|
Class
Conflict
Amid
all the talk of race- and gender-identity politics in the
Democratic presidential primary, various observers are noting
that there’s another, possibly more electorally important,
split: class. Working-class whites go for Clinton, the “creative
class,” otherwise known as knowledge workers, for Obama. (African
Americans of all classes are presumed to support Obama, a
fact that probably rankles Charlie Rangel as much as NOW’s
assertion that all women should support Clinton rankles me.)
Academic
Richard Florida, who named the creative class as a political
and economic force six years ago, got pollster John Zogby
to get some numbers on this trend, and it turns out that the
creative class prefers Obama on every issue by landslide margins.
By Florida’s count, the creative class makes up 35 percent
of the working population, while the working class has shrunk
to 23 percent, but the working class are concentrated in swing
states and districts, and they vote, so they are still a political
force to be reckoned with.
Florida’s soundbite about what’s driving the split is that
“the creative class anticipates the future while the working
class is, in many senses, seeking protection from it.” He
writes that it will be “hard for Mr. Obama’s rhetoric of hope
and change to resonate with those who are falling farther
and farther behind economically.” Meanwhile, Clinton’s focus
on pragmatic economic populism—protection from economic disaster—is
apparently seen as too much of an “us vs. them” mentality
for the creative-class types.
It’s fairly sad to me to think that the best progressive ideals—social
liberalism, global citizenship, awareness of the true needs
of the new economy, commitment to economic security and fairness—should
be split between the two Democratic candidates in this way.
It seems like a lifeline to a backwards Republican Party that
has been, and should continue to be, losing support from all
quarters.
Thing is, while it’s easy to spell out the differences in
economic prospects, and especially change in economic prospects
over the past several decades, that would cause “creative
class” and “working class” voters to be looking for different
things in a candidate, the fact is, they’re not two separate,
unrelated interest groups. They are two interdependent segments
of our economy, so having them pitted against each other seems
to me to be an unfortunate state of affairs. The creative
class may have taken over the driver’s seat of new economy
activity from the unionized factory workers, but that doesn’t
mean that the working class is irrelevant.
Indeed, as quality of life and quality of urban infrastructure
become ever more important factors in attracting, keeping,
and generating economic activity, all of the trades, as well
as farmers, transit workers, service workers of all types,
etc., become increasingly crucial. Manufacturing may have
shrunk, but we cannot and will not do without those who work
with their hands. In fact, our failing bridges and energy-bleeding
homes might suggest that we would do well to have rather more
manual labor going on than we do.
It was with all these things in mind that I sat down to read
the recently issued Brookings Institution working paper, “The
Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass
Upper Middle Class.”
I
almost couldn’t get past the first few pages though, on account
of a nasty little bias in the language. The authors kept explicitly
conflating absence of a college education with “low skill.”
“A broad definition of the white working class would include
all whites with less than a four year college degree—the dividing
line between high and medium to low skill,” they write. Later,
in discussing whether to use income as the definition of class,
they question whether “a decent standard of living” should
“disqualify those of modest skill from membership in the working
class.”
No wonder members of the working class, like my grandfather,
who was a repair tech at IBM for many years, assume academics
are looking down on them and react with defensive scorn. It
defies reason to call someone who scraped through with a liberal
arts bachelor degree, and is doing a succession of office-temp
jobs badly, automatically more “skilled” than someone who
apprenticed themselves to a master cabinetmaker right out
of high school. Nor does it make much sense to call a successful
professional or manager more highly skilled than a successful
craftsperson or farmer.
Despite this twitch, which contributes to the very divide
the piece is exploring, the rest of the Brookings paper is
well worth a read. I was especially struck by the plausible
argument made toward the end for a platform/rhetorical spin
that would appeal to both working and creative (or “mass middle”)
classes: Support for economic security measures, but presented
as a starting block for opportunity, a base that allows investment
in the future (getting new training, for example, or making
a promising but risky career change) rather than as only the
thing to keep the wolf from the door.
“Populism
appeals to the negative, pessimistic side of these voters’
outlook, but it frequently falls short in appealing to the
positive, optimistic side,” the authors write. (They note
that Republicans do the reverse, appealing to the optimistic,
bootstrapping side while ignoring/denying the very real problems
facing all but the rich.)
They argue that policies to strengthen things like health
care, social security, child care, and funding for college
should be presented as measures that could allow a typical
“working class family to raise its head from the day-to-day
struggle of an insecure world and concentrate on its most
heartfelt wish: to achieve the American Dream,” a kind of
“aspirational populism” that would also resonate with the
future-oriented creative class.
I’d vote for it. Would you?
—Miriam
Axel-Lute
www.mjoy.org
www.albanyplanningblog.org
|
Site
Search 
