If the Dems can’t find Blue Collar Liberals, how can they win them?

The DLC is correct in that voters (especially Blue-Collar) respond well to hawkish talk. The problem is they want to mimic the hawkish talk of Republicans. Alternative Energy give Dems the best opportunity to talk and sound Hawkish. Many Dems forgot that while GOP Patriotism always was about wars, manifest destiny and the like, Dem Patriotism was always about the American worker being the best in the world. In other words, economic Patriotism.

Protectionism and Buy American may seem quaint to many in the DLC establishment, but they are missing how much this type of talk let Blue Collar Elected Democrats talk Patriotically. Alternative energy gives Dems this opportunity once again. Rather than frame Alternative Energy around issue of Global warming Dems need to frame it around Economic Macho Patriotism. This is the Key to rewinning Blue Collar Liberals.

In Part One and in Part 2, I tackled the question of how Democrats can ID and win over Moderates and Independents. This Diary will be about winning back Blue Collar Whites. This Diary will talk about what and how Economic Macho Patriotism would work to do this.

Many people on this site probably haven’t even heard the word Blue Collar Liberal. As Geoffrey Nunberg writes in his brilliant new book Talking Right

Liberal have been talking about ad naseum the loss of worker class white males. But all (or most) of the discussion have been along intellectual lines. Democrat economic policies are better for the working class than Republican policies, so why would you vote against your self-interest Mr. White Working class male?. The GOP then runs emotional issues (guns, gays, God) and keeps winning amongst this group. The Dems in my opinion stopped winning White working class males when we stopped appealing to their emotions. Yes this point has also been explored (again) ad naseum so enough with the analysis how do we win them back?

I suggest we use Economic Macho Patriotic appeal wave the American flag when we talk about issues of trade. I will then explain how a Business Media Elite stopped Democrats from talking this way. Hopefully recognizing their existence will help Dems figure out ways to combat them.

1) If you don’t want the UN deciding foreign policy why let the WTO, World Bank, IMF decide our economic trade policies?

If the Dubai port scandal should have taught the Democrats anything it’s the powerful appeal of Economic Nationalism. The GOP has been fanning the flames of Anti-UN, Anti-Internationalist sentiment for years, lets burn them with their own flames. If you are a Dem. in a Red State, or worker class district, you should tie your GOP opponent to the WTO. It’s a wedge issue to split the GOP’s Blue Collar social conservatives, and their corporate elite’s. The GOP has a socially moderate economic conservative elite aligned with a social conservative economically left of center base. The GOP success owes in large part to their separating the Democrats socially liberal elite, from its social center/right working class base. We need to replicate this but with economics.

TALKING POINTS
a) My opponent lets trade officials in Brussels, tell us when we can and can’t charge tariffs to protect America! This even when the Chinese dump cheep good in America!
b) In the same way only Nixon could go to China due to millitary concerns, today only a democrat can sign a trade deal with China dealing with economic concerns. The GOP signs wimpy trade deals that don’t protect American jobs.
c) My opponent is willing to use American Military Power to further American interest, but he is afraid to use American Economic power to further our interest. If we stopped trading with "Country X" they would be hurt more than we would be. But my opponent lets them boss us around.

d) My opponent voted for a WIMPY free trade deal CAFTA. He let his fat cat CEO donors scare him into signing it. Is he that afraid to stand up for working American.

e) My opponent won't insist that the Chinese and Vietnamese improve their labor and environmental standard because they have intimidated him.


f) If we stopped protecting the Saudi Royal family they couldn’t stay in power, yet we let them threaten us with oil if we demand they reform on human rights. If we stopped buying their oil, they would be hurting just as much.

Now I suspect many of the "intellectual cerebral type" liberals on this site are going to go ape crap right about now. All of these statements contain generalizations, or partial truths. But if you are feeling that way you are missing the whole point. These messages are not aimed at you! These are emotional appeals, WEDGE ISSUES. The point of a wedge issue is to drive people emotions. Gay marriage is not a danger to anyone else’s marriage (does what happen to your neighbors marriage effect you) yet the GOP’s GOTV (get out the vote) operations sold it that way, not the cerebral "we want to protect traditional marriage" that their candidates said on TV.

