Writing at the Washington Post John Judis makes an essential point:
Many Democrats have believed that a coalition of minorities, millennials and single women would help create a new Democratic majority for years to come. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was counting on it.
But the “rising American electorate,†as it’s called, failed to carry Clinton across the finish line. It didn’t even come close. According to national exit polls, among Latino voters she fell six points from President Obama’s numbers in 2012; she dropped five points each among 18-to-29-year-olds, unmarried women and African Americans. Together, these groups made up the same percentage of the electorate in 2016 as they had in 2012. Some of the battleground-state figures are even more striking. In Ohio, Clinton was 13 points behind Obama among 18-to-29-year-olds. In New Mexico, she fell 11 points among Latinos.
Why did the Democrats’ strategy fail so miserably? Ultimately, because they overestimated the strength of a coalition based on identity politics.
IMO the very worst thing that could happen to American politics is if the white working class starts voting as an identity group. If present trends continue, do you know when non-white voters will outnumber white voters in the United States? Never. The future won’t save identity politics.
I’ll give John Judis the last word:
But Democrats can’t win elections simply by appealing to the identity groups of the rising American electorate. These groups don’t add up to a sure majority unless one assumes the Democrat wins near-unanimity among them and the Republican only bare majorities or less among Republican-trending groups. Besides such traditional GOP constituencies as farmers, small-business people and managers, three groups of voters have become increasingly Republican: the white working class, defined as whites without a four-year college degree; whites with a four-year college degree but not an advanced degree; and seniors. While the proportional numbers of the white working class have been shrinking over the past few decades, they remain formidable, particularly in battleground states, and the numbers of four-year-degree whites and seniors have not been declining.
Identity politics is poison. The Democrats are going that direction so I think the GoP will eventually follow. I agree it will be a disaster for this country.
The GOP has been identity driven for years. Their base, evangelical Christians, is their big identity group. What I think you see here is two things. First, evangelicals no longer care if the candidate is a Christian, or even remotely a moral person, the kind of leader you would want your kids to emulate. They just want a Republican. Someone who Might name a judge who will overturn Roe v Wade. In the past this identity group strongly supported the GOP, but some would bolt if the candidate was especially bad or weak. Now, they are all in no matter what.
Second, lets not forget that the Dems probably would have won if they ran almost anyone other than Clinton. Both candidates were awful, but Clinton was awful with an enthusiasm gap.
Steve
That’s one of the reasons I will never be a Republican. However, the Republicans being identity-driven is not equivalent to saying that the white working class has been voting as an interest group. Just walk down any street on the Northwest Side of Chicago.
That’s what I believe although there’s clearly a hot debate among Democrats on just that question.
What does it tell you if it’s true? I think it says that the Democratic leadership preferred running Hillary Clinton as president over winning. How that reflects well on the Democratic leadership eludes me.
Steve,
The GoP was and is supported by social conservatives of which evangelicals are a part. The tenets of social conservatism aren’t found only in evangelicals.
Garnering support of distinct racial, ethnic and other minority groups is a lot more insidious IMO. Democrats have made it explicitly clear they they expect various racial groups to support them and molded their message and outreach to effect that. Plus the whole expectation they have they they will become dominant as the nation becomes less white. What I don’t want to see is the GoP do the same thing with whites because that will close the loop and turn our politics from class and ideology to identity. I’ve seen the effect of identity politics around the world and it is never good.
What I don’t want to see happening is hardening of the relationship between class and racial identity.
@steve, voting for Trump because of his stance on abortion is pretty much the opposite of identity politics, it’s voting on policy, not who you are. Its long been one of the best examples of single-issue voting in the U.S.
I also think there is evidence that traditional Republican value voters, outside of the pro-life camp, reduced their support for Trump. He got less votes in the suburbs than Romney did, but not enough to make up for Trump’s gains in traditional Democratic strongholds. Clinton was not a natural “values candidate,” unlike Obama.
