Mar 19th 2016

The Democrats and the Donald

by David Coates

David Coates holds the Worrell Chair in Anglo-American Studies


People of all kinds of political persuasions are rightly horrified by the violence erupting at Trump rallies,[i] and by the demagoguery of the candidate himself.[ii] People of a more progressive predisposition are often equally disturbed by the hold that Donald Trump appears to have on the support of at least sections of the white working class, and by his willingness to consolidate that support by rhetoric that is implicitly racist, misogynistic and anti-Muslim. Commentators often link the two, talking of the anger of a white working class long abandoned by the political elites in both parties that Donald Trump so regularly castigates.

We therefore face three distinctive but linked political phenomena: violence at rallies, reminiscent to some of Germany in the 1930s; white male working-class support for a racist and misogynistic agenda;[iii] and the presence at the head of the Republican presidential pack of a demagogue whose level of personal self-confidence is only matched by the amount of fear which that self-confidence generates in so many of his critics.[iv] Watching this from afar, the London-based Financial Times recently wondered “if America has gone barking mad?” If the answer we make to that question is ultimately to be “no, we have not,” we have to be able to explain to ourselves and to others how this trilogy of horror has actually come into existence.

I

The violence at the rallies has two main immediate sources, both of which ultimately come back to Donald Trump himself. His rhetoric, from the beginning of his campaign, has been inflammatory, divisive and racist[v] – giving legitimate and huge offense to people who are none of those things. And when the bravest of those have tried to register their unease, by demonstrating – almost always initially peacefully – at Trump rallies, they have been met with brutal treatment by Trump’s minders, with that brutality condoned and at times even encouraged from the podium by Trump himself.  We have all seen the video clips now of Trump demeaning hecklers and praising those who “take a swing at them.”[vi]  As even one of his potential supporters put it, when watching the violence unfold: “he could certainly have done things to calm things down, but a lot of his appeal is that he gets people riled up. He stirs people up. It’s hard to stir people up and then at the last possible instant tell them to stop. It’s a momentum heading towards violence.”[vii]  That judgment seems exactly right; and because it is, there can be no doubt about this much at least. Responsibility for the violence is ultimately Donald Trump’s, and his alone.

But that his divisive and inherently racist rhetoric strikes such a deep chord in many of his supporters is not his responsibility alone. Rather, and as Gary Younge among others has correctly emphasized (when claiming that “it’s the Racism, Stupid,”[viii]) here at least the Republican Party is reaping the full harvest of what it has long sown – its “southern strategy” of weaning working-class voters away from the Democratic Party by playing on their fears and by appealing to the worst of their instincts. Drafted in reaction to the hegemony of liberal Democrats in Washington DC in the immediate post-Kennedy years, Nixon’s “southern strategy” was designed to tap into, and reinforce, racist elements in white working-class social attitudes and political sympathies – giving political expression to that which could no longer be publicly named. It was that southern strategy which then consolidated a new and powerful electoral bloc behind Republican Party leadership: an electoral bloc of, on the one side, social conservatives and Protestant evangelicals, and on the other, southern white workers determined not to surrender power, resources or even employment to long-oppressed minorities.

Donald Trump did not create the Republican Party’s southern strategy. Richard Nixon did. Trump simply exploited its full electoral potential by breaking the one cardinal rule that hitherto wrapped that strategy in the political equivalent of Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak. He is actually giving voice to the racist sentiments that the southern strategy both feeds on and fuels – alienating as he does so a party establishment used to playing the game of political correctness while reinforcing (by its policies) the denial of resources to minorities that the racism requires. It is not that Donald Trump is more racist than the Republican Party establishment. It is rather than he is more honest about the racism; and he is winning a certain kind of working class support precisely for that reason. “He tells it as he sees it,” and his supporters applaud him precisely because he does. The Republican establishment may now groan and splutter as the Trump take-over of their party continues apace; but they have only themselves to blame. They created the gap between underlying reality and obfuscating rhetoric on which Donald Trump is now calling them out – and because they did, they richly deserve all the chaos now surrounding them and all the blame that they are currently getting.

II

So what does all this mean for the Democratic Party? What responsibilities fall to it, and what lessons must it learn if it is to meet those responsibilities to the full?

