'The Democrats are wholly oblivious to our struggles' (Mark Makela/Getty Images)
On paper, Donald Trump’s decision to choose J.D. Vance as his running mate made perfect sense. The Rust Belt kid turned Yale graduate is an ideal figure to both troll America’s elites and woo its working-class whites. It is the Rust Belt states, after all, a collection of what was once America’s industrial core, that will decide the race. Stretching from the Upper Midwest to the Northeast, this is Vance’s cultural backyard.
The Rust Belt is my backyard, too. And in Erie, Pennsylvania, where I live, Vance’s schtick plays well. Folks here feel left behind — because they are. In their despair, they want a scapegoat.
In 1950, the Rust Belt was home to 43% of all American jobs. In Vance’s lifetime, industrial jobs have plummeted by 35%; in his early adulthood alone, 5 million factory jobs vanished. Deaths of despair filled the vacuum. Suicide in slow motion, the Rust Belt’s white working class leads the nation in early deaths caused by alcoholism, addiction and risky life choices. Before the term was even coined, Vance wrote in his 2016 Hillbilly Elegy memoir: “The statistics tell you that kids like me face a grim future — that if they’re lucky, they’ll manage to avoid welfare; and if they’re unlucky, they’ll die of a heroin overdose.”
Vance and I share more than a backyard. His biography is mine. I’ve lost my best friend, dad, aunt, uncle, and two first cousins to deaths of despair. My sister will probably be next. Broken homes, poverty, and addiction are, like Vance’s, my family’s narrative themes. I flunked high school. But like Vance, I had a grandparent who helped me survive the post-industrial apocalypse. Somehow, I bumbled into college. Eventually, I earned a PhD.
Today, as a professor, I study American liberalism. And here in the academy, white working-class despair is seen as something best ignored. This comes with a political cost, but don’t take my word for it. As Lisa Pruitt, a professor of law who studies the rural working-class, told me: “Race, ethnicity, and sexuality: It is a competition. Everyone gets a gold medal unless you are white. We need to acknowledge white pain and white vulnerability, or you can’t build a broad coalition.”
But what if Pruitt’s warning is already outdated? Today, the Democrats’ “working-class” problem has metastasised beyond whites. In 2020, Joe Biden won the Hispanic, 55-41, and black, 92-8, working-class by wide margins. Yet Republicans have made real inroads with these voters. The Democrat’s lead with the non-white working class has collapsed to nine points. Two-thirds of all voters are working-class. The math is clear. If the polls of the non-white working class hold, Trump wins in a landslide.
The Democrats’ working-class problem goes beyond math — it cuts to the core of the party’s identity. Gregg Cantrell, a professor at Texas Christian University, has literally written a book on liberalism’s working-class roots. “Farmers and labourers were among the first Americans to realise that the new large-scale corporate capitalist economy needed a counterbalance to protect the little guy from being crushed,” he told me. The idea that the government can protect the small against the big guy is the foundation of modern liberalism.”
But now the “little guy”, of all races, is shifting to Trump. The Republicans are poised to become a multi-racial working-class party. Democrats, meanwhile, are, in the words of Vance, a coalition of “well-to-do white Americans and minorities from across the political spectrum”.
Can Harris woo the non-white working class back to the Democrats? That’s the meta-question of the entire election. And simply replacing the top of the ticket is a cosmetic fix to a systemic problem.
To understand why, start at the top. A majority of House Democrats graduated from a top-100 college. Just one measly Democratic member of Congress has cited ever working a blue-collar or service job. Since 2004, a quarter of all Democratic presidential campaign staffers attended the same 15 elite universities. What this means is that Democrats, the self-styled “Party of the People”, don’t have folks with working-class backgrounds on their staff, in their offices, and now on their voter rolls. But the problem runs deeper than the class disparity of political elites.
Dr Cory Haala, a specialist in the political history of the Rust Belt Midwest, thinks the Democrats’ working-class woes stem from the party’s “singular focus on winning the presidency”. With the White House always in mind, he explained, the Democrats aimed policy at upscale suburban voters in key swing states. As a result, what started with Rust Belt working-class whites morphed into a problem with the non-white working-class.
And this political romantic comedy now has a twist, with Republicans wooing the very Rust Belt and non-white working-class base whom the Democrats had so long taken for granted. Eva Posner, a Democratic campaign manager, thinks her party’s working-class problems start with pocketbook concerns. “We are in desperate times. Housing costs have been going up consistently. There is not a city in America where you can afford an apartment on a minimum wage job.”
Posner agrees with Haala on the damage wrought by White House-centric politics. An obsession with the White House means Democrats ignore political offices that address basic problems. As she told me: “We don’t prioritise city councils or mayor races that have the jurisdiction. We prioritise the goddamn DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]. Congress is doing shit. Why are we pouring millions of dollars into races that don’t do governance? The things that solve people’s problems are at the local level.”
