What Will It Take To Wake Up the ‘Sleeping Giant’ of the New Working Class?
The American working class has been dissed and dismissed. Our unions busted, our wages slashed, our homes foreclosed and our rents raised. We’re blamed for the rise of Trump, but otherwise do not exist in the media landscape.
But the working class is a sleeping giant that is beginning to stir and will soon instigate a great campaign for racial and economic justice, according to a new book by Tamara Draut. A vice president of the liberal think tank Demos, Draut’s previous book, Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30- Somethings Can’t Get Ahead, explored the how the high cost of college, housing and health insurance, combined with stagnant wages and made the usual milestones of adulthood increasingly out of reach for millennials.
Her new book, Sleeping Giant: How the New Working Class Will Transform America, attempts to connect the dots between the struggles of those millennials and the politics of austerity, globalization and the massive transfer of wealth to the 1 percent that has reduced the living standards of almost all working families over the course of the last 40 years. It finds a strong sense of optimism in the recent increase in protest activity.
Draut spends a good deal of her narrative making the case that there is still a working class in “post-industrial,” “digital age” U.S.A. The heterogeneity of this new working class—no longer solidly white and male, if it ever was—along with media indifference and a cultural legacy of devaluing “women’s work” and disenfranchising immigrants and people of color renders it “invisible” to many.
Quantifying who is even in the working class, statistically speaking, is a notoriously hard thing to do. She consults with the dean of working-class studies, SUNY Stony Brook professor Michael Zweig, who uses federal occupational data to estimate that 60 percent of us comprise the working class. But most political surveys do not inquire into one’s relationship with the means of production, and so Draut uses educational attainment as a not-unreasonable proxy.
Not that Draut’s tome would fit within the mountain of punditry that emphasizes educational attainment as a cure for poverty. She eviscerates this “elite blind spot” that focuses on the “miniscule” sliver of new professional jobs while ignoring the “scads of new jobs being created in home health care, fast food, and retail.”
Draut is one of the few mainstream writers I’ve seen who has noted the fact that workers are increasingly rejecting the label “middle class” for themselves, while political and media elites still use the term as a shorthand for the ideal American lifestyle. Not noted—perhaps not known—is that when unions do internal polling on political campaigns, questions phrased around improving the lives of middle-class Americans perform significantly worse than identical questions that talk instead about “working families.” Workers hear politicians’ “middle class” campaign rhetoric as promises to give more breaks to people who are already better off than them. (Which probably isn’t that far from the truth.)
The largest class of people in the country demanding their visibility and raising expectations that they deserve more is the very definition of a sleeping giant stirring. Draut sees the “Day without Immigrants” May Day protests, Black Lives Matter and the Fight for 15 as the beginning of a new workers movement. The key, she says, will be working through the historical legacy of racism and sexism to make common cause between these three interconnected movements.
There is perhaps a little too much optimism in Sleeping Giant. After all, the last big May Day strike was over a decade ago at this point. The ground is undeniably shifting, opening up a space for more progressive demands, but it’s not moving all that fast.
Still, since Draut handed in her final draft of this book, millions of voters rallied have to a socialist presidential candidate who will rewrite the Democratic Party’s platform, and the workers at Kohler and Verizon proved that the remaining large industrial unions can still go on strike and win. So the time is right for books that speak confidently that a new workers movement is rising up.
Still, since Draut handed in her final draft of this book, millions of voters rallied have to a socialist presidential candidate who will rewrite the Democratic Party’s platform, and the workers at Kohler and Verizon proved that the remaining large industrial unions can still go on strike and win. So the time is right for books that speak confidently that a new workers movement is rising up.
But it’s not entirely clear who the audience is for Sleeping Giant. While she clearly advocates for more unions, Draut’s treatment of unions is a little too abstract.
The “real power” of unions, she writes, is that they “can amass significant resources to engage in voter turnout, agenda setting and issue advocacy.” That’s a think-tank view of unions. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a workplace job action that resulted in, say, a reduced workload or new safety equipment or got a disrespectful supervisor straightened could take offense at the notion that our “real” power is in our union treasury and checkbook.
Sleeping Giant seems best addressed to the Acela-riding political class: reporters and political staffers who need to learn that the working class still exists and that their “untapped political power” should be heeded. There’s a value to that. One thing that preceded labor’s great upsurge in the 1930’s, ever so slightly, was a rising tide of opinion among intellectuals and political actors that an increase in union power was necessary to stabilize the economy and shore up the Democratic Party’s base.