PD- By and large they don’t actually think Trump will nominate good judges or make any effort to address abortion. Also, there are other issues, like transgenders in bathrooms, being able to not see stuff to gays, etc that they are worried about, so it is not quite single issue, though I think you have a point to an extent. Whatever you want to call it, the evangelicals, just my shorthand for social conservatives as there are some Catholics in there, voted as a group for Trump. They have been voting for the GOP all along. This seems to me mostly based upon Identity since they don’t seem to be getting much for it. (Somewhat akin to minorities and the Democrats.)
It actually seems more tribal to me, which is maybe the same thing. You vote against the other tribe and for your own, even if the guy running to lead your party is the opposite of what you would normally support.
Steve
I guess it depends on the operative definition of “all along”:
If Catholics were to vote Republican consistently, the Democrats would be doomed. Roughly 25% of American adults self-identify as Catholic and that’s held steady for 80 years:
However, as the first graph illustrates they don’t.
@steve, your not really talking about identity politics though. Pure identity politics would be for Catholics to vote for the most Catholic candidate, regardless of their particular positions and irregardless of class. And they would do so because of being perceived as marginalized and as needing to vote as a block as a matter of self-preservation.
Majorities don’t usually see themselves that way. Whites don’t vote as a group; Protestants don’t; Catholics don’t; women don’t; and it doesn’t appear that Latinos do either. Perhaps one of these groups have a tendency towards one party, but looking at it closer one often sees the important factors are things like class, occupation, age, marital status or other things that makes the policies of one party more attractive.
Well, I am White Working class and Crooked Hillary could actually have gotten my vote, if she had addressed retirement issues important to me. But she never addressed them or even asked for my vote.
I honestly believe she thought she didn’t need it. When you hear someone say , the rapidly disappearing white male, you can safely assume they are not caring about my type.
She was dead wrong.
This is Clinton’s first campaign ad announcing her candidacy this election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N708P-A45D0
It’s a series of “slice of life” vignettes in which it was pointed out the white (straight) male is almost non-existent. It’s almost parody: single mom raising kid; two men holding hands; two brothers speaking Spanish to each other; young African-American yuppie couple; and various visible minorities. The first white man that clearly appears is dead — it’s a photo on the mantle that sets up a “you go girl” moment for the widow, proudly making it on her own after a life-changing loss.(*)
It’s intended audience is Democrats and appeals to their most positive perception of themselves as diversity being a strength. It’s also very female — it highlights the importance of relationships — and not very political.
There is one exception though; towards the end a white male talks about how well he is doing at his new job in some sort of manufacturing plant. There is nobody else on the floor; he doesn’t have a relationship; he has heavy equipment and patriotism. Here the message is economic populism, not identity, or if the white man has an identity it is in his tool.
(*) If the audio is played backwards, it repeats “Bill is dead.”
PD-That is why I said tribal is probably a better description, but I don’t think it is that far off. If almost everyone in the same group votes the same way, regardless of whether or not the candidate fits their paradigm, not sure it matters that much.
Dave- Why I said evangelicals. If you make it social conservatives it includes some Catholics, but not all of them. Much more mixed group.
” if she had addressed retirement issues important to me. But she never addressed them or even asked for my vote.”
Trump and Ryan are addressing them. Say goodbye to Medicare.
Steve
PD- Had to run away so will finish now. By your definition, the Democrats are not doing identity politics much at all. Latinos did not votes for the most Latino candidate. Single women did not vote for the most single woman, and so on.
Steve
You say identity politics is the worst thing that could happen to American politics.
Doesn’t that ultimately mean the preference of stability over natural predilections, of quantity over quality?
@steve, I would argue that identity politics didn’t work for the Democrats, not that it wasn’t tried. I think that leaves the question of whether it could work if applied better (me: not at the national level), and whether it would be a good thing.
Republicans held African-American votes with relatively little to show to African-Americans, particularly after the U.S. Grant administration. Their votes were secured primarily by the promise that Democrats are racists, and with this solemn commitment, Republicans freely pursued policies that were just and wise. That’s essentially what the emerging Democratic majority seeks to recreate, identity politics for minorities, policy by technocrats.
Democrats have held black voters mostly because they know that black voters don’t have anywhere else to go. They really haven’t aimed that many policies at minorities, at least recently not for the racial minorities. They have moved on to LGBTQRSTUV.
Steve
Steve, close but it’s actually LGBTTTQQIAA