Remember good policy still need to back up these proposed wedge issue lines. Ford Motors makes sure they have a good product when they build their trucks, and for the Cerebral buyer (think JD powers) they have all the information on horsepower, torque, mpg ect. But in their commercials to the general car buying public, they have their trucks hauling wood and riding through dirt; pure emotional appeal. That’s how you sell a product (in this case Brand Democrat)

Gephart Vs. Edwards in 2004
In 2004 one of the Democrat’s themes was a return to economic populism. The debate was who would be a better VP to reach out to voters along these lines; Dick Gephart or John Edwards? Now don’t get me wrong I love John Edwards a lot. His "Two Americas" lines are brilliant, his lines on "the GOP wants to shift taxes from capital to work" are brilliant. But that is the part of the problem. Edward's was an intellectual rather than a visceral appeal. Imagine a debate where the question was asked "We all know trade is a fact of modern life. But who do you think the Chines, Japanese, and Arabs are more afraid to see sitting across a table when negotiating a trade deal, Dick Cheney or Dick Gephart? Who do you think will fight harder for working people on trade deals?" Yes I know Edwards is a brilliant lawyer with working class roots and a populist streak, and intellectually he would be a tougher negotiator. But rhetorically and viscerally Gephart would have a struck a deeper cord.

Mark Warner’s Nascar dad appeal in winning the VA Governorship was along these lines. Making a Blue Grass song, putting campaign adds on Nascars didn’t make him change one of his policies. In fact he didn’t deviate very far from standard Democrat policies, but he made an emotional appeal to Scot-Irish rural Whites. This emotional; appeal then opened them up to his other messages.

Working Class people are more likely to fly American flags, have a higher percentage of die hard college sports fan (the type who paint there cars their cars their favorite school colors), because tribal appeals work more with them. Make trade about waving the flag, protecting the good ol’ USA and we will win them back. This was the secret to Unions and their success from 1930 – 1990. They made supporting Unions and American made manufacturing a patriotic issue. Remember BUY AMERICAN from the 1980’s (that’s also when Democrats used to win large numbers of White working class males).
Working class people are generally (or poll at higher anxiety levels) more worried about their economic future and that of their children then other American. Howard Dean’s polling showed this. But the GOP has convinced them that "nothing" can stop global trade, or current economic policies are just the way things are. So the only way to make your children’s world a better place when you can’t control the economic environment is by controlling the cultural environment. You can’t give your children a better job climate when they grow up but you can vote to keep "Hollywood, gays, non-Christians, and other scary liberal groups a way". This is how the GOP has won Working class people, the only way back in my opinion is Economic Macho Patriotism.

THE BUSINESS MEDIA ELITE.
Democrats need to start to define it, and to start talking about it!

With all the dismal economic statistics such as record federal budget, trade, and currency deficits ever wonder why the "business media elite" don’t seem troubled. Why does the "business media elite" continue to trumpet stories about how the demise of pension is good. The loss of manufacturing is not troublesome. Large deficits at the federal level and large trade deficits are a sign of America growing faster than other nations. This is not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories require small cadre of shadowy individuals, rather this is a low key organized movement. I will also introduce you to groups behind it the BME and the Boomer Cons.

The starting point to understanding this movement is recognizing that there is a BME. The "business media elite" (BME) is largely responsive to one group. Wealthy Baby Boomer Conservatives or as I will call them Boomer Cons. This is a large pool of wealthy individuals, close to retirement age, and ready to exit the work force to live a life of leisure, off of their saving. The BME and the Boomer Cons are both self reinforcing in their beliefs. The Boomer Cons control the BME and the BME gives their view journalistic credence. The "business media elite" frames economic policy stories in a way that reinforces the Boomer Cons preconceived notions (tax cuts pay for themselves) rather that basing their reporting on actual observation. The BME get to generate revenue by selling ads to this large wealthy group. The BME holds a large sway over the general public who sees them as the voice of people in the know.

Progressive shouldn’t underestimate how much damage the one sided bias of the business media elite has done. President Reagan was said to have " fixed the economy", under Clinton governments "don’t create jobs". Bush’s tax cuts instead of not improving the economy "prevented a worse recession" (imagine a losing football coach claiming that if it weren’t for my coaching we would have lost the game by more points). The BME is the propaganda mouthpiece of the Boomer Cons and there is no challenge to them in the larger market place
The BME is comprised of such publications as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, CNBC, Investor Business Weekly ect. The BME pushes a larger policy that makes the bankrupting of America irrelevant to the Boomer Cons. To understand why it is important to understand the following fact about the Boomer Cons.

