Centerfield

What the left wing can't understand is that the numbers of "working class" have declined and that more people today see themselves as part of an entrepreneurial or managerial class. Traditional nostrums based on class solidarity and collective help don't sell as well because many people see themselves as able to make it on their own. People like this are hostile to class-based appeals and to the notion that they need protection from forces beyond their control.

Of course, there are still large numbers of true working-class people. However, increasingly, they tend to be immigrants and people who are too unsure of their status to organize or to vote (in a lot of cases they are not even citizens).

I love to watch old movies, especially those depicting life in the 30s and 40s. If you watch those movies, you see that a lot of people that are portrayed as intelligent, competent people are working class. For example, in "The Best Years of our Lives," one of the characters was a captain in the war,but is working as a soda jerk in a drug store. With college less prevalent and less affordable, a lot of what we would consider "middle-class" people were doing working class jobs. Today, virtually all middle-class people go to college and they have generally moved out of the working class. Their attitudes toward government have accordingly changed. That's not to say that much of the middle class doesn't have problems and are struggling, but they are much more diffuse and, in many cases, I think, don't like to think of themselves as working class.

Sorry, I don't see how the Democrats are the party of Hollywood glamour liberals and working class stiffs working on a construction job.

Something like 40% of union members voted for Bush in '04. Seems like that trend line only keeps racheting upward.

MWS;
Interesting comments. I see a lot of working class people in my work (i.e. hospital cook, unit secretary) some are recent immigrants but most of the recent immigrants work as the janitor or simialr position. Are these "new working class" folks more politically diverse? Are their numbers smaller? Why don't they have as much influence on the process (seemingly) as the "old working class" of the 30's.

Mark, given that union membership is so low now I'm not sure any stat regarding who they voted for means that much.

For stats on union membership, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the place to go.

Union membership is increasingly the realm of government employees of one sort or another. Government employees are four times as likely to be union than private-sector workers, 37.2 percent compared with 8.2 percent, with 12.9 percent of U.S. wage and salary workers overall being union members.

Given the high proportion of unionized government employees, I think that the union vote is indeed a relevant indicator. The question is, of what, exactly?

Does that mean every Republican administration (or Republican state or local government) will have an undercurrent of discontent since a third of the workers (theoretically) will be polically opposed to the admin.?

The problem I see with this thesis is that it ignores significant local level gains for Democrats.

The Democratic Party as a whole is far from in decline. In fact they've made some pretty major gains at the local and state level.

It's the national party that's screwing up.

I don't think there is another reservoir. Demographics tells you who Americans are, and which ones vote.

The idea that democrats can build a majority without recapaturing the voters they've lost is a fantasy, IMO.

Carla, if you are right about local gains (I have to plead ignorance about that here) then that is exactly how the republicans made a comeback. Would you say that waht defines the Dems in the future on a national level will be a reflection of how they are redefined at the local level?

As far as unions go, at one time they were obviously needed. Workers had no rights and had little protection. Now, IMO it seems as if it's pretty hard to get fired even if you are non-union. When people feel more secure they tend wander away from whatever was protecting them in the first place.

edude:

I'd say the short answer to what you asked regarding the future of the Dems is "yes".

To be honest...I have more ideas about it...but I'm out of gas at the moment. Maybe I'll mull it over and post something on PreemptiveKarma later in the week.

Carla, where are your stats on the democrats gaining power at the state and local level. I'd love to see them, and I'm not being flip, I'm curious. I hope these numbers are in pewrcent form and count all available seats. Otherwise...Have the democrats made an overall gain in the number of reps in state legislatures, for example? I know the GOP lost a few seats here in MA, but it's MA.

Wouldn't you agree with the idea that the democrats need to show power at the federal level for the decline thesis to really be shown invalid? It seems to me that until a trend like that is seen, the decline is pretty obvious. After all, even if democrats were able to make gains at local levels, if they couldn't get that to translate to the federal level, it would suggest that voters were unwilling to give the keys to the democrats on big things.

Personally, I'm starting to get a feeling that the GOP is peaking...

bk:

Democrats gained the governorship in Montana (and won it by a healthy margin) as well as North Carolina...both considered "red states". They also gained state legislative seats in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Colorado (where the Dems also picked off a GOP senate seat), California,Hawaii, Washington,Iowa, North Carolina,Michigan, Ohio and Oregon.

The Democrats have to start rebuilding from the ground up. This looks like ground up to me. And the national party would do well to pay attention, IMO.

And the third highest vote getter in the election was Barbara Boxer, behind Kerry and Bush. She even got more votes than Nader did nationally. LOL

bk...oops...you did ask for stats and I didn't really give that to you. Did you want the exact numbers? That will take me awhile to look all of those up....

Chris,

IMO, the "new working class" has less influence for a number of reasons; their are fewer of them relative to the population; they are more marginalized by virtue of being immigrants and minorities; in part because of this, they are less likely to be politically active, and they are more geographically scattered because they are largely in service industries. IN the past, the working class was concentrated in manufacturing industries in particular. Moreover, the service industries (e.g., retail) in which the working class are concentrated have lower profit margins; for example, retail is a fiercely competitive industry in which retailers fight for every cost saving. This was not nearly as true of, say, the Big three car companies during their hey day. All of these factors, I think, make the new working class less politically potent. The fact is that, IMO, there are a lot more people today for which working class concerns simply aren't relevant because they are never going to be working class or probably know anyone who is. In the thirties or forties, lots of middle class people were or potentially could be working class. That's not nearly as true now.