My latest Globe and Mail column:
Two years ago almost to the day, I sat at a coffee shop in Washington, D.C., talking about the upcoming U.S. election with a good friend who was an editor at a major political monthly. Though never a fan of George W. Bush, I suggested that the President might be a transitional figure, his administration essentially holding back a tectonic populist, rightward shift in American politics. I told my friend I was fearful of what could come next. He looked me squarely in the eye and said simply: “That’s not what frightens me. What has me terrified is the right-wing backlash that will come when a more liberal, left-leaning administration takes office in January, 2009.”
I’ve since come around to his way of thinking. Barring some unforeseen event, Barack Obama can count on victory in Tuesday’s election. He is running a considerable lead in the national polls and even in the electoral college, and he appears to have mobilized huge numbers of younger and African-American voters who will push him to victory in the key swing states. He has the money – more than $150-million raised just in September – to counter virtually any negative advertising. But his job once in office may be harder than he anticipated.
When people like Colin Powell say Mr. Obama is a “transformational figure,” they’re suggesting that an Obama administration can somehow heal the deep divisions within the American electorate and move the country forward, the way Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression. And certainly projected Democratic majorities in Congress make that kind of transformation appear plausible.
I wish that would happen. But I doubt it will, and the reason is simple: The divisions run too deep. The realignment that propelled and kept FDR in office is not happening today. American politics is distinguished today by shifting electoral coalitions, candidate-centered elections, and what some political scientists call de-alignment. America isn’t just suffering from political polarization, but a burgeoning economic divide and class war.
Since 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was first elected, the U.S. economy has been undergoing a shift more thorough and massive than the rise of industrial economy a century and a half ago. Since then, 20 million jobs in the creative sector have been created, and the ranks of what I call the creative class have grown to 40 million – nearly a third of the work force. That group has become powerful in American politics, and it is squarely behind Mr. Obama. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently reported that Republicans have all but lost creative professionals working in law, medicine, and high technology.
Republican strategists have exploited this shift to their party’s advantage, beginning with the ever-prescient Kevin Phillips’s identification of the “silent majority” of white working-class voters in 1968.
The rise of the creative economy generated a shift in social values. Tolerance, diversity, and self-expression became prized. Diversity and self-expression became necessary for the creative economy to flourish and function.
As it grew and became more concentrated in locations such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, and Washington D.C. – what we now know as blue America – the working class fell further and further behind. Globalization shipped jobs overseas, while institutional supports that led to higher working-class incomes during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s – powerful U.S. companies and powerful unions – were simultaneously being undercut. The great genius of former Bush political strategist Karl Rove was to seize upon the church as the one remaining constant in the lives of working Americans and to use it to his political organizational advantage.
The rise of “hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack,” and “Joe the Plumber” in this election cycle testifies to this growing sense of unease. This is the kind of economic split that Mr. Obama tried to capture with his infamous “bitter-gate” statement, which he now says he regrets. But what can we expect from people who know that the economic system is leaving them behind?
This class divide is overlaid on America’s economic and political geography, with the U.S. economy being driven by centers of innovation such as San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Washington D.C.; finance, entertainment, and media cities such as New York and Los Angeles; and university-anchored tech centers such as Austin, Tex., Boulder, Colo., and Raleigh-Durham, N.C.
My team and I looked at the state-by-state polls and compared them to our measures of the creative economy – a broad index of technology, talen,t and tolerance. Blue states had a higher median creativity index score than red states (.68 versus .38). Mr. Obama leads John McCain among those with a postgraduate education 59 to 36 percent; among those with a college education 50 to 44 percent; and among 18-to-29-year-olds 65 to 31 percent.
As Republican congressman Tom Davis recently opined, U.S. politics, including in his own district in northern Virginia, is being reshaped as high-tech economies lean more Democratic: “Economic development works.” He decided not to seek re-election.
These class divides will only deepen. Fear and anxiety will probably get worse. And a strange kind of reactive populism, much worse than anything we have seen before, could be on the rise. Unless Mr. Obama can fashion a broad, inclusive appeal that extends the benefits of the creative economy to working and service economies, the bitterness he himself acknowledged, in a moment of candor, will grow deeper.
