By Now, the Analysis Should Be Complete — What’s Next?
True statement: Dems screwed up. Trump was just being himself. Not that there was anything wrong with the Harris-Walz ticket … as far as I’m concerned, and the rest of us in my world. There just weren’t enough of us in that world – especially in those swing states.
So, why was this a surprise to the campaign strategists? It wasn’t surprising to me. I think there is a discreet strand of commentary pointing to a certain resignation on the part of Harris-Walz team members along the lines of “we did what we could” – I don’t know if that comes anywhere close to the primary explanation for the defeat. My interpretation today is that the Democratic Party establishment, the campaign staff “professionals,” need to do some serious re-evaluation. Yet, everybody and their brother seem to be saying the same thing these days.
It’s noteworthy that the 2012 Republican “autopsy” ultimately had no impact on the 2016 election; it was all about Donald Trump. So, do Dems need their own Trump? It certainly wasn’t Joe Biden. Personalities may be key to the 2026 mid-terms as well as 2028. But I have read and heard so many varying interpretations of what happened in 2024 that I feel I must choose one for my own.
While going light on sources (compared to my usual self-conscious persuasive style of supporting everything I say), I’m going to pick one that is not unique in the commentariat (at least left to center-left): class struggle has come to America!
Here’s the basic outline of the conflict; the main flashpoint is the educational divide – the working class in America is clearly defined as those who do not possess a bachelor’s degree. It didn’t used to be this way, not in the industrial past of the 1950s and ‘60s that I remember from my youth in Michigan. In those days, everybody was “middle class,” even with no education and an assembly-line job – because they had a UNION. Joe Biden campaigned in 2020 ostensibly as a representative of this fabled class (apparently the last of his breed). He was able to accurately portray Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party as exponents of a predatory plutocracy – it worked!
But disruptive changes were well under way in America. People don’t belong to unions like they used to – and they see a growing income split between those who have jobs requiring academic credentials and those holding jobs that don’t. Unions can’t help them if they can’t organize. Meanwhile, the plutocracy has become even more distant … and richer! What is “middle class” in 2024, anyway? Historically, going back to Karl Marx, it was the petit bourgeois composed of small business owners and service providers, not workers. And this middle class became the dominant force in American politics by the mid-20th century – in both parties. Workers were co-opted through home ownership, and some small-time investment options. These things, while small, did represent capital – hence the bourgeois label. While the social structure that enabled this embourgeoisement of the working class never actually came undone in 21st century America, the increasingly burdensome cost to workers – through mounting debt – became more of a political factor as time went on. The 2008 financial crisis sealed the fate of the middle class in many ways. By the 2024 elections it all came home to roost.
But 2024 wasn’t only about material things, though inflation has been touted as a major concern for working-class Americans. There was something else, too. Social status is more than just what you earn or the wealth that you accumulate. We live in an age of unparalleled media pervasiveness. Hollywood, major news outlets, our schools, social media, all foster a sense that certain values, certain fashions, certain language, signal a particular social class. These things even subsume how much money you make. We might all be able to get along in society if only politicians didn’t try to play these class divisions against each other; class divisions fundamentally based on level of education! Working class mores now contain a high degree of resentment – just as upper-middle-class mores (the “educated” patina) contain a high degree of condescension. We saw this in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” dismissal of Trump supporters in 2016, and by extension (perhaps) in Kamala Harris’s very persona — she never said anything bad, but her running mate and campaign staff failed to dispel that Clinton-era suspicion. Dems need candidates who can convincingly represent that working class – the non-college class. It’s personality and background – not race, not gender. Harris’s Howard University, after all, is famous as the “Black Harvard.” It conveys a snobbery, especially given the fixation over the last half-century on affirmative action and DEI-type things.
What is “wokeness?” It was originally meant to convey awareness of the state of the world, and of oppressed people – like yourself! But, in 2024, thanks to Ron DeSantis and other conservative lightning rods, it has come to mean the efforts of elites, those who DO NOT suffer, to distract from the real concerns of those who DO suffer by creating various straw men like racism, sexism, or transphobia. Intelligent Dems who want to win elections will have to see wokeness for what it has become, not what it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Class is real. Many Trump voters know this. Do the Democrats? Perhaps it’s that Dem gerontocracy that is the problem (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Gerry Connolly and other members of Congress hanging on forever) – Dems need younger communicators for sure. But 65% of American voters do not have a bachelor’s degree, hence only 35% have any claim to becoming upper-middle-class (ever), and any aspiration to attaining even middle-middle-class status seems to be further out of reach for many younger workers. Dems won’t win many presidential, or even Senate, elections with a base that contains at most 40% of the electorate.
What is the purpose of education – at any level? It is supposed to enable the acquisition of skills needed by society. These skills may change over time, but it seems totally immoral and unreasonable to consciously deny education to any segment of the population. Perhaps some cohorts should be directed to alternate forms of education, but they should all be given the opportunity to benefit society to the maximum extent possible – minimizing any personal limitations.
So, what’s next for the Democratic Party? It needs to be aspirational — and it needs to communicate those aspirations to enough voters for a plurality; it needs some younger candidates – and, most important, it needs to understand the tensions created in American society by the malevolent forces of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, or by political corruption in general. It needs to convince voters that its candidates cannot be bought. How Dems manage this, with what candidates, remains to be seen.
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 