Given the inability of the Republican Party establishment to block the rise of Donald Trump, the responsibility that falls to the Democrats is to put a Democrat in the White House, ideally one that can pull the Senate back into Democratic hands by the electoral power of her/his coat-tails.  The lesson to be learned is that before the Democratic Party can be certain that it will win in that fashion, the political priorities and detailed policies to be pursued must also now change: and they must change because the policies and priorities of the Party prior to the financial crisis of 2008 inadvertently helped make the rise of Donald Trump possible.

III

That last claim may sound counter-intuitive: but sadly it is not. For Donald Trump’s appeal to many of his supporters – particularly his appeal to white working class men – is that he offers something new, something different, something other than politics as usual in Washington DC – and he makes that appeal to a voting bloc that is angry about the prolonged inability of “politics as usual” to address their particular economic and social concerns.[ix] But in order for him to be able to exploit such a gap between a key bloc of voters and the entire political class in Washington DC, that gap itself had already to be in existence. Donald Trump didn’t create the gap. It was there before he launched his presidential bid; and for him now to be able credibly to offer himself as the one person who will bridge it, the leaders of the parties he challenges must already have failed to bridge it before him.

As we have seen, the Republican Party elites failed that bridging exercise by pretending to service working class economic interests and a conservative social agenda, while actually delivering on neither. As Nicholas Kristof recently put it: in part “Republican leaders brought [the Trump phenomena] on themselves. Over the decades they pried open a Pandora’s box, a toxic politics of fear and resentment, sometimes brewed with a tinge of racial animus, and they could never satisfy the unrealistic expectations that they nurtured among supporters.”[x]  But recent Democratic Party elites failed that bridging test too; and they did so by failing to effectively address, over a long period of time, key working-class concerns about employment, job security, employment rights and wages. They did so by making what Thomas Frank recently labelled “a realignment of choice:”[xi] a deliberately adopted shift of focus by Democratic Party elites away from working class-concerns in pursuit of the votes of the affluent. It was this failure – beginning in the 1970s and intensifying through the Reagan and post-Reagan years – which created the electoral opportunity that the Republican Party then seized, and on which Donald Trump is now capitalizing.

The task of Democratic Party leadership in this electoral cycle, therefore, is not simply to stop Donald Trump. It is to find ways of rapidly reversing the erosion of the electoral bonds between a progressive party of the center-left and key sections of its potential working-class base: and to do so, not by appealing to the worst instincts of that base, but by demonstrating to would-be voters that progressive policies serve their economic and social interests best.

IV

This weakening of the link between an ostensibly progressive party and its working-class base is not just an American story. You see it equally clearly in the UK with Tony Blair’s New Labour weakening of working-class institutions, where the recent loss of working-class support for the British Labour Party is equally striking, and where the rise of authoritarian populism – in the form there of Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party – is eerily similar to the rise of Donald Trump here.[xii] For in the United Kingdom, no less than in the United States, the leading party of the center-left spent the two decades before the 2008 financial crisis retreating from much of its earlier radicalism, making its peace instead with a newly re-energized conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, it is with the long-term electoral consequences of that retreat that progressive forces are now faced, and which they must now contain.

For what New Labour did in the UK, and what the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton did in the United States, was to buy into the entire free-market anti-government analysis and agenda then being developed and advocated by their political opponents. It was the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton – and not just the Republican Party led be Newt Gingrich – that promised “to end welfare as we know it.” It was the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton – and not just  the Republicans led by George Herbert Bush – that tolerated growing income inequality, the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs, and the signing of trade agreements (NAFTA being the classic case) that facilitated that outsourcing. And it was the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton – and not just the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan – that failed to strengthen trade rights to organize and to collectively bargain, and that then stood idly by as Republican activists triggered right-to-work legislation in state after state, stripping away the rights of collective labor institutions that once had protected American wages and working conditions from an open-ended “race to the bottom.” The American Right launched a deliberate and well-funded ideological onslaught in the 1980s and 1990s on the remaining legacies of America’s once proud New Deal, and on the working-class institutions that sustained it, an onslaught paralleled in the United Kingdom by the Thatcher revolution against the post-war welfare state. And like Tony Blair’s New Labour, the “new Democrats” led by Bill Clinton chose in the 1990s to capitulate before that onslaught rather than to reject it for the pernicious class project that in reality it was.

