Thomas Frank put to words the unease I felt during the 2016 presidential primary season.
Notwithstanding all of her experience and knowledge, Secretary Clinton seemed to (once again) be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The national mood was just not conducive to her insider image and style of running.
For better or worse, Mr. Trump convinced voters that he was a "change candidate." The populist wave he rode on was not uniquely American. Britain had its stunning Brexit vote; and much of Europe is having to deal with a backlash against globalism, specifically what it has failed to deliver for those lacking the knowledge or skills for the "New Economy."
In, "Listen, Liberal," Mr. Frank does a superb job of explaining the root cause of the Democrat's problem with blue-collar workers. He starts from the 1970s and works his way through various Democratic "leaders" to show how the Party evolved to abandon blue-collar workers in favor of an emerging professional class (a/k/a white-collar) in finance, engineering, medicine, technology, etc.
Frank explains how the Democratic Party has developed a philosophy (bordering on religion) that can only be described as high-tech/innovation trickle-down theory. Unlike the Republican gospel of trickle-down economics, high-tech trickle down is the belief that innovation ala technology is the solution to all of our problems - esp. unemployment, lifting up the poor, etc.
Mr. Frank is no Luddite, but he also doesn't buy into the faith of endless blessings arising from technology with zero downside. High-tech often leads to improvements in efficiency, which nearly always translate into fewer workers needed to do the same job. This, in and of itself, isn't necessarily bad. But, when politicians stop listening to the people who are impacted/displaced by these changes, resentment and desperation can and does set in.
What those who have preached a Gospel of Technology fail to consider is that technology DOES have downsides; and they are not an inevitable consequence of change. Impacts can be mitigated and that is where government has failed. Democrats/"liberals" deserve special blame because they frequently looked the other way and let the problem fester - or made it worse (e.g. supporting welfare "reform"). Of course, trade deals that have amounted to a global race to the bottom (in terms of wages and working conditions) have also contributed to a shrinking middle-class.
Bill Clinton, with his politically calculated triangulation strategy, gave us welfare reform that amounted to a fend-for-yourself approach to those who come upon hard times. And then there was NAFTA, which the professional class experts all told us would produce a plethora of net gains for America. That was said just before you heard that giant sucking sound of corporations pulling up stakes to move to where labor is cheap, working condition regulations are few, and organized labor is non-existent.
Most of America was living high on the hog buying cheap consumer goods from China and Mexico. This effectively rewarded companies for outsourcing jobs and abandoning manufacturing towns. In other words, most Americans are guilty - one way or another - of keeping a race to the bottom going.
And that carousel kept going around until a sufficient number of Americans started noticing decaying towns; and experience poverty and joblessness for themselves. Then, they collectively developed a righteous anger. First, at the excesses of Wall Street after the Clinton/Bush Era of deregulation; and second at the backlash towards the Obama years, where little was done to punish or reign in a Financial Sector that nearly brought the world economy to collapse in 2008. A collapse brought to us by a professional class ... that had to be bailed out by the working poor (again).
Democrats had no response to this as they were part of the history that gave us welfare reform, NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. All moves that contributed to the collapse of the blue-collar ecosystem; and the enrichment of a financial sector that is "too big to fail." And, as the Obama administration demonstrated, "too big to jail" as well.
So, it should surprise no one that a half-baked celebrity populist with shrewd marketing skills was able to rise up from this series of bad decisions/outcomes to exploit the concerns and fears of Americans, who are angry at the loss of lifelong jobs, the lack of replacement jobs, stagnant wages for those lucky enough to find work, a growing gulf between rich/poor; and white-collar professionals getting away with plunder.
The Democratic Party is at a cross-roads and whether it picks, for DNC Chairman, Keith Ellison (progressive in the tradition of FDR) or Thomas Perez (in the mold of the Clinton/Obama "Third Way") will indicate whether the Democratic Party has learned anything from its 2016 loss. If the Party continues the status quo with Mr. Perez, they will further separate themselves from the very real concerns of many who voted for Trump. If this path is chosen, it will be to the everlasting shame of the Party of FDR.
