This post from John Judis is the second contribution in the Washington Monthly/The Democratic Strategist roundtable discussion of Stan Greenberg’s new article on government reform and the white working class from WaMo’s June/July/August issue.
John Judis is a senior editor at National Journal.
The analysis of the white working class’s voting patterns has been an important task for Democratic consultants and pollsters and political analysts over many election cycles–going back to Stan’s early focus groups in Macomb County–but I worry that it is becoming a cul-de-sac. Along with the blanket designation of minorities or people of color as automatic Democrats, it has mainly served simply to provide calculations that either produce or deny a “rising Democratic majority,” and these exercises may provide less insight about the present or the future than they have in the past.(use arrow to read more)
Stan correctly points us to a discussion of Americans’ attitude toward government as a critical issue, which is relevant, incidentally, not just to the non-college educated or non-college graduated, but to a wide range of the voters Democrats need to attract. The Democrats, once known as the party of the common man–a sure winner in American politics–have become known as the party of government, and that is indeed a problem for some of the reasons Stan cites. Bill Clinton, the DLC, and Dave Osborne tried to dispel this impression through launching a campaign in the early ’90s to “reinvent government.” That put Democrats on the right side of the debate, or at least inoculated them against the usual charges. But when I read the current proposals circulating among Democratic candidates and think-tanks and policy groups–highlighted in my mind by the idea of turning the ill-functioning post office into a public banking system–I worry that on the question of government Democrats are going in exactly the wrong direction.
Right now, the Democrats need to focus on thematics rather than on demographics. Yes, government reform is the right direction, as long as the proposals (like the perennial middle class tax cut) take into account how American voters actually think and not how Democrats in certain zip codes on the east or west coasts believe they think. Done correctly such an approach will allow Democrats to gain votes among some constituencies that spurned them.
There will a problem in 2016, however, in presenting “government reform” as the centerpiece of a Democratic agenda. This kind of agenda works best when presented by the party that is out of power–like the Democrats were in 1992 or 2008. It falls flat, on the other hand, when a Democrat or Republican is attempting to succeed someone from their own party. In that case, the candidates’ success depends primarily on convincing voters that their opponent would screw up government–as GHW Bush was able to do in 1988 with Dukakis or as Obama was able to do with Romney in 2012. For this reason, in 2016 the Democrats should basically frame their appeal around the appalling consequences that would result from a GOP victory and hope that the Republicans don’t move to the center in 2016, but instead proudly present themselves as the party of governmental obstruction, religious fanaticism, and welfare for billionaires.

At The Washington Post Catherine Rampell’s “The GOP’s shifting goal posts” adds some clarity to defining political ideology of candidates in the age of Republican gridlock.
Rampell begins by noting that current Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee are former Republicans (less convincing is her including Sen. Bernie Sanders in the used-to-be-conservative category because he is a self-described “Independent” and Martin O’Malley doesn’t really fit it very well). Rampell argues that these Democrats matured into a more thoughtful liberalism. But it’s a very different dynamic for Republicans:

Polarization in the House and Senate is now at the highest level since the end of Reconstruction, according to at least one measure. And it’s true that both parties have moved outward. But the polarization has been asymmetric, with Republicans having moved much further right than Democrats have moved left.
Today’s Republican Party is one that would likely consider Richard Nixon — who created the Environmental Protection Agency, championed affirmative action and advocated for national health care — too liberal. Even Reagan — who granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, raised taxes 11 times and was willing to negotiate with the Soviets — might not survive a Republican presidential primary today.
If there isn’t room for Nixon and Reagan in today’s shrunken GOP tent, there definitely isn’t space for centrists such as Chafee and Webb. Webb’s views are eclectic, including a dose of economic populism, support for abortion rights, skepticism about immigration and opposition to gun control laws. Chafee likewise supports abortion rights and gay marriage. He also voted against the Bush tax cuts — on fiscally conservative grounds, mind you, since he thought they would irresponsibly widen the deficit. In a speech that I attended in 2003, Chafee lamented the rise of “right-wing fanatics” but said he truly believed Republican moderates would regain their clout, so he was committed to sticking with the party of his childhood. They didn’t, so he didn’t.
In other words, it’s wrong to say these Democratic presidential hopefuls left the Republican Party. The Republican Party left them.