Bernie Sanders is now much criticized for wanting to turn the United States into Denmark. The criticism is unjust, of course. That is not his aim. But the fact that much of what he aspires to bring to the presidency are policies already in place in the more advanced welfare capitalisms of the European Union does point to the degree to which the United States has slipped back from the position of leadership in welfare provision that it enjoyed during the days of the New Deal. It also points to the failure of the post-war generations of Democratic politicians to defend and strengthen basic social democratic institutions and working-class rights, or to fight back effectively against carefully orchestrated rightwing ideological assaults on the use of government programs to win the war on poverty. It points, that is, as Thomas Frank has it, to the fact “that it is time to face the obvious: that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow has been a failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health.”[xiii]

 V

The Democratic Party was, and remains, a major political vehicle for the advancement of minority rights. That is its great strength. The Democratic Party also used to be, but is no longer, a major political vehicle for the strengthening of working-class institutions and the advancement of working-class rights. That is now its great weakness. Bernie Sanders is trying to turn it back into both, by building a campaign focused on income inequality and the outsourcing of jobs; and he needs to be both congratulated and supported for the effort. But even he is not putting “the people’s budget”[xiv] at the heart of his political campaign. His focus is still on the elites and their corruption of the democratic political process. That corruption is important, but it is not the only issue that needs to be in play. There is the embryo of a fully developed class analysis in the standard Sanders’ stump speech, but thus far that class analysis is there in embryonic form only. As we have argued before, we need it full out and center-stage.[xv]

Bernie Sanders at least has a pedigree here. His commitment to such a transformative politics is not in doubt. Hillary Clinton’s, by contrast, has to be. She struggles to consolidate white working-class support now, particularly among men[xvi] – in ways that Bernie Sanders does not – precisely because her family name is so indelibly linked to a Democratic Party elite structure that allowed the New Deal electoral coalition to disintegrate and the white working class to slip away. Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s and minority rights is at least as strong as Bernie Sanders – better than his in many cases – but she is still, in the minds of so many progressives, firmly associated with a politics of triangulation and elite indulgence. Which is why her current conversion to a more radical critique of the latter seems, to many progressives, to be just that – a very recent conversion – and why they rightly worry about its sincerity, its depth and its staying power. It is also why the test issue here, for many progressives, is the TPP. Hillary Clinton now says she is against it – that she no longer favors this particular free-trade deal – but there are many commentators out there (and not just progressive ones) who wonder if that opposition is actually genuine, and whether it will actually last.

Hillary Clinton currently has a “trust” problem on two fronts, not just on one. Conservatives don’t trust her, not least because they associate her with the foreign policy of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom many conservatives literally loath. And progressives don’t trust her because her attacks on Wall Street excess seem so contrived and so forced.  She will never win that first trust battle, but unless she can somehow win the second one – pulling Sanders-supporting progressives enthusiastically to her side – the  danger remains that she will not, in November, be able to mobilize a level of grass roots enthusiasm sufficiently to match the conservative equivalent now available to Donald Trump.  Which is why, when asking ourselves the key questions – who is best placed to defeat Donald Trump in November,[xvii] and who is best placed to pull the Senate back into Democratic control – many of us still believe that the answer is not Hillary Clinton. It is Bernie



[iii] Alexandra Rosenmann, Half of American Women Hate trump According to New Poll, posted on Alternet.org, March 17, 2016: available at http://www.alternet.org/comments/election-2016/half-american-women-hate-trump-according-new-poll

 

[iv] David Brookes, “No. Not Trump, Not Ever,” The New York Times, March 18, 2016: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html?_r=0

 

[vi] Michael Barbaro et al, “Donald Trump’s Heated Words Were Destined to Stir Violence, Opponents Say,” The New York Times, March 12, 2016: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/donald-trumps-heated-words-were-destined-to-stir-violence-opponents-say.html

 

[vii] Quoted in Dan Balz, “Campaign 2016 is on a dangerous descent,” The Washington Post, March 12, 2016; available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaign-2016-on-a-downward-descent/2016/03/12/032a9d9c-e882-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

 

[viii] Gary Younge, “It’s the Racism, Stupid,” The Nation, February 11, 2016: available at http://www.thenation.com/article/its-the-racism-stupid/

 

[ix] See David Maraniss and Robert Samuels, “The great unsettling,” The Washington Post, March 17, 2016: available at http://www.smerconish.com/uncategorized/the-great-unsettlin

 

[x] “The G.O.P. Created Donald Trump,” The New York Times, February 11, 2016: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/opinion/the-gop-created-donald-trump.html

 

[xi] Thomas Frank, Listen Liberal. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2016: available at http://us.macmillan.com/listenliberal/thomasfrank

 

[xiii] Thomas Frank, Listen Liberal. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2016: available at http://us.macmillan.com/listenliberal/thomasfrank