They can have their reasons for wanting unions, and we’ll always have ours.
The book falters a bit as well when it comes to the “Blueprint for a Better Deal” it advocates. Draut correctly notes that while the demand for a $15 minimum wage was immediately derided as unrealistic, the high bar that the demand set, combined with workplace action, quickly opened up a space that made a range of wage raises politically possible. Curiously, though, her programmatic proposals are safe, moderate, vetted. It includes paid sick and family leave, universal pre-K, tuition-free public college, card check for union organizing and overturning Citizens United.
I’ll take it all, but this is the stuff of a white paper, not a political manifesto. These are transitional demands that have a snowball’s chance in hell in the short term, and that, once the sleeping giant is fully woke and pressing a campaign that looks more like a mass strike wave, would hopefully be traded-in for much more ambitious demands.
Still, Sleeping Giant is a worthy entry in the contemporary progressive canon that should inspire more debate about the world we have to win.
[This article first appeared at In These Times.]
Bernie Sanders Wasn’t Our First Socialist Mayor: Remembering Milwaukee’s Socialist Party History
As the country’s politics take a right turn, an unlikely progressive wins office as mayor of a major U.S. city. In an era marked by conformity and the primacy of business interests over the common good, he has the temerity to call himself a socialist. Both locally and nationally, his example serves as a beacon of hope for the waning left and a lightening rod of criticism for the resurgent right. His fundamental decency and fealty to the democratic process and the public good see him continually reelected, with most voters regarding him on a first-name basis. He goes on to run a quixotic campaign for President.
If this sounds familiar to fans of Bernie Sanders’ career, it should. But I am describing Frank Zeidler, the socialist mayor of Milwaukee who served three terms from 1948-1960. When the producers of the television series Happy Days wanted to cast a nostalgic look back on the supposedly placid 1950s, they chose to base their sitcom in Milwaukee. Of course, no mention is made that not only is the mayor a socialist, but the state’s junior Senator is the demagogic anti-Communist Joseph McCarthy.
This is a history that’s been hiding in plain sight, given focus by a new book from the University of Illinois Press’ Working Class in American History series. Conservative Counterrevolution: Challenging Liberalism in 1950s Milwaukee, by Tula A. Connell, explores the record of a socialist administration in an era that is popularly thought to be when Americans definitively turned against socialism and abandoned urbanism.
But there was, nevertheless, a right turn in the 1950s, and Connell’s book is a vital study of the roots of modern American conservatism. The election of Scott Walker and the battles over his anti-union attacks and the subsequent recall effort revealed to many outsiders the extreme polarization that have marked Wisconsin politics since before Zeidler and McCarthy shared the stage (A polarization that can be seen in Tuesday’s primary results, where Wisconsin Democrats went strongly for socialist Bernie Sanders and Republicans chose Ted Cruz because he is more reliably conservative than Donald Trump).
Connell’s history documents how Milwaukee business and suburban interests inveighed against the expanded role of government in as an attack on “American free enterprise” and used racial demagoguery to peel off voters from the New Deal coalition. This local right-wing pushback became part of a national network that gave rise to Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan. If Wisconsin DNA is so central to modern conservatism, then today’s polarization of national political discourse was seemingly inevitable.
The public good or the virtue of selfishness?
Milwaukee was an early stronghold of the Socialist Party, furnishing the party with wins for mayor, council, state legislature and even a seat in Congress. In city government, they emphasized honest government and effective public services. Critics on the party’s left derided them as “sewer socialists.” The Milwaukee Socialists wore the term as a badge of honor.
Although, to this day, the Socialist candidate can draw upwards of 20% in first round balloting in Milwaukee’s non-partisan mayoral elections, Zeidler’s election was something of a last hurrah for the party. He ran as part of a liberal coalition and benefited as much from name recognition (his older brother’s tenure as mayor was cut short by his WWII casualty) as it did lingering voter loyalty to socialism.
But his record in office nevertheless contributed significantly to the city’s socialist legacy. Milwaukee’s stock of public housing was expanded dramatically; a lucrative new channel of newfangled television broadcasting was reserved for public education programming; and the city’s tax base was preserved through an aggressive campaign of suburban annexation.
