Working Class Ditching Dem Party In Droves As Some Say It’s ‘Fighting For Everybody Else’ Besides Americans

[GoldenBoy89]

Both Hillary's and Harris's campaigns were way too much about Trump.

What was Biden’s campaign about?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Support for both major political parties in the United States has changed over time. Democrats, who were previously associated with blue-collar Americans, no longer receive predominant support from this group. Historically, conservatives gained support from Americans who favored free trade, free markets, and less regulation, while a movement within conservatism promoted the spread of democracy abroad. Currently, the Republican Party promotes an "America First" policy, advocating reduced global leadership and prioritizing national interests over international engagement.

One consistent pattern is that blue-collar working class has typically not been linked to Black, Hispanic, or immigrant workers, but rather to White working class Americans. Since President Obama's election in 2008, this group has shifted significantly toward the GOP. These demographic factors will continue to be associated with the GOP until the party either becomes irrelevant or is unable to secure a national election victory.

President Trump made significant efforts in 2024 to attract voters who traditionally support the Democratic Party. He received a higher percentage of the Hispanic vote than any Republican candidate in the past fifty years; however, the majority of Hispanic voters still supported the Democratic nominee. Additionally, President Trump garnered more support from African American voters than any other GOP candidate in the last fifty years, though approximately 80% of African American voters continued to vote for the Democratic Party. President Trump gained significant support among young voters; however, 55% of voters under 35 still chose Democrats.

It remains to be seen whether these voters will continue to support the GOP or if their vote was a single occurrence influenced by concerns about inflation and the economy.

But here are the facts

• In seven of the last nine presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received the most votes in the American popular vote.
• Over the past 50 years, less than 20% of African American voters have supported Republican candidates in each election.
• Past 50 years, most Hispanic voters have voted for Democratic candidates.
• Past 50 years, majority women have also tended to support Democratic candidates.
• Past 50 years, majority Americans under age 35 have generally favored Democratic candidates.
• Past 50 years majority of voters with a college degree have chosen Democratic candidates.
• In addition, about 80% of non-Hispanic immigrants have supported Democratic candidates during the last five decades.

One poll, two polls, or even fifty polls do not provide meaningful results. It takes at least three to four election cycles to observe any genuine trends or changes within the demographics.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm speaking of the church's very clear position on Protecting Babies and speaking out on homosexuality. You response is not based in fact and is vaguely reminiscent of something? If you are going to promote the teaching of the church - you really cannot cherry pick which teaching you choose to follow.

Disclaimer, I'm not Catholic. Catholic moral teaching is historically deep, robust, and complex. It doesn't just say abortion and homosexuality are wrong, it speaks to a great deal of the human experience--it speaks to social conditions, such as poverty, economic injustice. The pro-life stance of the Catholic Church doesn't just say "abortion wrong", but speaks to the social conditions which also enable or encourage abortion; and it also covers non-abortion related subjects such as war, justice, and the treatment of refugees and immigrants.

Even going beyond the specifics of Catholic moral teaching, the historic moral teaching of Christianity has been deep. And reducing it to "crotch morality", which is basically what has happened in America, is not only a deeply troubling dumbing down of Christian moral teaching, it seems to dumb it down to the point of actually going full circle to just anti-Christian morality. The Church, historically, has a lot to say about corrupt leaders, hoarding wealth, about moral injustice and economic injustice--going back to the Bible itself, and not just the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well.

I don't think Christian moral teaching is actually very popular for many American Christians. Because taking it seriously would mean having to face the uncomfortable reality of our own complicity in perpetuating social evils. And there is a great deal of history of Christians being complicit--and perpetrating--major social evils. And no, we don't get to pawn off every bad Christian as "not a true Christian"--it has to be addressed and engaged head-on, bull by the horns. If we don't, then we cease to be a people who take a penitential posture toward God and neighbor, which is our deep calling in Christ to be a people of grace, mercy, and humility--a people defined not by temporal glory, but by Suffering and the Cross.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BCP1928]

I wholeheartedly agree labor has been neglected by the Democrats. If Bernie and AOC can get that message out, they might have a good chance. Newsome too.

-- A2SG, guess we'll see...the midterms could be very interesting, if Democrats don't muck up the opportunity.....

