Main Edition
US
FR
August 21, 2024 - 7:10am
While neither the last-but-one Republican president nor the last pre-Trump nominee appeared at the GOP convention, the DNC has been only too happy to dust off its former standard-bearers, starting with Barack Obama who gave the keynote speech on Tuesday evening.
Obama’s theme last night was much less rosy than “Hope and Change” and the Sorkin-esque homilies about “the arc of history” which sounded so soothing 16 years ago. Instead, the former president sounded a somewhat more fearful note, making clear that “it will be a fight [over] a closely divided country.” He urged his listeners: “Do not boo — vote,” and issued a warning against complacency in the face of an existential threat to democracy.
This echoes Obama’s belief that Democrats are “the underdogs” of this race. Yet the sight of the 44th president, to be followed tomorrow by the 42nd, also invites reflection on the trajectory the party has taken since their respective campaigns. For the challenges now facing Kamala Harris as she attempts to assemble a winning coalition arguably have their roots in the political choices made during the Obama and Clinton eras.
Consider that when Obama last ran, the Midwest was still known as an impenetrable Blue Wall, while Florida and Ohio were still purple states. When Bill Clinton gave his acceptance speech in 1996, the Democrats were competitive throughout large swathes of the South. During that period, they had gone on to win not just Clinton’s Arkansas and Al Gore’s Tennessee, but states such as Kentucky and Louisiana too.
The story of the last three decades has been one of political success for Democrats, who have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight elections. Yet it is also one of narrowing political constituencies and pyrrhic victories, as the party attracted college-educated professionals at the expense of the non-college-educated majority. In particular, non-college-educated whites were lost, but in recent years they have increasingly been joined by significant numbers of non-college-educated minorities. As recently as 2007, “56% of voters without a degree were Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 42% were Republicans or GOP leaners”; today, Republicans hold “a six-percentage-point advantage over the Democratic Party,” according to Pew Research. These are precisely the voters that Harris must win back. But how did the Democrats lose them in the first place?
One could explain that these trends are part of a broader process of educational polarisation which is beyond the control of either party, or one can instead look at how the last two Democratic administrations made conscious decisions to encourage such a realignment. The party’s fulsome embrace of finance, tech, and globalisation under the Clintons and Obama did not just mean Democratic assent for policies that hollowed out the industrial economy in which non-college-educated workers found gainful employment. It also effectively pressured working-class Americans into adopting four-year college diplomas as the ultimate standard of moral validation and economic success.
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.
SubscribeI’m not sure the Democrats are “underdogs”, although it is still likely to be a tight race. I haven’t heard Trump going on about “winning in a landslide” recently though.
It’s astonishing that so few Americans recognise that their political troubles have their roots in a system of campaign finance that almost completely excludes voters from policy-making in favour of the vested interests of Wall Street and the state bureaucracy.
Absolutely!!! This is an example of the creeping control over our everyday lives.
Hear, hear.
The Dems certainly have some decisions to make. They’ve been in trouble ever since Hilary dismissed the ‘deplorables’ ie; the non-college educated Somewheres. Trump v1.0 attracted record numbers of minority votes and as the article states, the GOP continues to do well in that demographic.
The problem is that Leftie policies on immigration and climate action are only attractive to voters that can afford them or are otherwise immune from the consequences. Those that are safely tucked away in higher value low-crime gated neighbourhoods can abide higher taxes/prices “to save the planet”. Defunding the police isn’t a big problem – unless you live in a high-crime area.
The glaring example of this cultural and economic disconnect is California. High taxes and cost of living. Unaffordable housing. Restrictive eco policies. Highest percentage of homeless in the country. Net population decline as people (and more importantly businesses) leave for less expensive locales. None of it means a thing if you’re living in Beverly Hills.
The anti-Trump campaign of 2016: “He’ll ruin everything” has no value this time simply because it turned out not to be true. Harris and the Dems are enjoying a Happy Wave of media/social media popularity right now but at some point they’re going to have to bring something to the party other than Orange Man Bad.
Haven’t better educated people always been at an advantage economically? Isn’t this one of the reasons for going to college and getting qualifications? This is the case whichever party is in government.
I think the loss of Democrat voters is due not only to economic concerns but to a more comprehensive sense that they no longer speak to the values of key demographics as they once did. I think the article was too shallow and needed to address this critical failure of self-reflection. The author merely hinted at this larger context of disillusionment in the phrase “genuine political renewal.”
