Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent

[Damajin]

This hits home pretty hard for those who are in the 'white working class' as named in the article. This is something I've been saying for awhile, but it's refreshing to see it get coverage. The Democrats are no less Corporatist than the Republicans and that unless you've got an identity that lends itself to political maneuvering you're basically worthless as far as they're concerned.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...-the-1-percent

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, there’s only one place for globalist-minded elites to go.

Rich Americans still have it pretty good. I don’t mean everything’s perfect: business regulations can be burdensome; Manhattan zoning can prevent the addition of a town-house floor; estate taxes kick in at over $5 million. But life is acceptable. Barack Obama has not imposed much hardship, and neither will Hillary Clinton.

And what about Donald Trump? Will rich people suffer if he is elected president? Well, yes. Yes, they will. Because we all will. But that’s a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things. Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything. Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea.

Yesterday’s primary handed victories to Trump and Clinton, and, if Michael Lind is right, Trumpism and Clintonism are America’s future. Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?

The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It’s been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.

Trumpism changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.

All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trumpism scares away, the broader and more powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something in return. It’s not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive.

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That’s one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy—and they attract sincere advocates—but politically they’re also useful. They don’t bother rich people.

It’s a costly arrangement. The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership, outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans. Worst of all, the more that interest groups within the Democratic Party quarrel among themselves, the more they rely upon loathing of a common enemy, Republicans, in order to stay united.

Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.

Seen in this light, Bernie Sanders suddenly looks quite different from his counterpart, and quite shrewder a politician than many give him credit for. One effect of focusing on economic conflict, as Sanders has done, is that it helps reduce other types of conflict. With his calls for breaking up Wall Street banks and helping young people with tuition, Sanders is uniting people across lines of identity by directing them to a cause that has nothing directly to do with identity. Moreover, while economics cause serious and passionate fights, compromise is possible. Maybe Bernie supporters will have to settle for less tuition help than they wanted, or Wall Street will have to give up more than it expected. But people will be left standing. With economic negotiations, adversaries can arrive at something other than total victory or annihilation.

Of course, to be a credible player at all, Bernie has had to signal fealty to Black Lives Matter and effectively vow to stop enforcing the border. But Bernie’s worldview and visions still feel like products of a different time, probably of Bernie’s own youth. His popularity may be a fluke, ill-suited to the politics of today. I doubt Bernie would be an effective president. Nevertheless, Sandersism is starting to look better and better in light of Trumpism and Clintonism. Though I presume the rich might disagree.

[Lenonis]

I think this is a natural outcome of the failure of Reagonist type politics (supply side/trickle down) to have the results people who support those policies expect. Tax rates keep going down and down, but the economic boon promised hasn't materialized.

Add to that the increasing rhetoric on the right about social conservatism it isn't surprising the base of the party is shifting away from the rich.

The article does raise some interesting economic impacts of immigration policy and war to those in the 1%.

[Jotaux]

Which party isn't the party of the 1%?

[Damajin]

I think this is a natural outcome of the failure of Reagonist type politics (supply side/trickle down) to have the results people who support those policies expect. Tax rates keep going down and down, but the economic boon promised hasn't materialized.

Add to that the increasing rhetoric on the right about social conservatism it isn't surprising the base of the party is shifting away from the rich.

The article does raise some interesting economic impacts of immigration policy and war to those in the 1%.

Sure, the inherent failure of trickle down was the assumption that the wealthy would be 'noble spenders' whose patronage would rain on all but it's proven to be a different sort of rain and nothing of the sort of 'noble' as was envisioned.

Oh trust me there's lots of rich people who agree with the social conservatism but they want their money first and foremost and as long as they've got gated communities, panic rooms and private guards they don't give a shit if the rest of the world wallows in the rabble and rubble of social liberalism. It's a balancing act of course to have just enough to keep the rest of the populace burdened and hindered and little enough for them to dance through all the entanglements to keep getting rich.

- - - Updated - - -

Which party isn't the party of the 1%?

Good point, I definitely think the article is topical in addressing those who think the D's are fighting for the little guy. They're fighting for the little guy if they happen to also be a part of a social group who can be leveraged for additional political pull, but that's it and they certainly don't care about them to the same degree they care about the donation class.

[PC2]

Oh trust me there's lots of rich people who agree with the social conservatism but they want their money first and foremost and as long as they've got gated communities, panic rooms and private guards they don't give a shit if the rest of the world wallows in the rabble and rubble of social liberalism. It's a balancing act of course to have just enough to keep the rest of the populace burdened and hindered and little enough for them to dance through all the entanglements to keep getting rich.