Zeidler’s annexation agenda was particularly crucial for Milwaukee, and represents a road not taken for too many other post-war cities. The combination of white flight, highway construction, suburban development and tax breaks for mortgage interest is a uniquely American tragedy that left great cities blighted and broken down. Zeidler refused to accept that suburbanites could just cut themselves off from responsibility from the wider society. His office organized over 300 annexation votes that incrementally expanded the city by more than 35 square miles. Zeidler’s preferred method to win these votes was through education campaigns about the benefits of pooling resources and the efficiency of Milwaukee government, but he was also not shy about engaging in water wars. Suburbs that insisted upon independence were denied Milwaukee city water and sewer services, among other benefits.
Of course there was a backlash. The suburbs sued, right-wing elements pushed state legislation to make annexation more difficult while some townships merged to form “cities” of their own to forestall annexation by Milwaukee. An “iron ring” of rich suburbs encircled Milwaukee, ultimately producing the same racial tensions and defunding of public services that plagued other American cities.
In fact, much of Zeidler’s agenda was vociferously opposed by a rising right-wing movement. This subject is the heart of Conservative Counterrevolution. Author Tula Connell calls the post-war consensus around full employment and living standards that rose with productivity “a mirage” and documents how modern conservatism “was not newly generated in the 1950s or 1960s but rather represented a resurgence of a deep current in America’s history.”
It is perhaps not surmising that it was small and mid-sized businessmen who first chafed at the New Deal, and were in the vanguard of right-wing opposition. Conservative Counterrevolution’s bête noir is William Grede, who operated a Milwaukee area steel foundry that he (of course!) inherited from his dad. Grede was a viciously anti-union boss, who took the then uncommon step of hiring permanent replacement scabs when his employees went on strike in 1946.
Grede served a term as the president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and, according to Connell, “had a fundraising finger in nearly every organization that challenged perceived encroachments on free enterprise,” including Americans for Constitutional Action, the National Association of Businessmen and the John Birch Society. His philosophy – which can be efficiently summed up by the title of the book he never finished writing, The Virtue of Selfishness – remained far outside the mainstream of Republican policymaking during his lifetime. Today, his brand of selfishness has utterly captured the GOP, thanks in part to the deep pockets of odious men like the sons of Grede’s Birch Society co-founder, Fred Koch.
Although Grede’s and others’ opposition to Zeidler’s public housing program was rooted in a fear of “creeping socialism” and a desire for private profit, his opponents resorted to the most base racism in order to win voters over. His opponent in his third and final election, Milton McGuire, waged a demagogic campaign that focused on the rising number of African-Americans moving to the city. McGuire accused Zeidler of placing billboards throughout the south, to attract new black residents with promises of low cost public housing. Zeidler won re-election handily, but had decided that his third term would be his last.
“The greatest living American”
Zeidler was succeeded by Henry Maier, a conservative Democrat who won office by race-baiting his opponents. His administration abandoned public housing construction, slow-walked civil rights, responded to 1967 riots with a law and order agenda and consolidated power. He remained in office for an unprecedented seven terms. By 2002, research showed that Milwaukee’s racial disparities were the worst in the nation.
One of the reasons Frank cited for not running for re-election in 1960 was his frail health. He was always in poor health, and yet he somehow lived to the ripe old age of 93. He even ran for President as the standard-bearer of the reconstituted Socialist Party in 1976! It was in his capacity as the party’s chairman emeritus that I had the pleasure of getting to know Frank. I always found it fascinating to visit Milwaukee while Frank was still alive; it was a bizarro world where the Socialist Party’s leader was revered as a statesman and warmly greeted as a neighbor. To whit: when I was doing press for the party’s 100th anniversary conference in 2001, a reporter for the Journal-Sentinel asked me what socialists in other parts of the country thought of Frank. I answered that most of us think he’s a really great man. The reporter naturally heard that as “the greatest living American” and put it in the story, embarrassing Frank slightly.
With the racial strife and economic decline of the city that came later, it’s not hard to see how Milwaukee residents look back on the Zeidler years as, indeed, happy days.
[This post first appeared at In These Times.]
Our Political System Is in the Midst of a Massive Realignment. Here’s How the Left Should Respond.
America needs a New Democratic Party.
No, I don’t mean a Democratic Party made new by a restored commitment to liberal idealism (although that would be useful, too). I mean an American version of Canada’s NDP: an explicitly socialist party that can win on a regional basis, credibly compete on a national basis and actually win on issues that matter.
The leftist debate on electoral activism is depressingly reductive. It’s either be the “left-wing of the possible” within the Democratic party or immediately form a third party, as if we are not capable of sorting out complicated solutions for complicated times. We have a historic opportunity. Whether one realizes it or not, we are in the midst of a profound political realignment that could make a third party conceivable.