If you think the stock market has been volatile, get ready for an extended period of volatility and conflict in American politics.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:19 am
Re: The rise of “hockey moms,” “Joe Six-Pack,” and “Joe the Plumber”… what can we expect from people who know that the economic system is leaving them behind?
You are fundamentally misreading this. What “Joe the Plumber” told Obama is that he wanted to buy a business, and he didn’t want Obama to tax away his success. “Joe the Plumber” is not negative and defeated, he is optimistic and aspirational. That is why he resonated with a large segment of voters.
What Obama told Joe is that if he becomes successful it is not fair that others aren’t successful too and so he will take some of Joe’s money and spread his wealth to others. Recently Obama said that people who oppose this are “selfish.”
This is not the path to prosperity in America. Obama is an extremely divisive politician, who is more divisive that Rove ever thought of being. Let’s hope that you are right that the backlash against Obamanomics will be awesome and helps gets America back on the right track.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Excellent piece! But, remember New Hampshire, the polls had Obama up by 9+ points and somehow Hillary won. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen again.
Anecdotally, I grew up during the era of Reagan and identified with the Michael J. Fox Republican of “Family Ties” for those that remember it; and I still admire Reagan as one of the great influential and transformational men in our history. But that GOP has left itself to die, strangely, now the Democratic party, or at least the one that has been re-shaped by Obama, once the party of class warfare, unions and foe of business, has become the party for those of good fortune. And the GOP has been left with Joe-six pack, Joe-the-plumber and a quickly diminishing base. The vote on the rescue bill sealed the deal, history will show. If the GOP lacks good standing on Wall Street, as it did after that first vote, what does it have left? Particularly now that Christianity has been properly moved backed to the middle and is no longer being monopolized by one party as a means to organize voters over an emotional appeal. We saw that in Virginia with the election of Tim Kaine as governor. When the GOP hard right threw the religious bean-ball at his head, he threw them a curve-ball by discussing his personal Catholic faith in depth and framing issues such as abortion in the context of remedies and not morality, arguing for more education and less abortions as opposed to criminalizing the act and imprisoning doctors and women who perform and have them– a much more sensible and defensible policy than those who attempted to defend the practice with abstract thoughts about “when life begins”. …but I’m getting a little afield here…
Indeed, there will be a strong reaction from the haters on the right but their efforts will continue to push independents like me closer to the Democratic party. But what will come after the GOP marginalizes itself even further. I think we’ll see a new political party born or the death of political parties altogether. What if the Green Party or Libertarian Party expanded beyond their narrow platforms and became reasonable alternatives to the Dems and GOP. What if an urbanist party forms; or a suburbanist hater party as a counter-punching institution.
Like at the beginning of all new eras, the current deck will be re-shuffled with much volatility and as it displaces former power brokers, re-frames issues and de-aligns the current political geography. But out of this will rise special and inspirational leaders who will benefit from being the most influential voices during a time of change. History always associated certain figures with new eras and this time will no different. And I personally think our best days as a country and a world are ahead of us.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
John, I think Obama’s spread-the-wealth and “redisrtibutive” comments have been seized upon by the right in a savvy last ditch effort to turn back the political tides. But although Obama speaks like an orthodox liberal sometimes, I don’t think he’ll govern like one and I don’t think he’s speaking about traditional liberal policies. Of course, that’s the big bet that independents are placing when they elect Obama. If he and the Democratic Congress usher in an era of significantly higher taxes, they’ll be quickly shown the door and all the Democratic gains will be lost.
Obama’s rhetoric, I think, expresses the goals of the new economic winners (the creative class) to deliver the kind of broad and shared prosperity Richard speaks of. Social entrepreneurship is on the rise with the rise of the creative class and we’re seeing a band of new economic winners that cares more about those left behind than previous capitalists. Contemporary capitalism and these new winners must expand its and their successes to benefit more working and service class individuals. Economic development must be very pro-active.