Agreed. It’s due to the massive leftward shift of our culture and the continuing domination of institutions. I’m college educated, well read (including “1984” and “Animal Farm”) and in the top 2% of earners and I loathe today’s democrat values. I see vivid signs of Soviet Russia every day.
Democrat priorities are to large extent also reflected by Republican elites. Truly left values and ideas continue to focus on the interests of working people, but they’re not represented politically, and are virtually invisible in mainstream media.
What is taken for “left,” and gets all kinds of exposure in mainstream media, is really liberal-left, which borrows progressive rhetoric but is mostly performative (e.g. Obama), and people see through it and resent it. They resent it because it promises but doesn’t deliver. It’s the Charlie Brown and the football syndrome. By now it’s seen as obviously false and cynical. Meanwhile, the liberal-left give all kinds of focus to the circus of culture wars that only a tiny minority care about much.
Jim Hightower, a long-time progressive out of Texas, made a useful distinction between left-liberal and real left:
It’s a real eye-opener to read influential conservatives from early last century, because you won’t recognize a shred of what they considered an urgent priority in conservatives today. For example, in 1900 Christopher G. Tiedeman published an influential book Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States, which was greatly expanded from his Treatise on the Limitations of Police Power (1886):
If the writer isn’t identified, we’d assume it was some radical lefty because that’s the framework we’re encouraged to think within today. It’s eye-opening to see just how far we’ve been pulled away from those values, which were once popular. Another hard tack happened after the sixties, with the threat of the so-called “Vietnam syndrome,” quoting Ronald Reagan.
So, Trump. He’s postured as a maverick yet in practise hasn’t seriously rocked the boat. Many people who will vote for him aren’t under major illusions about him, based on what I’ve seen in interviews. They’re not stupid. But they like that he’s seen at least speaking to working people’s interests. Crumbs, yes, but at least their top concerns are on the radar.
I mean, Trump’s whole life has been devoted to personal profit and hardly by fair means, without exploitation. He got his start with an immense inheritance from his corrupt father. There’s no indication that he’s had a big awakening which has led him to become the worker’s friend, a populist in the sense Hightower sees that role. What he is, is an opportunist with an excellent instinct. He won’t make the radical change needed, not only for domestic workers’ long-term benefit but for the survival of the human species, period.
In the top 2% of earners? I really doubt that, old fellow! You are barely literate and deeply paranoid. I’d be surprised if you are employed at all.
It would be fascinating if Champagne Socialist ever contributed anything of substance instead of his standard ad hominum attacks on other commenters. Needless to say, I expect the next one aimed at me!
I am probably next. His/her existence appears to be devoid of critical thinking.
On what basis do you determine literacy? Always entertaing to have a foil at Unherd.
Democrat priorities are to large extent also reflected by Republican elites. Truly left values and ideas continue to focus on the interests of working people, but they’re not represented politically, and are virtually invisible in mainstream media.
I find what is taken for “left,” and gets all kinds of exposure in mainstream media, is really liberal-left, which borrows progressive rhetoric but is mostly performative (e.g. Obama). People see through it and resent it. They resent it because it promises but doesn’t deliver. It’s the Charlie Brown and the football syndrome. Promises of real change have been exposed so often, I think by now they’re seen as transparently false and cynical. Meanwhile, the liberal-left give all kinds of focus to the circus of culture wars that only a tiny minority care about much.
Jim Hightower, a long-time progressive out of Texas, made a useful distinction between left-liberal and real left:
It’s a real eye-opener to read influential conservatives from early last century, because what they considered urgent priorities aren’t reflected by many conservatives today. For example, in 1900 Christopher G. Tiedeman published an influential book Treatise on State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States, which was greatly expanded from his Treatise on the Limitations of Police Power (1886):
If the writer isn’t identified, we’ll assume it was some radical lefty because that’s the framework we’re encouraged to think within today. It’s remarkable to see evidence of just how far we’ve been lured away from those values, which were once popular. Another hard tack happened after the sixties, with the threat of the so-called “Vietnam syndrome,” quoting Ronald Reagan.
So, Trump. He’s postured as a maverick yet in practise hasn’t seriously rocked the boat. Many people who will vote for him aren’t under major illusions about him, based on what I’ve seen in interviews. They’re not stupid. But they like that he’s seen at least speaking to working people’s interests. Crumbs, yes, but at least their top concerns are on the radar.
