Did the Democratic Party Forsake the Middle Class?

by Madeleine Kando

In his new book ‘Listen, Liberal or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People’, author Thomas Frank (‘What's the Matter with Kansas?) points out that the Democratic Party’s historical role of protecting the working middle class has all but vanished. Since the 80’s, many policies implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations have hugely benefited the ‘professional class’ as well as the ‘business class’. By ‘professional class’ Frank refers to affluent professionals, lawyers, doctors, investment specialists, etc. This class is very liberal in a cultural sense, but very conservative economically.

The shift in policy in the Democratic Party came after George W. Bush’s victory, when the ‘New Democrats’ tried to be centrist by combining right-wing economic policy with left-wing social policy, which they called the ‘Third Way’.

Frank is especially harsh on Bill Clinton. He was the prototypical New Democrat. He signed the NAFTA agreement, deregulated Wall Street and ‘reformed’ Welfare by putting pressure on the unemployed. Barak Obama continued this trend, trying to fast track the TTP and, although he put the Healthcare Bill into law, Big Pharma and the insurance companies are still in control of health insurance.

It is true that under Clinton and Obama’s administrations inequality has gone up in America. Until 1980, 70% of growth went to 90% of population. By 1997, 0% of growth went to 90% of population and 100% went to the top 10%. To try to put food on the table, women joined the workforce, then families acquired debt on their credit cards and then debt on their homes, as a last resort. Productivity went up but wages stagnated.

So what happened to the ‘old’ Democratic Party, the party that gave us Social Security and Medicare? The party that got its strength and bargaining power from big unions that influenced the direction of national policies? According to Frank, it slowly got replaced by what the ‘professional class’ wanted, the class that Frank calls ‘Big Learning’, the lawyers, doctors, investment specialists and political advisors.

Much of what Clinton signed into law benefited this sector. NAFTA benefits shareholders, not workers, financial deregulation benefits investors. Deregulation of the telecom industry benefits the industry, not the users. The Democratic Party pats itself on the back because it stands for all the right things ideologically. After all, it put a black President into office. But what it has given up on, is its most important role: to protect the working class from falling into poverty.

Take globalization and technology, both widely blamed for the widening gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. It is generally thought that these trends are unavoidable, as if they were sent down from God. There is nothing we can do about it. But trade deals are not made in heaven; policy makers heavily influenced by corporations write them. Globalization gives companies a stick to discipline labor by threatening to move overseas if they ask for a pay raise, better working conditions or better benefits. Technology does not play by the same rules as other sectors. It gives us companies like Uber and Amazon, both cutthroat environments where workers have no say, no power.

It is not the Republicans that are enamored of technology and globalization, it is the Democrats. They now speak for the top 10%, the affluent, politically correct liberals who are all for gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, but who do not really care about the poor, the less educated, the people with 2 jobs and not enough money to pay the rent. They do not care about the 90% any more than the Republicans do.

In a 2-party system like the United States, there is nowhere else for the 90% to turn to. Bernie Sanders is the closest we can come to combat rising inequality. He proposes things that a true liberal party should embrace: single payer healthcare, universal higher education and fair minimum wage, things that now seem ‘extreme’. (Ironically, much of what Donald Trump proposes also resonates with the 90% as well. In depressed areas like the ‘North Country’ of New Hampshire, signs on mobile homes, supporting Trump abound. At least he wants to bring jobs back to the United States.)

Other authors have written at length about the center of political gravity having shifted so far to the right, that the left is left out of the political discussion entirely. (See this article in Harper’s Magazine, “Nothing Left: The Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals.”, by political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.) The question is, what do we do about it? How is it that the 90% has no more representation in our government?



If we look at other Western economies, the same trend is visible. In the Nordic countries, for instance, although less pronounced, inequality is also rising, but there is a big difference. The combination of free market capitalism and high social benefits guarantees a buffer against people falling into poverty. They might not own their homes, their wages might be minimal, but because of the social welfare system, they will be able to live normal, decent lives. Politically, the left over there, has not lost its clout and is able to steer policy towards a more economic balance.

This balance, once lost, is difficult to regain, but the political success of someone like Bernie Sanders proves that, even in this country, a grassroots effort to resuscitate a truly liberal, egalitarian society is alive and well. Whether he wins the nomination or not, Sanders' popularity has shown that the Democratic Party needs to listen to what the left wants and what the 90% needs. leave comment here