…in any event, I appreciate the knee-jerk reaction Obama’s seemingly leftist language might spur but believe that he’s speaking about something new….we’ll see!!
November 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
I’m not seeing how “Joe the Plumber” and people like him are going to be left behind – their jobs cannot be outsourced and people always need their services. We are pegging our future on creativity, but creativity can flourish anywhere. Who is to say the next Bill Gates would not be some enterprising street child from Rio De Janeiro, Bombay or Lagos?
November 1st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Let’s hope for the next Steve Jobs and not the next Bill Gates. Either way, both of them were rebels who rejected conventional thinking and strategies and challenged stereo-types across the board. Where else but America would people like that not be imprisoned or otherwise extinguished by local and national power brokers and governments. We like to talk about Dubai, India and China; but women have no rights in Arab-controlled countries and what rights do people have in China and India. Who can truly challenge the status quo in those countries. Only in America can personalities like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates truly thrive. Only in America can truly diverse enclaves sprout-up, prosper and spring forward new entrepreneurs who bring new innovations to life. Jobs did much more than create a great computing products, he created a new culture. If you look at what he did at Apple during the early days and, in particular, Next when started-it, Jobs changed the corporate culture and philosophies in ways as revolutionary as Henry Ford when Ford created the assembly line. The Google model is really the Jobs’ model, 2.0. Only in America can such a pioneer not be snuffed out by the powers-that-be before he or she and his or her vision have truly arrived. And you don’t create that kind of thinking and commitment in think-tanks, university labs or other manufactured environments. It can only occur organically and, frankly, only in America– at least now.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Richard,
A very fascinating column! Two quick things tho. I think a few times you’ve mentioned Andrew Gelman, from Columbia. He finds that in fact, in “red” states rich people are much more likely to vote for the GOP but working class people are more likely to vote Democrat. How does this fit in with your class conflict hypothesis?
It also seems as though the Democrats are more or less guaranteed to get a supermajority of both the African American and Hispanic American working class vote. So, that leaves only a question with the white working class. Are you essentially making a comment about the white working class (a dwindling demographic segment BTW) and their right-wing populist proclivities?
November 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Mr. Fisher,
You may be right, at least for today.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am
I agree about the divisions, but not about the backlash being nastier than ever. America’s political and social life has never been easy. In the 1950’s the Klan and White Citizens Councils terrorized Blacks, Gays were beat up and arrested, goons broke up demonstrations, domestic violence was a private affair. Today is nasty, but its mostly verbal and there has been progress.
One of Obama’s lines from the summer about overcoming racial conflict was something like “People want to do the right thing, but they want it to be easy. We can do it, but it’s not going to be pretty and it’s not going to be easy.” I believe the same thing applies to our political divisions. The work doesn’t end with the election, it’s just the beginning. Hopefully the creative class will be part of it. A large part will be realizing Richard’s idea about making all work creative and breaking down the class barriers.
I sometimes think Hayden is a little Polyannish about how America can do anything, but I do believe we can get through this. Last Spring I thought it was almost unthinkable that we would be about to elect a dark skinned man with a foreign name, and yet it seems to be coming. And regardless of the eventual margins, if North Carolina and North Dakota are swing states this is reaching beyond Latte-land.
The Bush administration has been a disaster and has left the country with a lot to clean up, but that may also be an opportunity to try new ways. But I do agree with Richard, and Obama, it’s not going to be pretty.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
All – Great points. Many of the things you mention, especially Brian’s point about Andrew Gelman’s research, were in the original draft which was cut by more than half to fit. As Gelman shows the key is the geography of class. Rich people generally vote Republican, Poorer people generally vote Democrat. But rich people and those who work in creative class jobs (esp richer people in those jobs) and those in creative class states, are much more likely to be Democrats. So one can say there are creative class states and a creative class geography. That is the geography of economic advantage amd diversity and open-mindedness. So it might make sense to call if a geographic class war. Maybe I should post the longer piece.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Hayden
It is surreal that many friends argue, as you do, not to worry about Obama because he doesn’t really mean what he says.