I mean, Trump’s whole life has been devoted to personal profit and hardly by fair means, without exploitation. He got his start with an immense inheritance from his corrupt father. There’s no indication that he’s had a big awakening which has led him to become the worker’s friend, a populist in the sense Hightower sees that role. What he is, is an opportunist with an excellent instinct. He won’t make the radical change needed, not only for domestic workers’ long-term benefit but for the survival of the human species, period.
Edited double-post.
Both are fine examples of the “No True Scotsmunism” fallacy.
My apologies to the Scots, whom I hope continue to make their peaty, smoky, life affirming libations.
But not to Communists, who only ever made a clear potato alcohol that tastes like disinfectant, and lower grade rum, in long suffering Cuba.
Does having a gender studies degree really make you more “educated”? More indoctrinated is more like it.
Going to college has “educated” people into imbecility for at least five decades.
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” (Mark Twain. Churchill said something similar.)
If those people are educated in a useful, high-demand skill, then yes, they have an advantage. But if they are credentialed in something with no real-world application, they are far worse off because they are unmarketable.
And are saddled with exorbitant loan debt. Which of course is why Biden has been trying to pander for their votes by promising student loan forgiveness, despite repeatedly being shot down by the courts.
And imagine how that plays to non-college educated working class folks who get ZERO loan or credit forgiveness for their debts?
Spot on. This issue needs greater exposure. It is an insult to the non-college working class who sacrificed through effort as well as all college educated Americans who sacrificed by working their way through college. Also included are veterans who served to receive GI benefits and students receiving scholarships based on merit.
SFGate.com reported that 91% of Harvard undergrads graduated with honors. Princeton was 44%, Yale was 51% Having an Ivy League degree or any college degree doesn’t not equate to wisdom or intelligence. Ellison, Dell and Gates didn’t finish college. Truman was the last President that didn’t finish college. Ford and Orville Wright didn’t finish high school. Wilbur Wright didn’t go to college. Edison didn’t go to high school. List of influential famous people without a college degree is long.
Possibly the list of those with “full sheepskin, half education” is even longer.
A college degree is still valuable, but losing its cache. Too many people attend college now, so its significance is watered down.
There may be too many enrolled. But insofar as education may be a commodity, it is a commodity unlike any other: if it is plentiful for me, this does not mean it is scarce to you. Jefferson likened it to lighting one taper from another: it doesn’t diminish my light, rather augments both your light and the overall quantity of light in the area.
Jefferson would be appalled by the atrophy of the humanities in higher ed. Education has become a commodity too like any other, its focus narrowed to a means to the end of getting a job in a specialized sector. The overall quantity of illumination is not augmented.
Jefferson would be appalled — as perhaps anyone from the 18th c. at the notion of “the humanities”? But it is just the proposition that “education has become a commodity too like any other” which which I quarrel. Schooling has become a commodity. Credentialism has become a commodity.
I stand corrected, Michael. Thank you. All I really wanted to speak to is the decline in value of the subjects in the category we now call the humanities, such as history, languages, literature. Things that don’t necessarily make money, non-material things.
I don’t know how “schooling” is distinct from “education,” but I’m happy to be schooled or educated about it, whichever definition fits.
What if someone said “too many people have sex now, so its significance is watered down”? Does everything really lose its cachet if it becomes popular?
Obama, far from a populist, is the poster child of elitism. One flaw of elitists is that they cannot conceive that anyone with any amount of actual gray matter could disagree with them. They forget that Trump won the presidency because he was the “not Hillary” candidate. Up until a few weeks ago he was leading in the polls because he was the “not Brandon” candidate. Soon he will be leading in the polls again because he is the “not Momala” candidate. He will not be leading because he has a cohesive policy statement or concrete plans for the future or a consistent message. He will lead because he is the “none of the above” candidate. America’s silent majority is alive and well. We will vote for anyone who the media is against, and we will vote against anyone who the media is for. We do not like to be told what to do.
Like any populist, people will vote for Trump as a big FU to the establishment, but they also champion an issue or two, in this case open borders. Harris can champion the same issue, but has zero credibility.
Balderdash. We’ve known at least since Lazarsfeld & the 1948 election how much “opinion leaders” steer; American voters really do “like to be told what to do,” whether by *ucker Carlson or Rachel Madcow, does not matter. (How else to imagine how two such small people could now be competing for the office once held by FDR?)
Ah yes the Nation’s only King!
The article reports Obama as claiming that Trump is “an existential threat to democracy.”
