One issue that usually gets overlooked in discussions about the loss of “working class” (especially the male working class) support among Democrats is feminism. “Anti-feminism” has long been a staple of Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio, and now it’s a central feature of what might be termed “Jordan Peterson culture”. This “anti-feminism” isn’t actually what Democrats think it is, viz., some general sentiment of “misogyny”. Rather it’s the sense that the Democratic Party is hostile towards men and masculinity and reflexively takes the side of women in any sort of dispute involving males and females. It’s understandable that Democrats should support relatively liberal abortion laws, since that’s arguably reasonable and just. But they’ve never really stood up and criticized a lot of the everyday “male-bashing” that goes on in the Democratic Party, and working-class males have come to realize that the Democratic Party doesn’t really have their backs because first and foremost in their “hierarchy of victimhood” are women and Blacks, so each and every (white) male claim that involves a legitimate gripe against women or Blacks can be dispensed with. Working-class male culture heavily revolves around things like “honor” and “self-reliance” and “pulling one’s own weight”, and so WCMs naturally rebel against a Party that “forgives all transgressions” (except those committed by white males, of course) and, indeed, has a sort of contempt for what could be described as “masculine” values - risk-taking, a willingness to engage in heroics, a love of sports and competition, etc. - and now this “anti-masculinity” has also bled over to the point of alienating the non-white male working class, since Black and Latino males are also realizing that the the DP is reflexively pro-feminist and anti-male in any sort of “zero sum” situation involving males and females. Democrats can never admit to such a problem, of course, since the AOC/socialist college-girl wing of the Party would scream to high heaven if they did.
The only way that the Democrats earn back the working class vote after calling them semifascists and other vile names is that the Republican establishment that hates the working class as much as the Democrats prevails in setting the Republican platform.
Let's admit it. The Democrat party can be justifiably branded the "Femocrat" party. It is anti-male unless a low-T academic type. It is the party dominated and controlled by the Theory-indoctrinated educated female, or those males having been stuffed with the same ideology by their female-controlled campus experience.
There is no way to pull back from the anti-male, anti-working class brand unless the party fundamentally changes in ways that the feminists in control will not allow.
However, the GOP can blow it rejecting Trump and the new GOP that appeals to the working class while Democrats appeal to those lost voters with offers of unionization and UBI. However, mostly what will happen is that the working class voter will just stay home and not vote.
Ruy argues primarily from an economic perspective in which Democratic neoliberals have toxified the party, though he acknowledges a cultural element. I think Bill Clinton exemplified a successful Democratic party, and its subsequent failures rest on its growing cultural toxicity for most Americans. Further, I think that referring to most Americans as "working class" says more about a Marxist filter than about the voting public.
Still I think Biden has the numerical advantage. It all comes down to whether or not enough of the 25% of the Republicans that are Never Trumpers can be pulled into voting for Biden (really Kamala). No Democrat will every vote for Trump, even if they do not like Harris, and there are numerically more Democrats than Republicans. So the race comes down to whether or not the Independents and the Never Trumpers even come out to vote at all. It would have to be a Large number of them voting Trump for him to win. And I am not convinced that will happen.
One issue that usually gets overlooked in discussions about the loss of “working class” (especially the male working class) support among Democrats is feminism. “Anti-feminism” has long been a staple of Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio, and now it’s a central feature of what might be termed “Jordan Peterson culture”. This “anti-feminism” isn’t actually what Democrats think it is, viz., some general sentiment of “misogyny”. Rather it’s the sense that the Democratic Party is hostile towards men and masculinity and reflexively takes the side of women in any sort of dispute involving males and females. It’s understandable that Democrats should support relatively liberal abortion laws, since that’s arguably reasonable and just. But they’ve never really stood up and criticized a lot of the everyday “male-bashing” that goes on in the Democratic Party, and working-class males have come to realize that the Democratic Party doesn’t really have their backs because first and foremost in their “hierarchy of victimhood” are women and Blacks, so each and every (white) male claim that involves a legitimate gripe against women or Blacks can be dispensed with. Working-class male culture heavily revolves around things like “honor” and “self-reliance” and “pulling one’s own weight”, and so WCMs naturally rebel against a Party that “forgives all transgressions” (except those committed by white males, of course) and, indeed, has a sort of contempt for what could be described as “masculine” values - risk-taking, a willingness to engage in heroics, a love of sports and competition, etc. - and now this “anti-masculinity” has also bled over to the point of alienating the non-white male working class, since Black and Latino males are also realizing that the the DP is reflexively pro-feminist and anti-male in any sort of “zero sum” situation involving males and females. Democrats can never admit to such a problem, of course, since the AOC/socialist college-girl wing of the Party would scream to high heaven if they did.
The only way that the Democrats earn back the working class vote after calling them semifascists and other vile names is that the Republican establishment that hates the working class as much as the Democrats prevails in setting the Republican platform.
Let's admit it. The Democrat party can be justifiably branded the "Femocrat" party. It is anti-male unless a low-T academic type. It is the party dominated and controlled by the Theory-indoctrinated educated female, or those males having been stuffed with the same ideology by their female-controlled campus experience.
There is no way to pull back from the anti-male, anti-working class brand unless the party fundamentally changes in ways that the feminists in control will not allow.
However, the GOP can blow it rejecting Trump and the new GOP that appeals to the working class while Democrats appeal to those lost voters with offers of unionization and UBI. However, mostly what will happen is that the working class voter will just stay home and not vote.
Ruy argues primarily from an economic perspective in which Democratic neoliberals have toxified the party, though he acknowledges a cultural element. I think Bill Clinton exemplified a successful Democratic party, and its subsequent failures rest on its growing cultural toxicity for most Americans. Further, I think that referring to most Americans as "working class" says more about a Marxist filter than about the voting public.
Still I think Biden has the numerical advantage. It all comes down to whether or not enough of the 25% of the Republicans that are Never Trumpers can be pulled into voting for Biden (really Kamala). No Democrat will every vote for Trump, even if they do not like Harris, and there are numerically more Democrats than Republicans. So the race comes down to whether or not the Independents and the Never Trumpers even come out to vote at all. It would have to be a Large number of them voting Trump for him to win. And I am not convinced that will happen.