For Posner, politics is not advanced calculus: “This isn’t goddamn hard. Voters see that we are quick to help corporations but not regular people. They think, ‘you aren’t doing anything for me.’ Well, no shit. Fund local campaigns, talk to human beings, find the problems and solve them. It is basic.”
Because Democrats no longer offer tangible solutions to working-class voters, they left the door open to symbolic appeals. From Kid Rock to Hulk Hogan, Trump and Vance offer a down-scale gloss on a plutocratic agenda. But Trump, at least, offers the gloss. And in choosing Vance, he nominated a person with working-class roots to the Vice-Presidency.
The decision may be hollow and, as recent weeks have indicated, not without blunder. Vance’s recent “cat lady” rhetoric, for instance, is as stupid as it is sexist. But the Democrats are wholly oblivious to our struggles. And in times of oblivion, scapegoats and ruses often have the final say.
Jeff Bloodworth is a writer and professor of American political history at Gannon University
jhueybloodworth 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAny chance we could stick to rational scientific debate? I thought that the whole point of Unherd was that it doesn’t follow the herd, but perhaps I was wrong? Give me information, not proselytization.
Not following the herd wherever it goes doesn’t mean disagreeing with it no matter what. On climate change, there are clearly some parts of the accepted narrative that are correct and backed up by good data and theory. It doesn’t mean we have to get all Greta Thunberg, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Science keeps saying this Pacific NW heat event is a 1 in 1000 year ‘Heat Dome’, a very rare climatic event
“The core of the heatdome, as measured by the thickness of the air column over British Columbia and the Pacific NW, is – statistically speaking – equivalent to a 1 in 1000 year event”
But a Gretta spin on everything is pretty much required these days. Remember, these events likely used to be 1 in 2000 year events, and are now 1 in 1000 year events, so likely means:
“In decades to come swathes of the world will resemble British Columbia today”
I always liked Poutine, so can handle it.
“Science keeps saying this Pacific NW heat event is a 1 in 1000 year ‘Heat Dome’, a very rare climatic event.”
Yes. It’s easy to google the heatwave in the pacific northwest and learn about the rare conjunction of factors that caused the heat dome. As the author of this article rightly notes at the beginning, there’s no evidence to link climate change to this anomalous event (although I think it should be conceded there might be a link to some extent). I’m not sure why the author chose to concede the current heatwave can’t definitely be linked to climate change and then use it as an example of what will happen to all of us if we don’t change our CO2-producing ways.
The more interesting question for me is what if the changes we now see in the climate are, for the most part, not caused by human activity? What if they’re part of a natural cycle of climate change? We can’t control that; all we can do is adapt and learn to live with it.
“What if they’re part of a natural cycle of climate change?”
There is too much money and prestige riding on that not being the case.
It’s funny because whenever it gets really cold we’re told it’s not climate, it’s weather. But when it gets really hot, apparently that’s climate, not weather.
Once upon a time climate scientists told us to expect a global freezing, that a new ice age was imminent, then there was the hole in the ozone layer melting the ice caps, then it was global warming. Now its climate change, I guess they gave up on predicting if its getting warmer or colder. How does this climate science have any credibility.
Boss: are we making or losing money?
George: All I can tell you is that the money we have will be different from yesterday.
Boss: you’re fired.
More details on the ‘once upon a time’ bit about climate scientists predicting global freezing would be helpful – or is this just impressionistic? And there’s really quite a bit of stuff available about the credibility of current climate science,
Google is you friend there Andrew, global freezing was climate science through out the 70’s
I confirm what George Glashan said. When I was a lad, global freezing was quite the fashionable thing. Peddling the new ice age scenario was the route to success in the academic rat race of the time, just as peddling anthropomorphic climate change is today. Science is as corruptible as any other human activity, and when there is money involved don’t stand in front of the stampede. Of course, the real skill lies in being able to swap horses part way through without falling off.
True, but note the possibility that a warming planet could involve a threshold phase shift to regional glaciation – rapidly shifting magnetic poles aside. It’s like trying fix a part-diagnosed car engine fault whilst swerving down a part known track towards a cliff (over it or into it who cares). See link: https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/
14 times as many people die of cold each year and whilst global warming does drive maximum temperatures higher, most of the average temperature increase is accounted for by increases in the lowest temperatures, ie milder winters, more than cancelling out the total rise in heat deaths.
Also, whilst heatwaves are deadly, we are already perfectly able to adapt to them. Roll outs of air conditioning have reduced heat related deaths by 50-60% over the last few decades and are a cost effective fix.
I recommend you read some of Bjorn Lomborg’s writings on the subject.
‘Several of Bjørn Lomborg’s articles in newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph have been checked by Climate Feedback, a worldwide network of scientists who collectively assess the credibility of influential climate change media coverage. The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility ranged between “low” and “very low”.’ Just Wikipedia, but worth wondering about.
Thanks. Always good to have a broad range of sources and see what the counter arguments are. It will be interesting to see which of his claims they disagree with.
Especially since Lomberg takes the bulk of his data from the IPCC!