Success lies in control of the House and Senate. If we are to return to Constitutional government it is essential. Right now we have a situation in which our CEO is telling the Board of Directors what to do or ignoring them altogether. That is a bad situation no matter what the CEO's policies are. AOC would be much more powerful as Speaker of the House than as President.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Disclaimer, I'm not Catholic. Catholic moral teaching is historically deep, robust, and complex. It doesn't just say abortion and homosexuality are wrong,

Really?

The Catholic Church’s formal stance on abortion is that it is morally wrong and intrinsically evil, as it involves the deliberate termination of an innocent human life. This position is rooted in the Church’s teaching that human life begins at conception and must be protected from that moment until natural death. Here’s a concise overview based on official Church documents:

Then there is this

The Church opposes unjust discrimination against homosexual persons but does not support legal recognition of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage. It advocates for laws that uphold the traditional definition of marriage while ensuring basic human rights for all

 

[Always in His Presence]

IMHO. The embracing and promotion of deviant lifestyles is what’s driving every day Americans away from the Democratic Party.

 

[BCP1928]

Really?

The Catholic Church’s formal stance on abortion is that it is morally wrong and intrinsically evil, as it involves the deliberate termination of an innocent human life. This position is rooted in the Church’s teaching that human life begins at conception and must be protected from that moment until natural death. Here’s a concise overview based on official Church documents:

Then there is this

The Church opposes unjust discrimination against homosexual persons but does not support legal recognition of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage. It advocates for laws that uphold the traditional definition of marriage while ensuring basic human rights for all

That's all very well, but there's been some slippage. The Catholic Church is not fully in line with some of the other items on Trump's culture war agenda: Immigration, trade unions, minimum wages, gun control, the homeless, Netanyahu's policy in Gaza, etc.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Disclaimer, I'm not Catholic. Catholic moral teaching is historically deep, robust, and complex. It doesn't just say abortion and homosexuality are wrong, it speaks to a great deal of the human experience--it speaks to social conditions, such as poverty, economic injustice. The pro-life stance of the Catholic Church doesn't just say "abortion wrong", but speaks to the social conditions which also enable or encourage abortion; and it also covers non-abortion related subjects such as war, justice, and the treatment of refugees and immigrants.

Even going beyond the specifics of Catholic moral teaching, the historic moral teaching of Christianity has been deep. And reducing it to "crotch morality", which is basically what has happened in America, is not only a deeply troubling dumbing down of Christian moral teaching, it seems to dumb it down to the point of actually going full circle to just anti-Christian morality. The Church, historically, has a lot to say about corrupt leaders, hoarding wealth, about moral injustice and economic injustice--going back to the Bible itself, and not just the New Testament, but the Old Testament as well.

I don't think Christian moral teaching is actually very popular for many American Christians. Because taking it seriously would mean having to face the uncomfortable reality of our own complicity in perpetuating social evils. And there is a great deal of history of Christians being complicit--and perpetrating--major social evils. And no, we don't get to pawn off every bad Christian as "not a true Christian"--it has to be addressed and engaged head-on, bull by the horns. If we don't, then we cease to be a people who take a penitential posture toward God and neighbor, which is our deep calling in Christ to be a people of grace, mercy, and humility--a people defined not by temporal glory, but by Suffering and the Cross.

-CryptoLutheran

From a fundamental Baptist perspective, I struggle that the current pro-life movement in America may be more oriented toward political objectives than grounded in biblical doctrine. The life begins at conception and continues until death; scripture clearly identifies both abortion and the death penalty as incompatible with its teachings. It is inconsistent to advocate for the protection of unborn children without upholding all related biblical principles. A truly pro-life stance encompasses feeding the hungry, providing water to the thirsty, offering shelter to strangers, clothing those in need, caring for the sick, visiting prisoners , supporting widows , advocating for justice for the vulnerable , and caring for immigrants .

Neither political party in America aligns with biblical principles. While Republicans oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, their support for the death penalty conflicts with biblical teachings. Conversely, Democrats' social programs reflect caring for the needy as Jesus taught, but their pro-choice stance contradicts biblical doctrine.

I don't expect politicians or parties to align with biblical principles; I expect them to distort these principles for political gain.

Bu it is unfortunate to see that Christians from both political parties who read and understand scripture claim their own party aligns with biblical principles while insisting the other does not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Really?

Yes, really. It turns out that Catholicism says a lot of things are wrong, not just abortion and homosexuality.

