As some readers might know, Jacobin ran a study of working-class voters. The study hits an unusual depth, and it provides lots of useful info.
In the past I’ve criticized many views on elections and politics expressed in Jacobin. As have many others on the left. But let’s not play up any ‘feud’ with Jacobin. I read the magazine, and I also read Jacobin’s more academic journal Catalyst. And I think they do some great things with this study. They point to some of their own errors, and they show an interest in doing real electoral work that doesn’t fall prey to the magical thinking that’s all too common on the left.
And so, let’s take a look at the Jacobin study. What can it teach us about working-class voters? And what can it teach us about building solid leftist electoral campaigns?
The Jacobin Study
I’ll say a brief word about the study itself, but readers should also check it out on their own! Jacobin accessed a YouGov pool of 2,000 working-class voters. That makes it an unusually large study.
Jacobin pared down the sample to include only working-class voters who lean to the Democrats, are independent, or slightly lean Republican. They didn’t include solid GOP voters. Why? They claim solid GOP working-class voters aren’t a group the left can win.
I think that’s fine. It limits any conclusions Jacobin can draw about the working class as a whole. But on the flip side, it allows them to clear up certain misconceptions. For instance, those about working-class voters of color. By focusing only on leftish working-class voters, for example, Jacobin is able to point out how, even though the vast majority vote Democratic, many black US voters lean more moderate than left.
The Study’s Goals
The study presents voters with candidate profiles. The profiles include demographic features (gender, race) as well as a message and a list of issues (see note below for some of the wording). They state which issues the candidate finds key and which they’d work toward while in office. They round out the profiles by stating the candidate’s job and political party.
Jacobin divides the messages into various types: progressive populist, woke progressive (more on this below), woke moderate , and mainstream moderate. They adapt the messages from those of real politicians, e.g., Bernie Sanders (progressive populist), AOC (woke progressive), Kamala Harris (woke moderate), Joe Biden (mainstream moderate), and so on.
Jacobin hopes to use the data to present the outlines of a leftist electoral program. What kinds of messages and issues would win over working-class voters? Do any current examples serve as a good model?
The Study’s Conclusions
Jacobin draws lots of conclusions. Some won’t surprise readers at all, while others might depart from a typical Jacobin line. At the broadest level, they conclude that working-class voters prefer economic issues over social or identity issues. And they prefer a progressive populist message over any kind of woke message.
I began from a place of skepticism about all that. Not because I think Jacobin gets it wrong, but rather because these are drums Jacobin has banged for years. Many people – not too unfairly – associate Jacobin with opposition to ‘woke’ politics and identity politics of all sorts. Some – perhaps more unfairly – associate it with class reductionism of a bad kind.
But their discussion of the study shows more nuance than all that. In fact, it shows that working-class voters like left-leaning policy on racial justice. However, they oppose the often highly technical language of racial justice activists. And so, Jacobin concludes, not without good reason, that the left can’t build an electoral program around a message that requires a college- or even graduate-level entry into activist terms.
That gives us some things to think about. And it provides us with chances for political education. And it pushes us to pursue leftist policy around race and gender in more accessible ways within a broader social democratic frame.
Discussion of Class
I’ve spent lots of time on this blog on the terms ‘class‘ and ‘working class.’ Jacobin tackles the same challenges in this study. It defines ‘working class’ roughly as ‘lacks a college degree.’ It does so for all the usual reasons, e.g., it’s easy to measure.
However, I still find this a bad definition. I won’t rehash a frequent topic of the blog, but the biggest problem is that education just isn’t a good proxy for class. Lots of people in working-class jobs have a college degree, and lots of people without a college degree hold managerial or ownership roles at work. And so, defining class in terms of education leads one to make all sorts of inaccurate claims. Especially when analyzing right-wing politics.
But Jacobin knows about these problems. It addresses them with a multidimensional analysis of class based on the work of Erik Olin Wright. To do this, the study asks its subjects about various aspects of their work, e.g., whether they identify as working class, whether they’re supervisors or rank-and-file, and so on.