We should always remember that the so-called “fact-checkers” have skin in the game.
“the most extreme humid heat is highly localized in both space and time” (from the Science Advances paper linked to)
In other words, areas with extreme wet bulb temperatures, like deserts with dry heat, or arctic and antarctic locations with extremes of cold, will be relatively easy to avoid, or to use technology to mitigate the effects.
Science-scare articles often use linguistic sleights of hand. For example, a doubling of prevalence can accurately be labelled as ‘more widespread’. But if it’s a doubling from 0.0001% to 0.0002%, then ‘widespread’ (alone) which is often picked up in lay papers is entirely false. Here there is huge write up of potential ‘severity’ without really noting how easy it is to avoid.
Media reporting has been poor and may too have contributed to overemphases of data demanding far clearer qualification.
There was also a very nasty cold spell in Texas this year. Please don’t say this was just a freak weather incident. I recently read that the current Heat Dome in British Columbia is comparable to heatwaves during La Niña, which, according to the climate scientists, had nothing to do with Global Warming.
I really would like UnHerd to publish one of many scientists, who have other scientific explanations of natural occurring Warming, than the usual suspects who are just part of the Herd of Main Stream thinking.
Don’t forget ocean dynamics. See: https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/
The BBC, which is an environmental campaigner, has been foregrounding this heatwave for days. The real issue is not whether it is getting hotter but what to do about it. And that in turn requires an adaptive response to what will be a hotter world, not endlessly going on about cutting emissions and “net zero”. There is some sign that the BBC is beginning to see this. But not much.
Mitigation is no longer enough alone, so adaptation is more critical. Both are needed,
Climate change today is what Satan used to be. A name for blame of anything seen as frightening or evil. So extreme weather is not extreme weather it is climate change.
What world do you come from that you think Satan was used to mean frightening? Satan was used to refer to the master of Evil, a very particular issue of ultimate, intentional, malevolence. Your post and upvotes show the young today have 100% disassociated from the entire human culture of the even recent past.
I will echo what a number of people have said and ask for articles discussing both sides of the climate change debate: man made vs natural occurrence.
“In decades to come swathes of the world will resemble British Columbia today”
As I have been hanging out in Vancouver BC a lot in my life I assume you mean the swaths will become second Provinces of China. Richmond BC was my old hangout, even in the 1980s it was called Hong-Couver.
Sad to see the old British ways so disregarded even though USA readership and neighbors remain in F, the European C is the only measurement here, and the Queens head is still the symbol of state in Canada.
I remember the horrible 1971 change over from the proud Roman system, and two thousand years of British usage, of proper money: farthing, haypenny, tuppence, thruppence, sixpence, shilling, florin, half crown, crown, ten bob, pound, and guinea when one British Pound = 240 pence. Then meters, and C and the EU taking over, a sad time.
The end result of all this is young people who have absolutely no ability at basic arithmetic – in the old days we could add up 3-8-4p and 3-5p and 13-9p in our heads, and then subtract it from a five pound note mentally…Now youth cannot add 47 and 19 without using their phones.
Also – WHY did you not give the ‘Wet Bulb Temp’ when it was 49.6 C? (this takes into account humidity of the air) since you went on about it.
The 12 based system was excellent! You modern folk have no idea. I do the trades in USA where 12 inches = 1 foot and 4 ft is the standard measure base.
10 is divisible by 2 and 5, or 1/5 and 1/2, hardly useful for building.
12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6. 1/6, 1/3, 1/4, 1/2. Carpentry in USA is based on 16 inch center, 16, 32, 48 mostly, or 12 inch center, 12, 24, 36, 48 or 24 center, 24, 48.
One inch is divided by 1/32, 1/16/ 1/8/ 1/4, 1/2. Every 4 foot length, 8, 12, 16, 20, can be broken into easy whole numbers or simple, compatible, fractions without any .33333 or 0.125, or .0625 that are so hard to add up and make to ‘Break’.
The 13 knot string was histories greatest builder tool – 12 increments, and can be used to find square (right triangle at knot 3, 7, and closed at 12 makes 90 degrees, the 13 knot string (12 lengths between knots, base 12) was to find any useful angle, and length – an AMAZING tool.
Base 10 is for calculating, not making, it is not natural, 360, 180, 90 is how we still do circles, (12 based) and time, because it is NATURAL math, as it reflects the real world, not some paper calculation.
Carpenter’s squares are still what the world is built with, 360/90 degrees, not 100/10 – Napoleon, the guy who forced decimalization, wanted decriminalize clocks, calendars, circles, it is not usefull as it is not natural maths except for calculations on paper.
Any chance of getting some of that heat dome over to the UK?
Because it’s been bloody pissing down all over the b*****d place for a month now and I’m sick of it.
I remember back in the 70s my eldest brother scaring me about the imminent return of the ice age….
All a bit of a mystery, but perhaps Unherd’s scientist readers can publish here what they see as the unheard science base?