Rampell’s case for “asymmetric polarization’ ought to help political journalists avoid getting hustled by Republican-inspired false equivalency scams. But it probably won’t, since so many political reporters seem to be too lazy, biased or conflict-averse to use her insights to edit out the memes they have been spoon-fed by the GOP.
One of these days a genuine Republican moderate — not a pseudo-libertarian who opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the very existence of unions and modest environmental protection measures — will come along and probably do pretty well. Today, however, we have so many Republican presidential candidates that they can’t figure out how to hold a functional debate, and not a one of them has the guts to stake out a moderate course. It’s a sad commentary on a once-great political party.

Note: this essay by Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin is the first contribution in the Washington Monthly/The Democratic Strategist roundtable discussion of Stan Greenberg’s new article on government reform and the white working class from Washington Monthly’s June/July/August issue.
Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at both the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. He is also a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and the author or co-author of six books.
John Halpin is a Senior Fellow at American Progress. He is the co-director and creator of the Progressive Studies Program at CAP.
As the ideological group most committed to activist government, progressives have a special duty to strive for the best social and economic outcomes achievable and the widest public support possible for the major institutions of government. Right now, we are failing on both fronts. The economic status of many working families remains precarious while public trust in government is abysmal.
Much of the blame can be heaped on an obstructionist right blocking policies designed to help working families and on the priorities of conservatives in Congress and state legislatures seeking to advance the agenda of the wealthy. But progressives’ own deficiencies in articulating a vision of government that links collective action to individual empowerment and opportunity, and in defending the institutions of government from the predatory influence of outside interests, has also contributed to the steep decline in public support for government.(use arrow to read more)
Voters today, particularly the white working class voters that Stan Greenberg focuses on in his strong article, have little confidence that government can address the most serious problems facing the country, spend taxpayer wisely on the right priorities, and provide real accountability and make necessary changes when actions fail. These voters are not libertarians. They believe that government plays a vital role in protecting people from hardship and expanding economic opportunity.
What they do not see at all is a government capable of putting aside personal agendas, partisan concerns, and the narrow interests of corporations and the wealthy to serve the greater public good and their own economic standing.
As Stan argues correctly, progressives must take this challenge of trust in government seriously if they want to maintain electoral strength and build long-term support for progressive policy solutions. “Championing reform of government and the political process is the price of admission with these voters,” he writes.
Evidence across multiple survey research and communications projects confirms his ideas about the potential of a government reform message. Candidates and activists would be wise to develop these narratives for 2016 and beyond.
But it’s clear from years of data, that efforts to restore trust in government must go well beyond better messaging. Since the 1960’s, the American National Election Studies has asked voters the question, “Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run for the benefit of all the people?” Majorities of Americans throughout the 1960’s believed government was run for the benefit of all people, and subsequently trusted it to do what is right in the classic measure of trust in government.
At no point since 1970, with the exception of a brief time after 9/11, has the ANES reported a majority of voters saying the government was run for the benefit of all people. These beliefs cut across partisan and ideological lines suggesting that Americans have serious doubts not only with the performance or direction of government but more importantly with its basic orientation as a guarantor of the public good.
Trust in government is a huge and complicated issue to understand and is more of a system design challenge rather than a public communications one. How do we as progressives ensure that policymaking and legislation are developed openly with adequate democratic input? How do we resolve deep ideological and partisan disputes to produce policies that invest in people and our economy? How should we restructure government and elections to drastically reduce the influence of outside money and corporate interests in setting priorities and making policy decisions? And most importantly, how do we get tangible outcomes for people that deliver on their expectations and needs in terms of security, health and education, and economic opportunity?
What progressives and Democrats need to do more than anything is back-up their populist narratives about reform with legitimate structural changes to the corrupt and undemocratic processes of government and sustained efforts to pursue economic policies that will benefit a wide cross-section of working class families and voters.