 

[xiv] http://cpcbudget.org/

 

[xvi] Patrick Healy, “As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men,” The New York Times, March 17, 2016: available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Dec 14th 2019
EXTRACT: "Dehydration is associated with a higher risk of ill health in older people, from having an infection, a fall or being admitted to hospital. But an appetite for food and drink can diminish as people age, so older people should drink regularly, even when they’re not thirsty. Older women who don’t have to restrict their fluid intake for medical reasons, such as heart or kidney problems, are advised to drink eight glasses a day. For older men, it’s ten glasses."
Dec 12th 2019
EXTRACT: "A decade ago, I wrote The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. This month, a fully revised Tenth Anniversary edition was published, and is available, free, as an eBook and audiobook. The chapters of the audiobook are read by celebrities, including Paul Simon, Kristen Bell, Stephen Fry, Natalia Vodianova, Shabana Azmi, and Nicholas D’Agosto. Revising the book has led me to reflect on the impact it has had, while the research involved in updating it has made me focus on what has changed over the past ten years"
Nov 27th 2019
EXTRACT: "Jay Willis at GQ reports that Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said on Fox and Friends that Trump is God’s Chosen One. He said he told Trump, “If you’re a believing Christian, you understand God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet and our government.” Perry also said that he had written a memo for Trump about how God uses imperfect people, comparing Trump to biblical figures such as Solomon, Saul and David, who were also flawed. This evangelical discourse that a providential God controls political power goes back to old West Semitic Religion"
Nov 7th 2019
Extract: "The PSA test is done using a small amount of blood to detect raised levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA). Yet, despite its relatively low cost and ease of administering, it is not offered for routine screening in many countries, including the UK. This is because a significant proportion of those testing positive have no disease (a false-positive result), slow-growing cancer that doesn’t need treatment, or positive results caused by a relatively benign condition, such as a urinary tract infection. Detecting prostate cancer early is important and saves lives. But many of those identified by the PSA test as having elevated levels of the antigen could potentially undergo painful treatment with significant life-altering side effects, which were unnecessary. Also, up to 15% of men with prostate cancer have normal PSA levels (a false-negative result), meaning that many men would receive unwarranted reassurance from this test. Guidelines in most countries, therefore, note that the possible benefits of testing are outweighed by the potential harms of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, making it unsuitable for screening everyone."
Nov 5th 2019
Extract: "Ken Loach’s film, Sorry We Missed You, tells the harrowing tale of Ricky, Abby and their family’s attempts to get by in a precarious world of low paid jobs and the so-called “gig economy”. But how realistic is it? Can Loach’s film be accused of undue pessimism?"
Nov 3rd 2019
Extract: "Travel to Prague, Kyiv, or Bucharest today and you will find glittering shopping malls filled with imported consumer goods: perfumes from France, fashion from Italy, and wristwatches from Switzerland. At the local Cineplex, urbane young citizens queue for the latest Marvel blockbuster movie. They stare at sleek iPhones, perhaps planning their next holiday to Paris, Goa, or Buenos Aires. The city center hums with cafés and bars catering to foreigners and local elites who buy gourmet groceries at massive hypermarkets. Compared to the scarcity and insularity of the communist past, Central and Eastern Europe today is brimming with new opportunities.......In these same cities, however, pensioners and the poor struggle to afford the most basic amenities. Older citizens choose between heat, medicine, and food. In rural areas, some families have returned to subsistence agriculture."
Nov 3rd 2019
EXTRACTS: "Genetic clustering has existed in all past societies. People have typically been relatively genetically similar to others nearby. But most of this was because of limited mobility."........."But in the 19th and 20th centuries, people started to move about more. Societies opened up geographically, and socially. This new mobility has created a new kind of clustering – what the American author Thomas Friedman called a “great sorting out”.".........".....this is now visible at the genetic level too."
Oct 9th 2019
EXTRACT: "The idea that we are living in an entrepreneurial age, experiencing rapid disruptive technological innovation on a scale amounting to a new “industrial revolution” is a pervasive modern myth. Scholars have written academic papers extolling the coming of the “entrepreneurial economy”. Policymakers and investors have pumped massive amounts of funding into start-up ecosystems and innovation. Business schools, universities and schools have moved entrepreneurship into their core curricula. The only problem is that the West’s golden entrepreneurial and innovation age is behind it. Since the 1980s entrepreneurship, innovation and, more generally, business dynamics, have been steadily declining – particularly so in the US. "
Aug 28th 2019
EXTRACT: ". But today, the impulse to gain attention on social media has produced a discourse of extreme defamation and scorched-earth tactics aimed at destroying one’s opponents. We desperately need a broad-based movement to stand up against this type of political discourse. American history is replete with examples of people who worked together to solve – or at least defuse – serious problems, often against great odds and at significant personal risk. But the gradual demise of fact-based history in schools seems to have deprived many Americans of the common ground and optimism needed to work through challenges in the same way they once did."
Aug 8th 2019
Consider the following facts as you wend your way to the Guggenheim Museum and its uppermost gallery, where you will presently find The Death of Michael Stewart (1983), Basquiat’s gut-punching tribute to a slain artist, and the centerpiece for an exhibition that could hardly be more timely.
Jul 22nd 2019
It’s worth remembering, then, that we are not designed to be consistently happy. Instead, we are designed to survive and reproduce. These are difficult tasks, so we are meant to struggle and strive, seek gratification and safety, fight off threats and avoid pain. The model of competing emotions offered by coexisting pleasure and pain fits our reality much better than the unachievable bliss that the happiness industry is trying to sell us. In fact, pretending that any degree of pain is abnormal or pathological will only foster feelings of inadequacy and frustration. Postulating that there is no such thing as happiness may appear to be a purely negative message, but the silver lining, the consolation, is the knowledge that dissatisfaction is not a personal failure. If you are unhappy at times, this is not a shortcoming that demands urgent repair, as the happiness gurus would have it. Far from it. This fluctuation is, in fact, what makes you human.
Jul 10th 2019

