“How do we resist Trump’s doings and at the same time build something that can reverse a point in American politics that has been a long-time coming.“

Evidently, little of what President Biden did on the economic front actually materialized as jobs on the ground, so the actual political beneficiary of when people are hired will be Trump because he inherits it.  This fact alone makes it difficult to evaluate whether sheer “economism” —i.e. jobs, even good ones, or income (guaranteed annual wage) are sufficient for a program to defeat Trump, and more generally to defeat the right.

Some History

We would do well to recall that the turn toward the right started in the mid-1960s with white working class voters’ support for George Wallace, and grew stronger especially after the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Friends of mine who worked in the Appalachian Volunteers at the time told me how RFK supporters became Wallace supporters in the time it takes to blink an eye.  We cannot understand that shift by looking only at the economy.

On his campaign ’72, “One of [Wallace’s] supporters, who was horrified [at his rabid use of racism in the campaign], came up to him after his speech and said, ‘George, why are you doing this?’” recalls Wallace biographer Dan Carter. “And Wallace, sadly he thought, said, ‘You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened.’”  “I’ll never be out nggrd again” he concluded after this earlier campaign in which he was a racial “moderate”. 

It’s worthwhile remembering that in the 1964 Democratic primary in Wisconsin he got upward of 30% of the vote; in his 1968 American Independent Party third party run his votes were 20% or more in Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania; 30% or more in West Virginia Maryland, and topped 40% in Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida; and in the 1972 Democratic primary topped 20% in Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Tennessee and North Carolina. In “white ethnic” working class precincts in the suburbs of Detroit, it was over 50%.

Further, around the same time (1966) Ronald Reagan defeated the previously popular Governor Pat Brown of whom the Los Angeles Times recalled in 1996 “was a third generation Californian whose main ambition was not  higher office, but to be a great governor for his native state. He succeeded.

“Brown turned California from a Republican to Democratic State with his major programs and public expenditures, so you can’t even say, ‘Too little, too late.’ He was on-time.

“While voters may not have appreciated his greatness 30 years ago, millions probably do today. And historians certainly will tomorrow.”

The point isn’t to enter an “either/or” question (economics versus ______) but a “when/where/why” one.  When are questions of economic welfare of sufficient electoral saliency to overcome various issues raised by those who well understand, and are quite ready to use, the strategy of “divide and conquer”.

If Not Economics, Then What?

New York Times columnist David Brooks goes too far in the opposite direction: “The Biden administration was built on the theory that if you redistribute huge amounts of money to people and places left behind, they will return to the Democratic fold. It didn’t happen because you can’t use money to solve a problem primarily about recognition and respect.” (NYT 1/19/25). 

If we could answer affirmatively these questions, we would know a lot more:

1: Did Biden’s program actually create jobs on the ground?  If so, where?  How many?  Paying what, with what benefits?, etc?

2: Are the deliverers of the message that “good jobs are coming” believable?  Or are they “elitists” who now occupy most key leadership positions in the Democratic Party, and aren’t trusted by blue collar workers?

3: When, and under what conditions, is economic improvement, especially well-paying union jobs, sufficient?  Where and when in the past has it overcome general alienation from the system and distrust of its everyday politicians?  When does such alienation run so deep that it overrides material interests?  When does it overcome racial and other prejudices?

4: Most  basically, what are the facts on the ground for individuals, families, friends, neighbors and other associates?  Whatever the GNP might be, are their lives better?  Are there more-or-less of them living paycheck to paycheck?  And even if it’s a close call, do pessimistic and painful stories travel farther and faster than do optimistic and hopeful ones?

The Turn To the Right Didn’t Just Start 

We would learn a lot by carefully examining the shift to Wallace in Appalachia after the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Let’s look further back.  FDR’s speeches (i.e. “messaging”) and programs were a big part of the New Deal’s success.  He assured the American people that things were going to get better, that he was on their side against the plutocrats, and that he could win politically in Congress.  And he delivered, if not enough at least enough for the electorate in 1936, 1940 and 1944 to give him four more years.

What’s the difference between then and now?  The barrier of race among working class people has been broken in unions that were intentional about getting workers to put class above race, and where relationships among those workers contributed to mutual respect.  But not always.

What leads to those different outcomes in roughly similar circumstances?  The truth is we don’t fully know.

There is no equivalent to the CIO or Popular Front “at the base” to make Presidential (or any other Democrat’s) policies or promises believable.  Without rebuilding unions that don’t vigorously oppose racial/ethnic and other forms of discrimination; without a more generally vital civil society, we are not in a position to win because to win now requires big money for media, and that money comes from wealthy people who are pursuing their agendas, not from the bottom up.

The challenge is, “How do we resist Trump’s doings and at the same time build something that can reverse a point in American politics that has been a long-time coming.

Maybe that requires parallel strategies.  If so, these considerations are central:

— Those engaged in direct action need to carefully balance the need for militancy required to express their anger at injustice with the need to communicate with those who don’t share that anger, or don’t share it that militantly.

— Those engaged in the more careful building for the long-haul processes have to persuade the militants to be more careful lest their action create a bigger counter-reaction.  I believe we are dealing with the absence of such care in the recent past.

In 1961/62 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee field secretary Bob Moses traveled to Mississippi to meet an underground network of civil rights leaders who had worked with Ella Baker when she was Director of Branches for the NAACP.  While they admired the courage of the “sit-ins” and “freedom rides,” what they really were interested in was the right to vote.

At the August, 1961 SNCC staff meeting, the issue almost split the organization.  Ella Baker, who attended but rarely spoke at such gatherings, interceded with the question, “Why not both?”  The problem was resolved.  After a period in which SNCC had two divisions, it became apparent that voter registration work was as likely to get people thrown in prison as sit-ins or freedom rides.

Increasingly, SNCC became an organization of organizers building local “units” of Black people power across the Deep South.  At the same time it is worth noting that SNCC couldn’t do both in the same place at the same time.  That was tried in McComb. It frightened local Black adults, who backed away from the voter registration program.

The Amazon “plants” or “salts” are analogous to the voter registration people in SNCC.  Protest action will inevitably go on.  At the same time, some of the protestors or others who support the causes for protest need to dig deep roots in poor-to-middle class communities of all colors and build people power organizations that have the capacity to move from protest to power.

…