Plum Liner Greg Sargent comments on the strategy of making political donations reform a leading issue for Democrats: “This week’s New York Times/CBS News poll found that this issue should be a fertile one for Democrats. It showed huge majorities across party lines think money exerts too much influence over the process, and that this disparity benefits the rich…And yet, the poll also found that fewer than one percent name money in politics as their top issue…But as Ed Kilgore notes, there’s no need to give up and forever consign campaign finance to the realm of boring process issues that only matter to “snooty wine-track good government” voters. Dem consultant Stan Greenberg has long believed it can be used to appeal to blue collar whites who might be open to the Democratic agenda, but need to hear Dems speak to their belief that government is no longer capable of solving their problems…” Sargent also quotes Greenberg and Rep. John Sarbanes, who says Dems should always cite political donations as obstacles to needed reforms, such as environmental protection, jobs and infrastructure upgrades.
Peter Beinart observes at The Atlantic: “When historians look back at this era in American history, they’ll find the lack of political debate about China astounding. Then again, given the tenor of the GOP debate about “radical Islam,” maybe American foreign policy will be better off if the Republicans running for president leave well enough alone.” I would just add that nearly every president since Harry Truman has talked tough about China as a candidate, then caved like a sinkhole as president. In an NPR interview with Kai Ryssdal yesterday, President Obama talked about the TPP as an initiative to get the U.S. a bigger bite of trade with Asia’s booming economies, which he believes will be overwhelmingly dominated by China if we don’t get more involved.
I knew he was heartless and meanspirited, but I’m a little surprised at his raw stupidity. Voters are supposed to believe this guy can lead America forward, out of partisan gridlock?
I wish Republican gaffes had more shelf-life. But it appears Americans are all too willing to forget even bigger disasters, and this CNN/ORC poll provides a depressing example.
Chris Matthews gets the GOP’s motivation in pushing voter i.d. bills exactly right on MSNBC’s Hardball: “The sheer brazen-ness of this move is one thing we can agree on. Seeing the demographic changes on the way (the rise of minorities in the American population, the rising number of single people, the changing attitudes among younger people on matters such as same-sex marriage) the thinkers in the Republican Party have decided their best bet is to make it harder for certain groups to vote. Let’s look at whom the GOP brain-trusters might like to see staying home on election day: Older people who live in big cities, especially minorities, are people who don’t have drivers licenses…Young people away from home at college…People who tend to vote for Democratic candidates…”
Lincoln Chaffee’s record.
Republican Hawk “long knives” may be out for Rand Paul. But Democrat Lincoln Chaffee, as “the lone Republican senator to vote against authorizing the war in Iraq,” may have the more impressive credentials for isolationist centrists.
Alan I. Abramowitz and Steven Webster write at The Crystal Ball: “The rise of negative partisanship has drastically altered the nature of electoral competition in the United States. Intense dislike of the opposing party and its candidates by supporters of both parties means that party loyalty and straight-ticket voting are much more prevalent than in the past. As a result, the outcomes of elections for offices from the presidency down to the state and local level are overwhelmingly determined by the balance of party support in the electorate while local factors such as the records and personalities of the candidates are much less important than in the past…Negative partisanship is likely to remain an important feature of American politics for the foreseeable future.”
Speaking of gaffes, as expected, Huck steps in it….again.

The second Washington Monthly/TDS roundtable discussion on the white working class, around Stan Greenberg’s new article, “The Battle for Working People Begins with Government Reform,” was initiated at WaMo this morning with my introduction. The roundtable essays will be published daily there and here.