Exactly, leftists are content to be outraged and protests about petty social issues. They always do it in their own backyard and it's a good way to keep them busy about made up demographic issues like the war on women and cops conspiring to kill black people.

[GennGreymane]

US politics is for the 1%

[Prokne]

I would hardly equate Donald Trump as the champion of the working class over the 1%. His policies are basically formulated to make himself and people like himself more rich. Along with the other republicans, it is still more Reaganomics that will leave anyone who isn't well off at the mercy of rich "job creators."

The Democratic party may benefit and help corporations make more money just as the Republican party does, but they do it in a way that protects the lower classes and workers from the excesses and despotism of the 1%. I see no problem with helping businesses if they are helping make society better.

Of course socialism and Sanders' policies would be better than either Clinton or Trump, but Clinton is miles better than Trump.

[unfilteredJW]

US politics is for the 1%

Nailed it.

[PC2]

US politics is for the 1%

If that is true the 99% shouldn't even vote.

[Deleted]

I would hardly equate Donald Trump as the champion of the working class over the 1%. His policies are basically formulated to make himself and people like himself more rich.

Trump is already rich.

Try again.

[derpkitteh]

the voting populace is the problem.

too stupid to think for even a moment who they're voting for and what they stand for. they hear a few buzzwords tailored to specific crowds, and sometimes they just hear the name of the candidate, and then they go piss away their future.

[Gheld]

the voting populace is the problem.

too stupid to think for even a moment who they're voting for and what they stand for. they hear a few buzzwords tailored to specific crowds, and sometimes they just hear the name of the candidate, and then they go piss away their future.

System working as intended.

[Cradyz]

Well obviously an oligarchy serves the interests of the richest and most powerful people in the country. It's Americans own fault for being so easily misled and placated by buzzwords, partisan politics and blind patriotism.


Still you can choose your favourite corporate sponsor. Vote oil and destroy the environment or vote banks and destroy the economy.

[Gheld]

Well obviously an oligarchy serves the interests of the richest and most powerful people in the country. It's Americans own fault for being so easily misled and placated by buzzwords, partisan politics and blind patriotism.


Still you can choose your favourite corporate sponsor. Vote oil and destroy the environment or vote banks and destroy the economy.

You forgot the agricultural monopolies.

[Damajin]

I would hardly equate Donald Trump as the champion of the working class over the 1%. His policies are basically formulated to make himself and people like himself more rich. Along with the other republicans, it is still more Reaganomics that will leave anyone who isn't well off at the mercy of rich "job creators."

The Democratic party may benefit and help corporations make more money just as the Republican party does, but they do it in a way that protects the lower classes and workers from the excesses and despotism of the 1%. I see no problem with helping businesses if they are helping make society better.

Of course socialism and Sanders' policies would be better than either Clinton or Trump, but Clinton is miles better than Trump.

Economic nationalism, anti free trade agreements and the like all favor the working class and small business.

[fengosa]

I'm not buying it. Which party is more likely to support to health care reform and has done so for years? How about raising the minimum wage or increasing tax rates? Yeah, those aren't GOP talking points.

It's interesting that the article talks about the plight of the white working class and not just the working class. Arguably a level playing field hurts the white working class. As there is more diversity in the population there is more competition. That said a level playing field and social mobility works against the upper class and the status quo. The article got it wrong big time.

[PC2]

I'm not buying it. Which party is more likely to support to health care reform and has done so for years? How about raising the minimum wage or increasing tax rates? Yeah, those aren't GOP talking points.

Okay, but don't complain over the next 8 years when it is clear the Democratic president isn't going to push for significant reform other than handing out just enough scraps to keep people reliant on them for the next term.

[-Nurot]

I would hardly equate Donald Trump as the champion of the working class over the 1%. His policies are basically formulated to make himself and people like himself more rich.

Trump is already rich.

Try again.

I don't think he can really try again, that's exactly what he means. He blusters and brags over how much his wealth is worth, but won't release his financials. He exaggerates how much his "brands" are worth and over-estimates what his properties are worth, while at the same time paying little to no taxes by writing off those same properties devaluations. Whoever seriously thinks he won't bag a few more million as President if he can is in some serious denial.

[Paranoid Android]

US politics is for the 1%

May I copy/past this?

[Caolela]

Exactly, leftists are content to be outraged and protests about petty social issues. They always do it in their own backyard and it's a good way to keep them busy about made up demographic issues like the war on women and cops conspiring to kill black people.

I'm a leftist, maybe left of Che Guevara and I seldom get caught up in what you probably consider petty social issues because they're almost always secondary to the most important issues under economy and war/foreign policy. If you can get those right, much of the rest can be dealt with more equitably, instead of as emotionally charged wedge issues to divert and divide from the larger issues - and that goes for the left, right or any persuasion.