 

The eight-mile ‘river of flowers’ that grows alongside a motorway nea
Jul 5th 2019
"........since World War II, 97% of unimproved grassland habitats have vanished from the UK. This has contributed to the loss of pollinating insects – and the distribution of one third of species has shrunk since 1980."
Jun 25th 2019
"For many of us, eating a meal containing meat is a normal part of daily life. But if we dig deeper, some sobering issues emerge. Every year, 66 billion terrestrial animals are slaughtered for food. Predictions are that meat consumption will rise, with increasing demand for meat from China and other Asian countries as their standards of living increase. The impact of grazing animals on the environment is devastating. They produce 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases, and livestock farming is a major contributor to species extinctions."
Jun 22nd 2019
"Throughout history, people who have gained positions of power tend to be precisely the kind of people who should not be entrusted with it. A desire for power often correlates with negative personality traits: selfishness, greed and a lack of empathy. And the people who have the strongest desire for power tend to be the most ruthless and lacking in compassion."
Jun 21st 2019
"In this era of Trump, it should perhaps come as no surprise to find supposed experts lacking in historical perspective. Yet it is still disappointing to find this deficit in the New York Times, which prides itself on clinging to a pursuit of the truth. So it is a bit sad to read the plaintive cry of Allison Schrager’s op-ed of May 17, lamenting that the domination of art markets by the super-rich will somehow force smaller galleries to go out of business, and imperil the careers of young artists."
Jun 17th 2019
Extract: "ust as an earlier generation resisted the limiting post-War era "white middle class" definition of being American by giving birth to an awakening of cultural pluralism and ethnic pride, it falls to our generation to fight for an expanded view of the idea of being American that rejects the narrow view projected by Trump and white nationalists. The idea of America isn't theirs. It's bigger than they are and unless our national cohesion is to unravel, this challenge must be met by projecting an inclusive vision of America that celebrates our inclusive national identity in an increasingly globalized world."
May 28th 2019
Whatever other attributes Homo sapiens may have – and much is made of our opposable thumbs, upright walking and big brains – our capacity to impact the environment far and wide is perhaps unprecedented in all of life’s history. If nothing else, we humans can make an almighty mess.
Apr 29th 2019
A century ago, unspeakable horrors took place on every continent that were known only to the victims and the perpetrators. Not so today. As a result of advances in communications – from the telegraph and radio to satellite television and the internet – the pain and loss of global tragedies are brought home to us in real time.   Because of this expanding consciousness, the post-World War II era has witnessed the rise of visionary leaders and the birth of countless organizations dedicated to alleviating suffering and elevating the causes of peace, human rights, and tolerance among peoples. Individually and collectively, they have championed the rights of peoples in far-flung corners of the world, some of which had been previously unknown to those who became their advocates. These same leaders and groups have also fought for civil rights and for economic, social, political, and environmental justice in their own countries.