> Thee people who camped out in Zuccoti Park in NYC during Occupy Wall Street were not rural whites.
Rural whites don’t protest. But the group of people who oppose Wall Street and the WTO and private equity are rural whites and young urbanites. If you’re trying to build a coalition to oppose those things those are the people you need to pull together (which Obama did in 2008). A study showed that over half the people who fit the profile of a “Trump Republican” (versus a Romney Republican) actually voted Democrat before 2016.
> I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here.
By moving to the left on social issues Democrats make a deliberate choice to abandon parts of their coalition opposed to fighting wealth inequality—including racial wealth inequality—and replace them with groups that benefit from and perpetuate it.
Put differently, the people who actually control the levels of systemic racism, i.e. structural economic and social disparities, have a tremendous interest in keeping minorities focused on the individual racist attitudes of rural and working class white people.
The major economic debate in the Democratic party right now is whether we should retain a dovish full-employment Fed chair or replace him with a dovish full-employment Fed chair who will also drastically ratchet up banking regulations.
This is the most economically left Democratic party we have had since Roosevelt. It's far to the left of Obama's. And Clinton, no wokescold himself, served two terms with a Democratic party that deliberately tacked to the right on economics without giving up anything to wokeism. I don't think this analysis holds together.
I get what you're trying to say, that there's a tradeoff between cultural issues and economic issues. My problem is that you haven't provided evidence that the tradeoff exists or is meaningful.
Rural whites don’t protest. But the group of people who oppose Wall Street and the WTO and private equity are rural whites and young urbanites. If you’re trying to build a coalition to oppose those things those are the people you need to pull together (which Obama did in 2008). A study showed that over half the people who fit the profile of a “Trump Republican” (versus a Romney Republican) actually voted Democrat before 2016.
> I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here.
By moving to the left on social issues Democrats make a deliberate choice to abandon parts of their coalition opposed to fighting wealth inequality—including racial wealth inequality—and replace them with groups that benefit from and perpetuate it.
Put differently, the people who actually control the levels of systemic racism, i.e. structural economic and social disparities, have a tremendous interest in keeping minorities focused on the individual racist attitudes of rural and working class white people.