Your turkey wasn’t the only thing that got roasted last week.
Last Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized his fellow Democrats for pushing ahead with Obamacare in 2009 as if the earlier “stimulus” bill was all the economy needed. His speech was not so much a repudiation of Obamacare, but a step toward repositioning Democrats ahead of 2016.
“After passing the stimulus,” Schumer said, “Democrats should have continued to propose middle-class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem — health care reform. …
“When Democrats focused on health care, the average middle-class person thought, ‘The Democrats aren’t paying enough attention to me.’”
Consider, too, the way another liberal, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones, put it in a recent piece about why the economically battered “white working class” (WWC) backed the GOP by a 30-point margin this year:
"(W)ho does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn't matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any.
“That’s because they’re closer to it. For them, the poor aren’t merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They’re the folks next door who don’t do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. … And who is it that’s responsible for this infuriating flow of government money to the shiftless? Democrats.”
Anger may be the right emotion, but I think Drum has misdiagnosed its cause — and undercounted those who feel it.
When I talk to people who express such anger, they aren’t only white and they aren’t only those without college degrees. They’re mad that they played by the rules — get an education, work hard at a job, raise a family, etc. — but aren’t getting ahead.
These people actually look askance at two groups: the wealthy and Drum’s “undeserving poor.” In both cases, they resent the laws and the politicians who disproportionately help these groups. This is the essence of the tea party, which railed against Wall Street bailouts as much as against welfare programs.
Here's the difference: While these people resent bank bailouts and crony capitalism, they recognize the contributions the wealthy have made. They understand — contra the newly populist Hillary Clinton — corporations create jobs.
They want to see more success stories, not fewer. They just don’t want the successful to use their financial power to rewrite the rules in their favor. They blame Republicans for collaborating in that effort.
But they don’t respect the “undeserving poor.” While many of these people give their time and money to those we might contrast as the “deserving poor,” they also know people on the dole who could be contributing instead.
Yet up to and including last month's election, Democrats showed no understanding of, much less sympathy for, their attitude. Instead, Democrats tried to argue Obamacare was for them. As Schumer indicated, the response was, Oh, no it's not.
Ultimately, the importance of Schumer’s argument depends on how many other Democrats adopt it.
About the Author
