/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50281175/584737456.0.jpg)
The Democratic National Convention last week was a celebration of diversity. Half the delegates and numerous speakers were people of color. The first openly transgender person to speak at a national convention took the stage, and disability rights were featured prominently. The DNC didn’t just nominate the first woman to lead a major party’s presidential ticket; it also celebrated Hillary Clinton’s womanhood and her more feminine leadership styles.
But some pundits saw this diversity as an electoral liability — a sign of why Clinton has a problem with white men in the polls, compared with Donald Trump.
At RealClearPolitics, A.B. Stoddard argued that the DNC, with its "star-studded celebration of diversity, inclusion and social justice" and its "multi-gender bathrooms," was often "a parody of an elitist party far too focused on identity politics and out of touch with the heartland." Along with the cultural gap, Stoddard says, blue-collar white people are suffering economically and feel alienated by the Democrats’ "America is already great" messaging.
There’s at least one glaring problem with Stoddard’s line of argument, though, as the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki explained Sunday evening on Twitter. If you’re arguing that a focus on diversity and inclusion turns off white male voters, you’re also saying something pretty troubling about the prejudices of white male voters — and whether those prejudices deserve to be accommodated:
3. Instead of appealing to white working-class men, the argument goes, the convention's message was: "We've pretty much given up on you."
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
4. This is a familiar argument. But when you start to look at what it's really saying, its absurdity -- and offensiveness -- becomes obvious
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
5. In what way, after all, did the Dem Convention send the message to working ppl. that the Dems had "given up" on them?
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
6. Sanders delivered a blistering prime-time speech hitting out against free trade, Wall Street, inequality.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
7. Biden gave an anti-Trump speech that was really all about which party has working ppl.'s interests at heart.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
8. The party platform is as progressive on inequality, wages, and working conditions as any Dem platform in decades.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
9. And HRC gave a speech that was far more progressive, at least rhetorically than anything one would have expected a year ago.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
10. Both she and Sanders called for major increases in infrastructure spending, which will boost employment and wages.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
11. One thing that the Dems should have done, but didn't, was do a better job of talking about unions.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
12. But obviously that's not something the GOP does, either, and no one talks about the GOP writing off working-class white men.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
13. So how did the Dems supposedly write off white working-class men? Essentially, by not catering to their perceived prejudices.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
14. When you boil it down, argument is that giving real time to issues of race and gender is somehow an attack on working-class white men.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
15. But this is absurd. There's no conflict between supporting BLM and supporting an increase in the minimum wage or stronger unions.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
16. There's no conflict between celebrating the first woman presidential nominee and pushing for better trade deals or highway spending.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
17. Paying attention to race and gender issues is not an attack on working-class white men.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
18. And if it's perceived as an attack, that's because whiteness and maleness, and not class, have come to define the white working class.
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
19. And that, of course, is exactly what so much of Trump's campaign is about. [the end]
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) August 1, 2016
The clearest theme of the Republican National Convention was the fear of outsiders, not economic anxiety. And as Jamelle Bouie pointed out for Slate, many pundits do indeed conflate the ideas of "working class" with "white working class" when talking about Trump — which ignores both the large number of nonwhite workers who oppose Trump and the mostly middle-class whites who actually make up Trump’s base.
Now, is it possible that the particular way Clinton and other Democrats talk about economic populism doesn’t resonate with white working-class voters? Sure. Stoddard also argued that Clinton "blended talking points about Main Street vs. Wall Street with an appeal to reduce money in politics by overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision — not exactly top of mind to a coal miner in Kentucky watching his industry evaporate."
It does seem true that white working-class Americans are in a much deeper state of despair about the economy than black or Hispanic Americans, according to research by Carol Graham at the Brookings Institution. But this economic despair is also pretty much impossible to untangle from race. "Whites used to have real advantages (some via discrimination) that they no longer have," Graham told the Washington Post. "They are looking at downward mobility or threats of it, while poor blacks and Hispanics are comparing themselves to parents who were worse off than they."
And Clinton’s gender may pose its own, not-just-economic threat to some men. One study found a dramatic 24-point drop in support for Clinton among male voters when they were asked how much money they make compared with their spouse, which primed them to think about gender roles and how they might be disrupted.
Maybe economic despair is one reason some white male voters feel drawn to Trump’s apocalyptic fantasy of America. But racial resentment and gender bias are reasons too. And this suggests that Hillary Clinton’s "white man problem" is about a lot more than Hillary Clinton.