A) Wealthy Baby Boomer Conservatives are leaving the "work force"

Baby Boomer conservatives believe in a simple theory. The mission of a person working years is to amass enough savings i.e. capital to survive in retirement. Sound reasonable right? We all follow this logic to some extent. But unlike the rest of us the Boomer Cons don’t care about what else happens to the USA after their work years end (other than their heirs). If the loss of manufacturing jobs means and end to upward social mobility who cares they no longer need social mobility as retirees. They are no longer working. Good paying jobs only matter if you are looking to work! People looking to acquire capital, need income generated from work, people living off of accumulated capital savings don’t. Which brings us to my next point.

B) Tax income generated from working but not income generated from capital

John Edwards pointed this out in 2004 and although I was not a big supporter of his, this point struck a cord. The boomer cons are selling the idea that taxing work and not capital will lead to higher investment levels creating a "rising tide" that lifts all income levels. Their real motives are far more self-serving. Imagine if you will that all the policies of the Forbes/WSJ tax policy came to fruition. Lets take two example.

1) Joe Blue-collar works as a plumber his wife is as a nurse. They earn a combined total of $80,000. They would pay a flat tax of 20% on income above $35,000 for a tax bill of $9,000. Combine this with payroll tax and their total comes to $13,800 with a $1,600 contribution to private accounts, this doesn’t include another $8,000 in estimated local and state taxes.

2) Now lets observe Paris Hilton. She when turning 18 receives $30,000,000 dollars UNTAXED (no inheritance tax), she generates an estimated $2,100,000 dollars a year in interest and capital gains tax free (no capital gains tax). Ms Hilton moves to NH, a state with no state or income tax, she rents a apartment their (she is a citizen of the mobile world) thus avoiding paying local property tax (since there is no longer any mortgage interest deduction why buy?) . For a grand total of zero dollars in taxes paid.

D) Capital gain tax cuts verses decreased education spending

Most people agree that if nature of the job market place changes education is the key to future advancement. So why do the Boomer Cons oppose higher education spending. The reason is they don’t OPPOSE it, they just don’t want to PAY for it. They see America as a low cost place to generate capital, the less they are taxed the more free capital they can generate. They can then invest it overseas to earn a higher return. They don’t need to earn the higher return in the USA. This is the only rational explanation for cutting funding for student loans and not funding the President own NCLB bill. When it comes to a choice between paying for more education or low capital gains rates the Boomer cons always choose the latter. As I have blogged before.

Is a College degree or low capital tax rates more important to America?

An opening line of attacks for the Dems to reach Moderate suburban and Nascar dad voters, is our view of pro-growth versus theirs. Americans like optimism and they will vote for the candidate that promises growth over one who promises painful conservation (we are a consumer driven nation). How has the GOP sold cutting capital gains taxes to blue-collar religious conservatives who don’t directly benefit from Capital Gains Tax Cuts? They have pushed the job creating aspect of lower capital cost. But notice that because of falling tax revenue the Presidents new budgets have had to cut student loan! So…
The GOP believes Capital Gains cuts create future growth, Democrats believe a COLLEGE DEGREE creates future growth!

Which brings us all the way back to my original point on Alternative Energy. Talk to the average voter out their and gas prices are on their minds. Americans are looking for alternatives, and Democrats have a huge lead on this issue. But Democrats want to sell Alternative Energy as conservation (read: tree hugging), we need to sell it as American Nationalism. Every Dem should repeat the following:

As long as the Middle Eastern Sheiks know we have to buy Oil from them they have no incentive to change. Democrats want to stop funding these guys, an Alternative Energy is the only way to do it without hurting the economy! Republicans want to either keep sending money to the Middle East or use last century technology to keep us dependent on oil. I want to use current technology to solve our problems." This tough talking Ecomonic Macho talk in my opinion is the way to win back Blue Collar Liberals!

UPDATE The GOP isn’t seen as being isolationist. Witness Iraq. They are seen as being tough in dealing with foreign issue. In a similar light I don’t want the Dems to be seen as anti-trade, I just want them to be seen as tough on trade and trade issues. I don’t feel anti-free trade is a winner with the majority of Americans. But tough on trade deal and negotiation is!