The right-wing realignment and its pull on the Democrats
A political realignment happens when the two main parties significantly alter their ideology and campaign appeal and in so doing shift their regional bases of support. They are rare. One happened when Roosevelt’s New Deal effectively wooed urban progressives away from the GOP, while preserving the Democrats’ traditional base of southern support (largely by avoiding black civil rights demands). For the next 36 years, the Democrats won seven out of nine presidential elections, and controlled the House and Senate for much of the period.
Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” tapped into reaction against the civil rights, women’s rights and anti-war movements and produced a new realignment. With the former Confederate states now solidly in the GOP column, and white working-class voters increasingly willing to cast reactionary votes for the party in the north, Republicans won seven out of 10 of the next presidential elections and have, since the mid-1990s, tended to control the House.
The Republicans’ crisis, and our opportunity, is that the party has been so captured by its base that it is circling the drain of national viability. The hateful, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic and just plain reality-denying rhetoric that the current crop of their presidential aspirants must use to pander to their troglodytic base makes them simply unelectable in a national contest.
Look at the demographics, as the Pew Research Center did earlier this year. The GOP alienates the majority of women voters, the vast majority of black and Latino voters and has all but lost the so-called millennial generation—voter groups that are an increasing proportion of the electorate.
More importantly, look at the so-called “big sort,” the geopolitical trend of people moving into or out of communities in order to be surrounded by more like-minded neighbors. Researchers James A. Thompson and Jesse Sussell found that the “big sort” is significantly contributing to the political polarization of Congress. Republican voters have created for themselves an echo chamber that goes beyond Fox News to include their like-minded neighbors. This contributes to the GOP reinforcing and doubling down on its extremism. It’s hard to imagine how the GOP can break this cycle any time soon.
Republicans can win—and win big—on a regional basis and implement awful policies. And to be sure, the Left should be concerned with keeping the Republicans out of national office. But the Republicans are going to do a good job of that themselves.
Meanwhile, the “big sort” leaves viable progressive majorities in our large urban centers and even entire states like California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey for the most part trapped in a Democratic party that will also continue to move to the right unless we do something about it. This realignment is pushing moderate and even conservative voters into the Democratic camp. There are, after all, plenty of stockbrokers and corporate executives who support gay marriage and immigration. The GOP is no longer a comfortable home for them—the Democrats are.
These progressive enclaves are increasingly a one-party political system, with the GOP’s carcass lying around as an empty vessel for whatever rich white guy wants to run a vampiric vanity campaign. And, sure, Republicans like Bruce Rauner and Chris Christie can win fluke elections when voters are so disgusted by the laziness and corruption of monopolistic Democratic machines that they stay home – or vote for nebulous “change”—in protest. But for the most part, there is a huge vacuum on the left in these progressive enclaves that should trump any tired liberal objections about “electability” and “lesser evils.”
An inside/outside strategy
What the Left needs is an inside/outside electoral strategy vis-à-vis the Democrats.
Inside the Democratic Party, engaged in primary campaigns to push progressive candidates and causes, because current election laws as well as fear of playing the spoiler mean that this is where we must focus out electoral energy for the time being if we are hold together the broadest possible coalition.
But outside in terms of being clearly delineated as something more specific: more critical of capitalism, more independent of corporations and more accountable to its base of supporters than being just another Democrat. And outside in terms of having a real plan to break with the Democrats and become a fully independent third party when the opportunity comes.
Inside/outside electoral strategies have long been incubated in New York state, where the law allows—and political realities demand—that candidates run on multiple ballot lines. Since 1998, the Working Families Party has been the preeminent inside/outside experiment on the Left. The WFP has an impressive track record of endorsing insurgent progressives early and backing them in the Democratic primary, as well as occasionally running a candidate in the general election against the Democratic nominee—a strategy that has put scores of new progressives in office across the state, culminating in the election of NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio.
The Working Families Party has expanded to five more states plus the District of Columbia, although the inability to run a candidate on more than one ballot line makes the party’s efforts in those places somewhat less visible. In Illinois, unions like SEIU and the Chicago Teachers Union have formed an independent political organization called United Working Families, which supported Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s insurgent challenge to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago’s technically non-partisan mayoral election. In Vermont, Bernie Sanders’ long run of successful independent runs for office has led to the creation of the Progressive Party, which represents over a dozen local, state and federal offices—a viable third party if ever there was one.