What ridiculous hyperbole! How is Trump such a threat. I can think of nothing in his term as President that remotely evidence s such a claim; not have I encountered anything in his current campaign to suggest this. He boorish, crude, unsophisticated and offensive. But I do not see how he poses a threat to democracy.
People, like Obama, throw about such accusations (seasoned with references to Hitler); and in so doing do far more damage to the democratic process by sullying it with baseless claims and lies of this nature.
I would rather have Trump, with all his personal faults, leading the free world with the courage he demonstrated when nearly assassinated than the Woke Woman Harris, who will be a disaster for all of us who associate ourselves with western democracy (if that still exists) and free speech.
Your point is something I have tried to explain to the never Trumpers. They apparently have been led to believe that Trump was not POTUS already. He displayed zero penchant for complete domination of government, academia, the media and social media, which the Democrats actually did.
“Woke Woman Harris, who will be a disaster for all of us who associate ourselves with western democracy (if that still exists) and free speech”
Speaking of ridiculous hyperbole!
Western democracy and free speech are anathema to socialists. How will Dems maintain a socialist hegemony if they allow free speech and real voting? How can one be a socialist if one disavows the principles of socialism?
I don’t think you know what socialism is, bud!
Here’s a start for you – Kamal Harris and the Democrats, for the most part, are not socialists. Not even close and never will be….
No, no, no you seem to be under the illusion that “democracy” refers to something like popular choice (e.g., actual voting in primary elections, rather than anointing and acclamation). When a substantive choice is made contrary to my wishes: now there, that’s an example of a threat to democracy. Double plus good!
Obama is the reason why race remains such a major grift in the country. Obama is the guy who talked about ‘fundamental transformation’ as if that could possibly be a good thing. Obama is the guy who referred to his own grandmother as a typical white person. Before Kamala, he had been the single emptiest suit to ever seek the Oval Office.
He was a terrible president. Divisive; race relations in the US were put back 60 years under his presidency. He was vociferous about the unethical operations in Guantanamo and promised to shut it down, then didn’t. Mr. Remote Death; he authorised ten times more drone strikes than Bush, killing nearly 1000 civilians in the process. The disaster of Obamacare. The massive expansion of state power under his watch. He refused to link blatant acts of terrorism with radical islam. Her gave millions of dollars to the likes of the PA and the muslim brotherhood. The list is really very extensive. There is a book by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan which pulls together the full horrible tapestry of failure and corruption and it is quite compelling reading.
I’m sorry, Michael.
On the economical level this is not the battle between college-educated professionals ant the non-college-educated majority. This is the battle between college-educated nonprofessionals ant the non-college-educated professional majority.
But, much more importantly, on a moral level, this is a war declared by the fascists and their Fuhrer Obama against the real America.
Here is a quote: “Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood parked a mobile clinic near the DNC event space, offering all attendees free abortions and vasectomies”.
Those who have completed the appropriate procedure are entitled to a free taco.
—————————
I don’t know what to say about them. They are non humans.
deleted
well that is a disappointment. I am new and was not aware they censored
deleted
I just wanted to take the opportunity to compliment the author if this piece, It explains the Democratic Party’s predicament as accurately and succinctly as anything I’ve seen anywhere, and his suggested cure for its ills is right on the money.
How the years rolled back listening to Barack Obama. A beautifully crafted speech with practically no specific policy content. Those were the days.
Maybe it was just me but didn’t Obama, in his speech, say that (and I’m paraphrasing) there has been 4 years of chaos and that we cannot allow that happen again.
Not the greatest endorsement of the Biden administration I’d have thought.
Maybe a veiled threat
Both Obamas gave great speeches. A positive vision for America and a very humourous destruction of the clown who you people elected afterwards. What a contrast to the weird ramblings of Trump and Vance!
So you are a Socialist then? Does your moniker imply you drink champagne at the expense of the working masses?
What is the basis of the Democrat’s mantra that President Trump is a threat to Democracy? The threat I see is a progressive move to Socialism by the Democratic party.
Not exactly sure how Obama “saved” the economy after the great recession as much as Congress bailing out criminal big banks.
Hard to imagine “degree-less” working class voting for Harris, the antithesis of their existence.
I would place Obama in the bottom ten of US Presidents but I suspect he places himself in the top ten. That is part of the Democrats’ problem. They don’t realize how disastrous their recent presidencies have been although Bill Clinton did a lot for the Irish peace process.