We ought to care about those left behind. It’s called philanthropy, which nurtures human compassion and relationships. Philanthropy does more for the giver than the recipient.
If we end up with Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a filibuster proof Senate, they will decimate the creative class’ incentives to do what only they can to do to pull us back from the abyss. We ignore that at our peril. Compelling people like Joe the Plumber to share their wealth under penalties of imprisonment is toxic and ultimately damages both the giver and the receiver.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
John, many of the words are the same but I think it’s more than not meaning what he says; the terms of art are changing. I don’t think we’ll see significantly higher taxes, Obama will most likely lift some of the taxes slightly to appease the liberals and by and large maintain the current status quo; he’ll argue that current economic conditions do not permit a wholesale tax increase and leave the matter be for another day. But I think beyond that we’ll see lots of behind-the-scenes targeted tax cuts and levies designed to stimulate policy objectives like free and fair trade and development of the new green deal energy economy which will be huge in America.
John, I have personally started-up 3 for profit businesses during the last 2 years and a not-for-profit performing arts booster organization; and am deeply involved in the non-profit community at large. I share many of your views. I have reservations about Obama’s economic policies and the proposition of too many liberals in office but it’s time to give Obama’s change a try. The real test will come after the election. Many independents and socially liberal Republicans are going to give Obama and the Dems a chance and they will show us if they’re ready to lead; and whether he truly does represent a new political movement or just more of the same liberal polices masquerading behind a fresh new face.
If Obama governs from the center, like Clinton did but without the scandals, he’ll have enough of the support of the independents and socially liberal Republicans to withstand the conservative counter-punch. If not, we’ll be back to where we came from or, more likely, a new place altogether.
Michael, we’ll turn you into an optimist eventually…
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[...] Both generations have something valuable to offer but neither is superior. Neither adequately represents the country as a whole. Because of the imbalance in attitude, I agree with the second article I mentioned earlier and written by Richard Florida Class Politics, “These class divides will only deepen. Fear and anxiety will probably get worse. And a strange kind of reactive populism, much worse than anything we have seen before, could be on the rise. Unless Mr. Obama can fashion a broad, inclusive appeal that extends the benefits of the creative economy to working and service economies, the bitterness he himself acknowledged, in a moment of candor, will grow deeper.” http://www.creativeclass.com/creative_class/2008/11/01/class-politics-3/ [...]
November 4th, 2008 at 4:58 am
If it’s worth me noting a UK perspective – here in the UK we’ve had a centre-left Labour government since 1997, that borrowed heavily from the outgoing centre-right administrations of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Tony Blair left as PM and Gordon Brown, whom many considered to be on the left of Blair, has taken over and has been deeply unpopular.
However, as Gordon Brown was previously Chancellor of the Exchequer (as in the finance minister), given the current economic troubles, he is now enjoying a fillip in the polls and is gaining on the Tories, who are seen as closely allied with the city bankers and traders who are seen as the causes of the stock market collapse and credit crunch etc.
Labour party membership, after years of decline from left wingers who have been disgusted with Iraq, support for nuclear weapons and power, dismal progress on tackling climate change, numerous scandals involving donations to the party etc etc, is now on the up again.
The reason? Possibly because left wingers now see that as the Tories are riding high in the polls, and that a general election is approaching, people are scared that the Tories will get back into office. Even a right-leaning Labour party is preferential to a Tory government that will stand for protection of privilege.
In 2004, the Tories were decimated, and now they’ve come back in the face of Labour complacency by adopting “compassionate” policies about the environment and social justice. In 2008 Labour is decimated, and there are rumblings that they’re coming back by adopting some of the left-wing values that they abandoned under Blair. If you look underneath that, you’ll notice that there’s possibly evidence that the country as a whole is becoming more concerned with social justice – the villains of the stock collapse are the mega rich, the bankers, the bonus culture, the culture of excess. In its place is a new fashion for frugality, for attempts of self-sufficiency, for slower living, for worrying less about the rat race.
Maybe the same is happening in the states?