Add to that the various progressive caucuses in legislatures and councils—progressive Democrats and independents who work together to press their agenda within the larger Democratic caucus—and you have, essentially, an undeclared, disunited party within the party.
It is time to unite and declare it so.
What’s in a name?
What you stand for matters, but having a label and an identity of standing for the right causes matters perhaps more. Thanks to the realignment that is expanding the Democratic Party and turning it much more conservative, a “Democrat” can be anybody from Rahm Emanuel and Andrew Cuomo to Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison.
What the hell is a “Democrat” and what do they stand for? Without a clear distinction, a vote for a Democrat might as well be a vote for war, for police brutality and mass incarceration, for demonizing teachers and slashing pensions, for shipping jobs overseas and keeping the minimum wage low. An untapped constituency remains alienated from a progressive movement that suffers from guilt by association with the corporate Dems.
Further, a progressive Democrat—even one who runs with a Working Families-type endorsement—is susceptible to all of the pressure from party leadership for the corporate agenda that any other Democrat faces, with little accountability to a base of supporters that comes from public identification with a movement. Most people reading this can think of some maddening state legislator or alderman who’s only progressive when it doesn’t count.
Bernie Sanders jokes about how often he hears from supporters and constituents, “We always know how you vote, Bernie.” Because Sanders, famously, insisted on being registered in Congress as an “Independent,” even while he caucused with the Democrats, C-SPAN had to create a third “Independent” category for vote tallies, and so, yes, we all know how Bernie votes on an issue. As a result, Sanders’ voting record has been the most second guessed and debated by the left for a quarter century (even though there have been members of the House who were arguably to Bernie’s left).
By standing out as an “I,” Bernie was held much more accountable to the Left on a national level than any other Democrat. Working Families public officials need to stand out and caucus and have their votes recorded as “W,” not “D.”
Whether we settle on the name “Working Families,” call it the “Progressive Party” or borrow “New Democrats” from our friends to the north, we do need one name that stretches from candidacy to office-holding to everyday activism. And we need one party, coast to coast, that people join and pay dues, that has a national committee and that gets people in a room together in meetings, teach-ins, conventions and trainings.
What holds us back?
There is a regrettable deficit of trust when it comes to any sort of left unity effort. Movements unify when they are on the ascendency, which is not a position that the Left is used to being in. Plus, there is a long history on the Left of dissension, discord and split. Going bigger and broader brings the potential for the project to get out of control. And these efforts—United Working Families, the Progressive Party, the WFP—seem to be self-consciously designed to be small and manageable.
United Working Families is a good case in point. The organizers toyed with forming a chapter of the WFP, but ultimately decided to organize independently with complementary—yet distinct—branding. The WFP has since welcomed the UWF as an affiliate with seats on the national board. (What choice did they have? There’s no space for both organizations to operate in Chicago).
A united party would have to have a federated structure, with autonomous state parties and local clubs. But the resistance to the shared branding goes deeper than a structural concern. It can be read as a desire to not be tarnished by someone else’s mistake.
United Working Families was formed while the Working Families Party was grappling whether or not to endorse Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s re-election bid. The New Yorkers could have really used some tough love and advice from Chicago on the feasibility of cutting a deal with Cuomo. Regrettably, the Chicago organizers chose parochialism and keeping their distance over solidarity.
Another thing that holds us back is fear of playing the spoiler. Again, the value of an inside/outside strategy is holding together the widest possible coalition while we are inside the Democratic Party. To be clear, the risk of letting the now-far-right Republicans eke out a win if the center and Left were to split the vote in a general election is substantial. The Supreme Court, the right to choose, union rights and questions of war and peace are not to be dismissed lightly.
But a split must one day come. If the Republicans cease to be a major party in the northeast, on the west coast and in the major urban centers of the mid-west, and lose the next three or four presidential elections, then anyone who is still harping on about lesser evils or unity at any cost is probably simply not comfortable with a turn towards explicitly anti-capitalist politics.
I write of presidential election cycles because they are important epochal markers, not because we should fritter away our time debating when to make a break and run a Nader-style third party campaign. Look, I get it. Presidential elections are years when more working people actually pay attention to mainstream politics and vote, so what we do and whom we’re supporting is big and symbolic. But big changes in social outlook and political policy are ratified in presidential elections. The changes are made more gradually and much more locally. Our challenge for the next decade and a half is to run Working Families campaigns for legislature, council and Congress and win; to build up a base that makes for “safe” Working Families districts; and to build Working Families legislative caucuses that put real pressure on the corporate Dems.
