton lost because she was a weak candidate.  She was correctly perceived by many as the candidate preferred by the political establishment, by Wall Street, and by the corporate elite and their mass media.  She lacks charisma and is not an inspiring speaker.  Certainly racism and a pronounced white backlash played a critical role, but a stronger candidate could have overcome that by inspiring more working class support from all racial demographics.  President Obama proved that.  The contention that Clinton made efforts to speak to the working class is less relevant than Clinton's record, her support by elites, and lack of communication skills. Clinton's effort could not make up for the other factors.

In solidarity,
Jonathan Nack
-----Original Message-----
From: Portside Labor
Sent: Dec 7, 2016 6:50 PM
Subject: The Dangerous Myth That Hillary Clinton Ignored The Working Class


Portside Labor



Derek Thompson
December 7, 2016
The Atlantic
The author says Hillary Clinton talked about the working class constantly. She had plans to help coal miners and steelworkers. She had plans to help those getting out of prison get jobs. She promoted clean energy jobs and spoke of the dignity of manufacturing jobs. The author argues that white Trump voters might just have been more interested in his attacks against Muslims and Hispanics.

Perhaps the clearest takeaway for many liberals is that Hillary Clinton lost because she ignored the working class.

In the days after her shocking loss, Democrats complained that Clinton had no jobs agenda. A widely shared essay in The Nation blamed Clinton's "neoliberalism" for abandoning the voters who swung the election. "I come from the white working class," Bernie Sanders said on CBS This Morning, "and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to where I came from."

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration's record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word "job" more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word  "jobs" more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

What's more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation's economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn't lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

Trump's white voters do support the mommy state, but only so long as it's mothering them. Most of them don't seem eager to change Medicare or Social Security, but they're fine with repealing Obamacare and its more diverse pool of 20 million insured people. They're happy for the government to pick winners and losers, so long as beleaguered coal and manufacturing companies are in the winner's circle. Massive deficit-financed spending on infrastructure? Under Obama, that was dangerous government overreach, but under Trump, it's a jobs plan by a guy they know won't let Muslims and Mexicans cut in line to get work renovating highways and airports.

Many liberals—including those who supported Clinton enthusiastically,  those who supported her only grudgingly, and even those who didn't vote—share a vision for America's future. Call it "pluralist social democracy." In other words, most left-of-center people would like the U.S. to move toward a more European-style system of universal health care, subsidized education and childcare, and greater support for those born in poverty or displaced by globalization; that's social democracy. But unlike in many European countries, they also want to see these values combined with a distinctly American flavor of pluralism: support for immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and a celebration of America's multiethnic culture.

After the election, some people called for an end to "identity politics" that promotes niche cultural issues over economic policy. But any reasonable working-class platform requires the advancement of policies that may disproportionately help non-whites. For example, hundreds of thousands of black men stay out of the labor force after being released from prison sentences for non-violent crimes. For them and their families, criminal justice reform is essential economic reform, even if poor whites see it as a distraction from that "real" issues that bedevil the working class, like trade policy.

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

So, the country is wobbling between two extremely different futures: pluralist social democracy on the one hand, and white nativist protectionism on the other. The election's bizarre schism, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Trump winning the electoral college, is a sign of how razor-thin the margin between those dramatically opposed futures is.

Rising diversity isn't going away. Income inequality isn't going away. Support for redistribution isn't going away. For liberals, pluralist social democracy is the project of the future, and any alternative falls somewhere between xenophobic and amoral. But what if the vast majority of white voters who voted for Trump aren't interested in any version of that future, no matter who the messenger is?


Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it.


To unsubscribe, click here.

CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website:

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to

List info and archives:
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:

You are subscribed as:

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.