One of the hardiest of perennials in progressive political discussion is the direction of non-college educated white voters–a.k.a., in the era of mass higher education, the White Working Class. There are a variety of reasons for this preoccupation. For one thing, much of the progressive policy legacy that has been extended and contested in recent decades is rooted in a New Deal Democratic Coalition squarely based on the white working class. That this group of voters is now arguably a component of the Republican “base” is a source of both political frustration and moral self-doubt for progressives.
At the practical level, steady declines in support among white working class voters have diminished Democrats’ geographical reach while increasing the party’s already heavy dependence on young and minority voters who do not participate proportionately in non-presidential elections. More generally, white working class Americans represent a puzzle to Democrats who constantly appeal to their economic self-interest and the positive role of government in their lives, but who nonetheless for hotly debated reasons continue to give a majority of their votes (at least in presidential elections) to a Republican Party deeply committed to trickle-down economics and limited–sometimes disabled–government. In the past many Democrats sought to neutralize alleged cultural conservatism among these voters by muting or even negating their own cultural liberalism, with mixed results and a lot of regrets. More recently, many progressives have come to rationalize the problem as a product of inherently reactionary southerners saturated with racial resentments, or dismiss it as a phenomenon prevailing among a shrinking minority of economic and demographic losers.
No progressive political analyst has devoted more passionate attention to this dilemma over the years than Stan Greenberg, an adviser to presidents and global leaders who first came to national prominence studying the Reagan Democrats of suburban Detroit. Greenberg has returned to this topic again and again in his polling and strategic work, and now is offering fresh data and analysis suggesting a path–though not an easy path–for a Democratic revival in key segments of the white working class, and among the unmarried women who overlap with the white working class by definition and by affinity of views.
Greenberg concedes that certain non-college educated white voters, the “most religiously observant, racially conscious and rural” voters in the South and the Mountain West, are mostly beyond reach of any progressive message at present; most also live in states with formidable Republican majorities. But beyond those limitations, he finds robust support for a progressive agenda and message that includes “policies to protect Medicare and Social Security, investments in infrastructure to modernize the country, a cluster of policies to help working families with child care and paid leave, and new efforts to ensure equal pay and family leave for women.” But among both white working class voters and unmarried women, what undermines support for this agenda is a deeply felt antipathy to government as corrupt, beholden to wealthy special interests, and incompetent to achieve progressive goals.
This is a dynamic that observers like Greenberg have been noting for years. But now, he believes, it has become critical:

We have arrived at a tipping point at the outset of the 2016 election cycle, where the demand to reform government is equal to or stronger than the demand to reform the economy. More accurately, reform can make it possible to use governmental policies to help the middle class. In short, it is reform first.

Greenberg is convinced the conventional wisdom that issues like cleaning up the influence of money over Congress or campaigns are bloodless “process issues” of interest only to “wine-track” voters is dead wrong.

White working-class and downscale voters are open to a bold Democratic agenda and prefer it to a conservative Republican vision for the country. To win their support, however, voters are demanding, with growing ferocity, that Democrats battle against America’s corrupted politics and for a government that really works for the average citizen.

This second part of the “reform” agenda is especially difficult for some progressives: a demand that government be streamlined to become a more efficient instrument for vindicating middle-class interests. This is, interestingly enough, of particular concern to women (both white working-class women and unmarried women generally).
Add together the middle-class economic agenda and a reform agenda and you have, says Greenberg, a potent message that can unite the Obama Coalition with a higher percentage of the white working class, with women from all backgrounds especially supportive.
The “reform first” strategy is sufficiently provocative that we at the Washington Monthly and at The Democratic Strategist (with whom we are collaborating) decided to focus this Second White Working Class Roundtable on this critical subject. The contributors will include John Judis; Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin; Mark Schmitt; Joan Walsh; Richard Kahlenberg; Karen Nussbaum; John Russo; and Jack Metzgar; Andrew Levison; and myself; others may join as well. Here at Political Animal we’ll roll out an essay each day beginning tomorrow, and will collect them at both The Democratic Strategist and at the White Working Class Roundtable website (http://thedemocraticstrategist-roundtables.com/) We may hold follow-up discussions as well.
We hope this will become a watershed discussion that will not only cast light on what progressives can do to appeal to a broader coalition of voters, but dispel some myths as well.

From NYT’s “Democrats Challenge Voter Restrictions in Battleground States” by Maggie Haberman and Amy Chozick:

Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign.
The Democrats began last month with lawsuits filed in Ohio and Wisconsin, presidential battleground states whose governors are likely to run for the Republican nomination themselves. Now, they are most likely going to attack a host of measures. They include voter identification requirements that Democrats consider onerous, time restrictions imposed on early voting that they say could make it difficult to cast ballots the weekend before Election Day, and rules that could nullify ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

Similar efforts are underway in NC, and more are planned for GA, NV and VA, report Chozick and Haberman. While it is doubtful that the efforts will succeed in reversing voter suppression laws in time for the 2016 election, it is hoped that raising consciousness about voter suppression will stimulate voter turnout among African and Latino American voters who are being targeted in battleground states by Republicans and energize progressives to improve voter turnout. Although the effort being spearheaded by Clinton supporters, all Democratic candidates stand to benefit from it.

Brooking Senior Fellow William H. Frey, author of “Diversity Explosion,” has a post, “Today’s race and generational voting preferences cannot predict future election outcomes,” which reveals how potentially-complex America’s political demography will become in the years ahead.
“…While new racial shifts introduced by the millennial generation may very well drive current and future Democratic voter advantages,” says Frey, “the national electorate will also embody a large and growing senior population as the mostly white baby boom population continues to age.” Further:

There will clearly be a browning of the 18- to 29-year-old and 30- to 44-year-old segments of the electorate as the large millennial generation begins entering middle age in 2024. By then, minorities will constitute nearly one-half of young adult eligible voters and 40 percent of those ages 30 to 44. These represent voting blocs that are ripe for Democratic retention if current race and generational political affinities continue.

However, continues Frey,

During the same period, the large, mainly white group of voters age 45 to 64 will lose some of its baby boom population as the latter advance into a sharply rising senior population. Votes from these older two groups will be easier for the Republican Party to retain if current generational voting affinities continue. Thus, there will still be a contest. That is, in 2024, the eligible voter population age 45 and above will be 26 percent larger than the eligible voting population under age 45–a disparity that will be further widened by the higher turnout of older eligible voters.

And if that wasn’t tricky enough political terrain, Frey adds:

Democrats could make greater strides with key white voting blocs including white college graduates–both men and women–who will increasingly dominate post-boomer generations of voters. Republicans could make gains among Hispanics and other minorities. Furthermore, both parties will do their best to garner the favor of the growing, high-turnout senior population that will be increasingly composed of baby boomers.

Going forward, Republicans arguably face the more daunting task, considering their anti-immigration profile and failure to offer young voters anything impressive in terms of better educational and employment opportunities. They are going to have to come up with some new policies to get any political traction with youth and Latino voters, and they seem to have no interest in reaching out to African Americans.
For Democrats, it appears that the overarching challenge in the years ahead is to find creative ways to get a healthier share of senior votes. In terms of policies to improve health care and retirement security, Dems are in good position to accomplish this. But there is plenty of room for improvement in terms of educating senior voters and messaging that appeals to them.