Some of this can be accomplished, as the Progressive Party seems to have done in Vermont, through a degree of brokering. The Progressives build up enough of a base in a district that they hold the plurality, and the Democrats decide not to run a strong candidate against them. I presume that the Progressives agree in exchange to not make a hard run at a district where the Democrats hold the edge. In this way, a center-left split doesn’t have to be a 100% spoiler effort.
The ultimate split may, indeed, be signaled by an independent presidential campaign. I’m getting many years ahead of myself here, but let me suggest that the timing would only be right if our new party posed a credible threat of actually winning some electoral votes. Could we pose enough of a threat of throwing the election into chaos to extract meaningful election reforms—like abolishing the electoral college and instituting instant runoff voting—to make “spoilers” a thing of the past?
Our big challenge right now, though, is whether we are bold enough to actually get in a room and hammer out a program, a structure and a common name.
The Sanders presidential campaign is a very timely opportunity. Whether Bernie wins the Democratic nomination (still a distinct possibility) or takes his delegates and forces a convention fight over the Democratic Party’s platform, that platform will be the highest profile list of “Left” demands in generations. It will arouse the interest and support of many thousands times more working people than currently number in our tiny movement. What those freshly inspired potential activists will need is to see a party that they can join that will work past the election on winning those demands.
We have a historic opportunity in 2016. Shame on all of us if we don’t recognize the opportunity and capitalize on it.
[Originally appeared at In These Times.]
The Terrifying Prospect of Trump vs. Clinton
There is no prospective match-up for the November presidential election that is more terrifying than Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. The violence and “Heil Hitler” salutes practiced by his supporters make any semantic debate about whether his politics can be defined as “fascist” kinda moot. Ask yourself why he even bothered to schedule a campaign rally in Chicago when the likelihood of protestors outnumbering Trump supporters was all but certain? How long until the open carry gun activists make common cause with his campaign and make good on his threat to turn out Trump supporters to Bernie Sanders rallies? The man is dangerous and unpredictable.
Also unpredictable is what suicidally stupid thing Hillary Clinton is going to say on the campaign trail today. In just the last couple of days we’ve heard her praise the Reagans for starting a “national conversation” about AIDS (by notoriously refusing to utter the word for over half a decade), repeating the easily – and snarkily – refuted lie that Bernie Sanders hasn’t done much to advance the cause of universal healthcare, and issuing a pathetic word salad about Chicago’s anti-Trump protest the tl;dr version of which is apparently that Dylann Roof started a national conversation about the Confederate battle flag.
These were not gaffes or gotchas. These were unforced errors. These were planned, practiced and vetted campaign strategies. Put aside any consideration of Clinton as a public official. She sucks as a campaigner. As Erik Loomis recently put it, “Hillary Clinton is a Martha Coakley-level campaigner with a once-brilliant campaigner for a husband.” As people are slowly realizing that Hillary has based her path to the Democratic nomination on winning southern states that she doesn’t even plan to campaign in for the general election, she struggles to beat a cranky old socialist in states that will be essential in November (and where Trump is doing disturbingly well in his primaries). I’ve noticed a new line of defense popping up in the blogosphere, “reminding” people that HRC won “statewide election in a deep blue state by 12 and 36 points.”
One would need to be a child or an amnesiac, but certainly not a New Yorker, to believe that crap. The Republican party in New York state is an empty vessel. It’s available for rent for the occasional billionaire to run a vanity campaign, but otherwise puts up school board level candidates for high office. Hillary ran against, and handily defeated, nobody of substance in her two Senate campaigns. She didn’t even face a serious opponent in the Democratic primary, which is where elections are actually decided in New York. Her 2000 and 2006 Senate campaigns were coronations, much like her 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns were supposed to be.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think too much is made of Trump’s appeal to white working class voters. Two cycles of Obama elections (which were supposed to be close, but were won by millions of votes) have demonstrated that the racist white working class can be outvoted. But what is essential is inspiring and mobilizing the base. Hillary’s campaign of no se puede is actively demoralizing to the voters she needs to energize. And her propensity to make terrible campaign decisions will create opportunities for her opponent.
The people who are already calling for voters to fall in line behind HRC to prevent a Trump presidency would do well to wake up to the notion that Trump’s only possible path to the White House may well be in a head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton.