The 'new' Democratic Party | Arkansas Blog

The 'new' Democratic Party

by

12 comments

With it becoming increasingly likely that Hillary Clinton will be able to claim a popular vote edge once the primary season is over -- insert shriek here, Obamamiacs, but the Philadelphia Inquirer article in D-G this morning explains -- you begin to understand the mad frenzy to push her out of the race before that happens. Even if you accept the numbers, which Obamaists don't, they are a symbol that might -- though probably won't -- move some super delegates.

Prize-winning historian Sean Wilentz, who's been a Hillary supporter, doesn't really expect Clinton to win, I don't think. But he has analyzed the Obama victory in light of that popular vote and, more important, Clinton's huge wins in the Ohio Valley and other working-class climates. Food for thought about the party and its nominee's future.

Under those pressures, the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of "change" - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party's inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers" who live in the nation's "shitholes."

Having attempted, with the aid of a complicit news media, to brand Hillary Clinton as a racist -- by flinging charges that, as the historian Michael Lind has shown, belong "in black helicopter/grassy knoll territory," Obama's supporters now fiercely claim that Clinton's white working class following is also essentially racist. Favoring the buzzword language of the academic left, tinged by persistent, discredited New Left and black nationalist theories about working-class "white skin privilege," a vote against Obama has become, according to his fervent followers, "a vote for whiteness."

Talk about transformative post-racial politics.

In fact, all of the evidence demonstrates that white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year's Democratic primaries. Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues for white working class voters - and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her as better on these issues. Obama's campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker -- and that Clinton's positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama's campaign.

From the ArkTimes store

Comments (12)

Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment
 

Add a comment

Clicky