The Catholic Church’s formal stance on abortion is that it is morally wrong and intrinsically evil, as it involves the deliberate termination of an innocent human life. This position is rooted in the Church’s teaching that human life begins at conception and must be protected from that moment until natural death. Here’s a concise overview based on official Church documents:

Then there is this

The Church opposes unjust discrimination against homosexual persons but does not support legal recognition of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage. It advocates for laws that uphold the traditional definition of marriage while ensuring basic human rights for all

That's an example right there of how Catholic moral teaching says more than just "abortion and homosexuality are wrong", it also says unjust discrimination is wrong.

And, fun fact, Catholics also believe in the 10 Commandments, so they also believe murder and stealing are wrong. So it says a lot more than just "abortion and homosexuality are wrong".

Why does this surprise you?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

IMHO. The embracing and promotion of deviant lifestyles is what’s driving every day Americans away from the Democratic Party.

For the sake of argument I'm just going to go ahead and agree with you.

Now provide an argument for why someone should support the Republican Party.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

Bernie and AOC are on the right track and have the right message, but there has been a lot of effort being spent by Republicans and "moderate" Democrats to shove them aside. Both Republicans and Democrats are playing for the same neoliberals and are not parties of the working class.

There's a bit of "Punchy-and-Judy" dynamics going on. What cognitive science would call opponent processing. The friction between the two sides help in reinforcing their behaviors and ways of being, reinforcing the overall neoliberal frame. Anything outside that frame, by the dominant discourse in society, gets portrayed as extreme or radical. So social democracy (Sanders) and general catholic social teaching on the preferential option for the poor and marginalized (Cortez), subsidarity, embodiment, and social solidarity are seen as obtuse or destabilizing. A society must be judged, not by scale, but by its ability to encompass a wider sense of community.

And yes, Trump is operating behind a neoliberal frame too. Instead of a cowboy persona, the mask is now Gordon Gekko. But the logic isn't fundamentally different. Scale, or "Winning", matters more than truth or coherence.

Dems tried to fool the working class by pandering to them one identity group at a time to keep them divided.

Right. Performative empathy. Especially Clinton, where alot of it was probably genuine, if tainted by neoliberal moralism and meritocratic mythmaking. But both Obama and Hillary could never pull it off, they came across as cold technocrats from the get go. Neither could Harris. In fact Harris's "tough on crime" persona didn't endear her to a public that increasingly sees the system as broken.

That really didn't work so the Republicans tried to turn identity politics against the Dems with the culture war sex stuff and vague promises of pie in the sky which they obviously have no intention of keeping. Labor is going to have to play a long game and it's going to have to start in the House. If Trump keeps screwing up maybe Newsome has a chance, but if he wins he is going to owe a lot to labor and he is going to have to be made to realize it.

The underlying problem can be best understood throuh Peter Turchin's elite overproduction. We are in a stage of civilizational collapse or inflection, depending on what we do now. Widespread deconstruction of meritocracy and the ideology of neoliberalism will be necessary to stave off collapse. Scale is not God. J.D. Vance gestures towards something real when he suggests a sense of place and community is vital, even if he does so through a cracked lens and questionable allegiances.

 

[Always in His Presence]

For the sake of argument I'm just going to go ahead and agree with you.

Now provide an argument for why someone should support the Republican Party.

-CryptoLutheran

Open a thread on that new subject and I’ll join you. This thread is about the Democrats.

 

[ViaCrucis]

J.D. Vance gestures towards something real when he suggests a sense of place and community is vital, even if he does so through a cracked lens and questionable allegiances.

The loss of community is probably one of the chief defining features of our modern industrialized world; and it's probably one of the most seriously dire problems we face moving forward. And that lack of community, of belonging, engenders grifters and con-artists and dangerous minds to try and fill the empty space with something--but not a good something. That is, in part, I think why we've seen a rise--among young men--the rise of the alpha male podcast phenomenon; but it's not just young men it's a bit of everybody. But that's an example of how people prey on vulnerability for those who desire community and belonging, and it's not all that different than the "traditional" cult/cult leader phenomenon.

I think there is genuine hunger for "the village". It's something that runs deep in our psychology, we aren't solitary animals, we're social animals--and we want our village.

There is, in the modern world, genuine and sincere opportunity for profound change in how we "do" civilization, for good. In ways that simply were not possible in previous generations. But present power structures are, in many ways, unfit for forward momentum; but they can be bent toward flexibility to provide smoother transition; or they can become rigid and inflexible to try and halt momentum--the problem with the latter is rigid structures can--and often--break when under too much strain.

