Last updated on 2026-08-01
A new report from two progressive professors on the gap between the political priorities of college-educated Democrats and working-class voters offers advice for Demcoratic campaigners that I’ll never take: stop talking about defending democracy and resisting authoritarianism:
The greatest divide is on the issue of “resisting authoritarianism.”
“Resisting authoritarianism is the second-highest priority for liberal college grads, but for workers, it’s like 19 out of 20,” said [auhtor and law professor Joan C.] Williams.
Defending democracy was a major theme of Vice President Kamala Harris’ losing presidential campaign in 2024. She delivered her closing argument from the White House Ellipse, recounting President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021.
Another major theme of her campaign was defending abortion access. Those are two issues, according to the report, “that liberal college grads prioritize but most working-class Americans don’t.”
The lesson, they argue, isn’t that working-class voters are unreachable. It’s that you can’t reach them if you’re not focused on the issues they care about the most.
“If we really care about stopping authoritarianism, if we really care about defending democracy, we have to stop talking about defending democracy in the way that we’ve been doing for the last too many years,” Abbott said.
So, what should Democrats be talking about? The economy, and not just in abstract terms like “affordability,” because wages are as important as costs, the researchers find.
“Ten out of 12 workers’ top priorities are economics, so if you want them to vote for you, talk about economics,” Williams said [Tamara Keith, “To Win Over Working-Class Voters, Democrats Need to Stop Talking About Democracy,” NPR: Morning Edition, 2026.07.29].
Bonk. If voters care more about their paychecks than the principles of democracy, the solution is not to talk about kitchen-table economics instead of grassroots political engagement and the rule of law. The solution is to talk about all of those things. Yes, mid-term Democratic candidates, hammer away at how Trump and Rhoden are suppressing our wages, raising our costs, and raising taxes on workers while funneling tax breaks to wealthy pals. But also use your precious time in the candidate spotlight to educate voters, to make them see that better pay and cheaper eggs won’t last and won’t matter if we let Republicans rig elections, erode our voice in our government, and ignore the rule of law.
Voters’ priorities matter for winning elections. But Democratic candidates have principles, too (they’re in the name: Democratic). We don’t hold principles because they win votes; we hold them because they are right, because they are the proper basis for civilization, and because they ought to be held and cherished and fought for by everybody. We need to win elections to put those principles into practice, but we need to make clear to voters what principles we intend to put into practice, why we hold those principles, and why voters ought to hold them, too.
Exactly.
As a political party, the Democrats offer a YUGE package of policy ideas and beliefs. I think for the most part, those are well-defined (by the Republicans). The focus has to be on the order of implementation. Begin with the bread-and-butter economic fairness and once delivered on, let the next flow in. I think we all know that Democrats will be on the side of LGBTQ issues (as one other issue example), but don’t engage in the culture war to make those seemingly the only issues Democrats choose to engage in. Republicans use culture wars to sneak economic policy in-noticed; Democrats need to do the opposite. Both can be accomplished.
OK, imagine you are running a Democratic campaign. Can you boil this bifurcated message down to one catchy sentence?
You know why believe two professors of anything. A debate would be ok. Say a reporter, A CEO and a IBEW member walk into a debate. Make sure one of them is trans. See what happens.
Red states are 63% deeper in financial distress than blue states are according to WalletHub.
Blue states show up as far lower on taxpayer ROI than red states do, according to WalletHub. It’s all about the ROI, Lar.
Yes, socialized economic development, socialized agriculture, socialized dairies, socialized cheese, socialized livestock production, a socialized timber industry, socialized air service, socialized freight rail, a socialized nursing home industry, socialized water systems, a socialized internet and socialized infrastructure are all fine with Republicans in South Dakota but then they insist single-payer medical insurance is socialized medicine.
One catchy sentence, Jody? Uff da…
I’m just brainstorming here. I welcome other submissions!
My dear grudznick, low red state tax collection paired with the mooched subsidy provided by blue states more than explains the ROI discrepancy.
If only blue states would treat red states the way red states treat their welfare recipients; then we would see red states being far less happy with what they can afford. Red states need to pull themselves by their bootstraps. There is dignity in paying for what you use.
ROI, meaning low taxes and fewer government services.
It means low information voters like grudznick tolerate dirty government toilet seats, broken glass on the beach, and dead grass in the park with a miserly self-satisfaction.
Whew!!! What stinks?