The study reveals a few things here. For instance, rank-and-file workers prefer economic messaging over ‘woke’ messaging far more than supervisors do. By contrast, supervisors are wealthier, more likely to have a college degree, and lean more toward ‘woke’ messaging. This reinforces some of the study’s main themes. Leftists should look to win over rank-and-file workers rather than managers, whose views likely won’t drift beyond progressive territory and into socialist territory. Many rank-and-file workers also have bad experiences with HR co-opting ‘woke’ messaging to serve corporate ends.
I find this point encouraging. Insofar as those workers already like ideas such as Medicare for All, the left has evidence it can use social democracy as the early stages of its program.
Lessons Learned?
What can we learn from the Jacobin study? Here are a few things.
First, leftists who focus on elections get lots of things wrong. Contrary to endless claims, working-class voters aren’t all that upset with the Democratic Party. They don’t refuse to vote because Democrats “aren’t progressive enough.” And so, campaigns like those of Cathy Glasson and Kimberly Graham in Iowa (and many others in other states) were just wrong in their basic premise. They started from the wrong place.
Second, working-class voters are open to a wide range of ideas and candidates. Non-white candidates do just as well as white ones, and women do just as well as men. The left shouldn’t pander by running only white men or by hiding its bold ideas. Working-class voters are open to just about any idea with the right message.
Third, working-class voters like a message based in class and solidarity and don’t like one based in academic jargon about identity, especially when it feels moralistic. The left should fight for racial justice and gender justice. But it should do so within the context of a social democratic message that fights for all working-class people.
Fourth, and finally, I think the study shows lots of support for my own view that electoral politics shouldn’t come first. It shouldn’t be the first step. Jacobin, of course, often disagrees (and shows no signs here of agreeing). But I think the study shows the need to build unions, workers orgs, tenants unions, et al. before running for office.
A Brief Note on the Study’s Wording
Ideally readers should work through the study on their own time. But if you’re not able to get to the actual study, here’s the wording of the message for each ideology:
Progressive Populist: This country belongs to all of us, not just the superrich. But for years, politicians in Washington have turned their backs on people who work for a living. We need tough leaders who won’t give in to the millionaires and the lobbyists, but will fight for good jobs, good wages, and guaranteed health care for every single American.
Woke Progressive: The people closest to pain should be the people closest to power. In Washington, the wealthy and the privileged make the rules, but if you’re poor, or an immigrant, or a person of color in America, then you know how hard it is just to survive in this country. We need courageous leaders who will protect the most vulnerable, fight for justice, and make transformative change.
Woke Moderate: Our unity is our strength, and our diversity is our power. But for too long, special interests have blocked critical progress in addressing systemic racism, climate change, and access to affordable health care. We need creative leaders who will fight for our values, listen to the experts, and make real change happen.
Mainstream Moderate: America is better than this. We have to stop demonizing each other based on what party we support, how much money we make, or the color of our skin – it’s time to heal. We need common-sense leaders who will stick up for working people, listen to the experts, reach across the aisle, and get things done.
A Brief Note on ‘Woke Progressive’
Before ending the post, I wanted to include a brief note on Jacobin’s use of the term ‘woke’ in this study, e.g., ‘woke progressive’. See also the wording in the previous note. In a way, it’s unfortunate. Many readers know that that right wing uses the term ‘woke’ as a insult against the left. And so, Jacobin perhaps shouldn’t have used it.
But I do think the usage works well enough in this study. When Jacobin uses ‘woke progressive’, I think it’s clear enough what they refer to. And that the thing they refer to really exists. They use the term for a certain kind of political message. What kind? Political language that shies away from solidarity and toward moralism (toward all) and altruism toward members of specific marginalized groups. The Squad, for example, often moves back and forth from the former to the latter. But it more often relies on the latter, especially when doing interviews with the mainstream press.
In the end, Jacobin uses ‘woke’ as a way to teach a specific lesson: working-class voters don’t like moralistic language. They prefer solidarity. They prefer a message about how racial justice and leftist economic policy work to benefit the working class of all races. It’s mainly pundits and wealthier Democrats (also of all races) who dislike these things.
That’s info we can use.