I'm not convinced that the model of the nation state as it's existed for the last couple centuries is a model that is going to truly survive. The answer isn't empire-building, it's not large power; I think something that looks like small power is what could provide long term social stability.

The difficulties, as always in the world, is the human drive toward competition. Capitalism has maximized competition to the point of Social Darwinism and has reduced human beings to numbers and data to feed the perpetual hunger of economic exploitation. I don't see a stable answer in Marxist philosophy, a purely state-less society impossible because there will always be people who desire to be at the top and will do so even at the expense of others. I don't know what the solution to the problem of Capitalism is (or, at least, the solution to the problem of Capitalism on this side of the Eschaton, the solution to the problem of Capitalism from an eschatological, soteriological, is Christ and the renewal of all things in the Age to Come). I think democratic principles of individual freedom and participation in government, is crucial; but the emphasis on the individual must be balanced with community--which is why I think redistributive systems are crucial; safety nets and social equity is critical. But I suspect that works better on the small scale; rather than large empires.

Ideally some sort of cooperative model; but realism demands recognizing that competition is always there as a danger--the rival nation, the rival tribe, the rival gang, whatever it is--that sees you/yours not as a partner to cooperate with, but as a rival to compete with. Which is why certain state structures are necessary, St. Paul reminds us "he does not wield the sword in vain"--that is, for human flourishing there needs to be a curbing of evil--because the brigand and the bandit are very real. But so is the corrupt politician and the wicked businessman.

Anyway, I don't really have a point I'm going toward. It's just that when I read what you said it got me thinking and then I started rambling.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Say it aint so]

I understand what your saying, but in reality, at this point they really are their worst enemy. When an organization focuses on and actively promotes what is important to a minute cross section for the voting populace - it is never a productive action.

You can't get a majority of votes based on prioritizing a minority of voter

You are making my point. There is no "focuses on and actively promotes what is important to a minute cross section for the voting populace". What policies or party platform focused on a minute cross section? What bills were passed under Biden or Obama had that same misconceived focus?

 

[FireDragon76]

I think there is genuine hunger for "the village". It's something that runs deep in our psychology, we aren't solitary animals, we're social animals--and we want our village.

From a Christian metaphysical standpoint, it makes sense: Christian ontology, going back to the patristics, is relational. The Lockean/Cartesian self is an historical construct, in comparison, a modern myth.

There is, in the modern world, genuine and sincere opportunity for profound change in how we "do" civilization, for good. In ways that simply were not possible in previous generations. But present power structures are, in many ways, unfit for forward momentum; but they can be bent toward flexibility to provide smoother transition; or they can become rigid and inflexible to try and halt momentum--the problem with the latter is rigid structures can--and often--break when under too much strain.

Given the polycrisis and biospheric limits, humanity's consciousness and way of being in the world will have to change. What were once religious platitudes now have to become radically embodied. And I'm just being realistic, but it's probably wise to prepare for the worst, and not count on humanity as a whole to change any time soon unless compelled to do so by external pressures and crises.

I'm not convinced that the model of the nation state as it's existed for the last couple centuries is a model that is going to truly survive. The answer isn't empire-building, it's not large power; I think something that looks like small power is what could provide long term social stability.

Given the rise of technofeudalism, it's unlikely to continue except as a kind of noble lie or civic religion. Real power, especially in countries like the US is in the hands of tech lords.

The difficulties, as always in the world, is the human drive toward competition. Capitalism has maximized competition to the point of Social Darwinism and has reduced human beings to numbers and data to feed the perpetual hunger of economic exploitation. I don't see a stable answer in Marxist philosophy, a purely state-less society impossible because there will always be people who desire to be at the top and will do so even at the expense of others. I don't know what the solution to the problem of Capitalism is (or, at least, the solution to the problem of Capitalism on this side of the Eschaton, the solution to the problem of Capitalism from an eschatological, soteriological, is Christ and the renewal of all things in the Age to Come). I think democratic principles of individual freedom and participation in government, is crucial; but the emphasis on the individual must be balanced with community--which is why I think redistributive systems are crucial; safety nets and social equity is critical. But I suspect that works better on the small scale; rather than large empires.

We are well beyond the traditional logic of capitalism. If you want to understand late postmodernity, it's like Imperial Rome's patronage system, but with dashboards, likes, and feeds.