The following article by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
My careful and objective analysis, based on 35 years in political life, is that ALEC is one of the sleaziest organizations in modern American political life. I know that sounds like a dramatic thing to say, but when more than 100 major corporations find it too embarrassing to be associated with you anymore, you know things have to be pretty bad. And what drives me crazy is that my tax dollars are subsidizing ALEC’s corporate lobbying.
Check out this new video from a web-show called The Undercurrent that my organization, American Family Voices, sponsors. It’s a new investigative journalism collaboration called The Undercurrent: Uncovered with one of my very favorite organizations, the Center for Media and Democracy, and it features the IRS complaint against ALEC filed by CMD and good government watchdog Common Cause:

CMD is an expert on ALEC, having done a lot of investigation into them over the years. And there is no organization in American politics who knows more about money in politics and special interest lobbying than Common Cause, so I can say with a great deal of confidence that this complaint the video speaks to has a lot of merit. Look, I am not naïve: corporate special interest money will always find plenty of ways to influence legislators. Here’s the deal, though: you and I should not have to subsidize that special interest lobbying and influence peddling. The IRS needs to investigate ALEC and stop this sleazy charade now.

Kim Chandler of the Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, a George W. Bush appointee, will resign Aug. 1, “after months of review by a judicial panel and calls from politicians in both political parties for Fuller to voluntarily step down.” For more detail on the incident that appears to have lead to his resignation read Brad Friedman’s Salon.com post, “America’s most heinous judge: Why wife-beater Mark Fuller deserves more than resignation: After physically abusing his wives and children, here’s what U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller really deserves.” It was Judge Fuller, who sentenced Alabama’s former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman to federal prison — on charges that 113 Republican, as well as Democratic former state Attorneys General contend “had never been a crime before the popular Democratic Governor was charged.” Friedman reports that Judge Fuller “didn’t allow Siegelman to go free pending appeal, as is the usual custom in such cases.” Many believe that GOP political operative Karl Rove instigated the railroading of Governor Siegelman. Those who want to urge the President to pardon Governor Siegelman, can do so here.
At The Atlantic Matt Ford has a moving tribute to Beau Biden, son of the Vice President, former Attorney General of Delaware and devoted public servant, much like his father.
Lydia Saad reports at Gallup that “Half of Americans consider themselves “pro-choice” on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as “pro-life.” This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans’ abortion views.”
“Violence casts cloud over Mexico’s elections of governors, mayors, lawmakers,” reports Dallas Morning News Mexico bureau chief Alfredo Corchado. Yet Mexico’s mid-term election is expected to draw half of all eligible voters. Corchado quotes Jaime Rivera, a University of Michoacon political scientist: “Voters believe less and less in political parties, but they still want to believe in their institutions,” said Rivera, who is also a state electoral adviser. “That’s why this election is so important, not just because of what’s at stake, but because of the very essence of hope that institutions can still work for the common voter.”
Olivia Marshall reports at Media Matters on media helping Santorum’s rebrand of himself as “champion of the working-class.”
At The Upshot Brendan Nyhan takes a look at opinion polling on ‘free trade’ and finds a substantial gap based on income: “Data from a 2013 CBS/New York Times poll show that 58 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 per year preferred to limit imports to protect United States industries and jobs, while only 36 percent preferred the wider selection and lower prices of imported goods available under free trade. But the balance of opinion reversed for those making over $100,000. Among that higher-income group, 53 percent favored free trade versus 44 percent who wanted to limit imports…Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey released on Wednesday found that a plurality of Americans making under $30,000 per year say that their family’s finances have been hurt by free trade agreements (44 percent) rather than helped (38 percent). By contrast, those making more than $100,000 per year overwhelmingly believe free trade has been beneficial — 52 percent said trade agreements have helped their family’s finances versus only 29 percent who said they have hurt.”
Also at The Upshot, Derek Willis reports on the areas of disagreement between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: “They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate…The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession. Mr. Sanders, who formally kicked off his campaign Tuesday evening in Burlington, Vt., was opposed to all these actions.”
Jim Newell of Salon.com takes stab at explaining short and long-range strategic options for Martin O’Malley’s presidential campaign.
But Dems in general are lagging in megadonors. Eric Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times write, “In each of the last two election cycles, 14 of the top 20 donors gave their money to conservative organizations and Republican campaigns, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”