
Democrats need to speak to cultural concerns as well as economics
Joan C. Williams,
Tribune News Service
It's time for Democrats to end the circular firing squad between moderates and progressives. Each side blames the other for Trump's win in 2024, with each urging the other to adopt its diagnosis of what went wrong and give in to its vision of the path forward. Both sides need to change — and the key is to understand not just the economic but also the cultural dimensions of politics. Economics first. Moderates now acknowledge that neo-liberal policies like free trade during the Clinton and Obama eras opened the door to far-right populism by robbing generations of Americans of the dream — the implicit promise of doing better than their parents.
Assumptions that free markets would raise all boats led Democrats to shift away from support for unions and good blue-collar jobs to a focus on global trade and cheap consumer goods. The subsequent hollowing-out of American industry led to the anger that fuels the far right. I'm not a Donald Trump fan, but I do credit him with smashing the neo-liberal consensus, shifting to an intense (though probably ineffectual) focus on bringing back good American jobs. Hats off to moderate Democrats who now join progressives in centering the way our economy is rigged in their analysis of what's wrong with America today. This new economic consensus among Democrats represents real progress.
But it's not enough. Trump won two elections not just because he gave voice to economic frustrations but also because he understands the cultural dimension of contemporary politics. 'He gets us,' said a 2024 Trump voter. Like other populist figures, Trump connects culturally with the middle-status voters in routine jobs who delivered far-right victories in both Europe and the US Democrats need to rival Trump's cultural competence at connecting with the working class, which will require changes from progressives. Immigration, which has been a defining issue of every successful far-right movement offers a perfect example of the political power of class-based cultural preferences.
Working-class voters respond to arguments about protecting America from foreign 'invaders' because being American is blue-collar people's strongest boast; it's the source of their status, so they like politicians who emphasize it. A 2020 poll found that being American was an important part of the identity of 79% of Americans with (at most) high school degrees, but only 43% of predominantly college-educated progressive activists.
The college-educated, in contrast, prefer to stress their top-of-the-heap membership in a globalised elite. Working-class voters also define their communities geographically, where they have networks based on neighbourhood and kinship. By contrast, the 'Brahmin Left' (to use Thomas Piketty's term) see themselves as part of an international community characterized by 'feeling rules' that mandate empathy for immigrants and racial minorities but less often for class-disadvantaged citizens of their own countries.
People's values reflect their lives, and their lives reflect their privilege — or lack of it. This is a message progressives, with their acuity about racial and gender privilege, should be able to hear. It could help them come to terms with an uncomfortable fact: Non-college voters of every racial group are less liberal than college grads of the same group.
But moderates need to expand their cultural awareness too. When moderates like commentator Ruy Teixeira and the advocacy group Third Way argue that Democrats should throw identity politics under the bus and abandon their strong views on trans rights and climate change, they too are overlooking the cultural dimension of contemporary politics. Just as members of the Brahmin Left need to acknowledge that the logic of their lives differs from the logic of working-class lives, moderates need to acknowledge that progressives won't just give in on issues like climate change. Those issues are deeply etched into progressives' identities: The Brahmin Left is truly worried about the end of the world, even as non-elites are more concerned about the end of the month.
What's the way forward? For guidance, Democrats should recall how they won an important victory: same-sex marriage. At first, leaders of the gay rights movement weren't that interested in marriage, said Matt Coles, who led the ACLU's Center for Equality. But then they listened to other LGBTQ+ people and recognized that those who wanted to get married 'were not doctors and lawyers; they were ordinary, average people.' Coles reflected: 'I looked at their faces and said to myself, 'I get it now. It's the prom and the wedding ceremony and everything rolled into one.' ' Understanding that quintessentially working-class aspiration — to enjoy the social honour and the stability offered by marriage — drove the gay equality movement to success.
There's a lot of talk about Democrats' need for better messaging. That's too superficial. Coles and his gay rights colleagues did change their messaging to one that resonated with the working class — but they also changed priorities. They didn't abandon their vision of full LGBTQ+ rights, but they did shift tactics to engage a wider range of people. Democrats, that's the path forward. Moderates and progressives need to be open to changing both messaging and tactics by developing the cultural competence to connect respectfully with non-college voters.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
US-China deal offers relief, not resolution, for global investors
The newly announced trade agreement between the United States and China offers temporary relief from economic tensions, but it does not resolve the deep strategic rift between the world's two largest economies. For investors, I believe, this is a short-term fix within a long-term rivalry, and portfolios must be positioned accordingly. President Donald Trump's statement that a deal is 'done' follows two days of talks in London. The agreement grants the US access to China's rare earth supplies—crucial for technologies such as electric vehicles, AI hardware, and clean energy infrastructure—and allows Chinese students to resume academic programs in American universities. ADVERTISEMENT These are valuable tactical steps, but they don't alter the fundamental dynamics of the relationship. Despite the optics, this is not a breakthrough. It is a limited détente that restores parts of the status quo that existed before tensions escalated in April. Core barriers remain in place, tariffs are still elevated, and export restrictions have not been meaningfully eased. Washington continues to block the transfer of advanced chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment to Chinese firms. Beijing, in turn, retains its controls on critical mineral exports and has gained no concessions on auto trade or technology access. What's emerged is a narrow deal that skirts the real issues: national security-driven economic policy, supply chain sovereignty, and long-term technological supremacy. Neither country has deviated from its strategic course. The US is forging ahead with reshoring initiatives, stricter investment screening, and targeted industrial subsidies. China is accelerating domestic substitution, bolstering financial insulation, and pushing regional integration through its Belt and Road initiative and the expansion of the digital yuan. ADVERTISEMENT Two distinct economic systems are taking shape. One revolves around the US and its allies, the other around China and its partners. This deal doesn't halt that divergence—it simply slows the pace of public confrontation. Investors must be alert to what this means in practice. First, resist the temptation to interpret diplomatic progress as economic resolution. While this agreement may ease some bilateral friction, it leaves the overarching trajectory of decoupling untouched. Investors should not assume that sectors sensitive to geopolitical risk—especially technology, semiconductors, and energy—are any less exposed than they were a month ago. Second, increase geographical diversification. Relying heavily on one region or trade bloc is increasingly risky in a world where policy decisions are being driven by strategic alignment as much as by economic rationale. Exposure to multiple markets, not just across developed and emerging economies, but across different regulatory and geopolitical frameworks, is now a necessity, not a luxury. Third, seek companies that are actively building multi-country supply chains. Firms expanding into Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Eastern Europe are preparing for the next phase of trade fragmentation. Investors should prioritise businesses demonstrating adaptability and resilience over those optimised purely for cost efficiency. Fourth, identify sectors set to benefit from government-supported self-reliance efforts. These include domestic manufacturing, clean energy, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure. Both the US and China are deploying substantial public capital into these areas, and investment opportunities will follow. Fifth, be cautious around industries reliant on predictable global rules. The WTO framework that governed decades of expansion in global trade is being steadily eroded. Where once investors could count on relatively open and rules-based flows of goods and services, they must now contend with shifting export controls, sanctions, and sudden regulatory interventions. Sixth, monitor the development of parallel financial systems. The coming divide may be less about products and more about money itself. Competing digital currencies, payment infrastructure, and capital controls are likely to feature more prominently. This financial bifurcation could have serious implications for cross-border investment flows, corporate funding, and monetary policy transmission. Investors should also be prepared for policy reversals. One of the defining characteristics of this era is that agreements are made with one hand and suspended with the other. Executive discretion in trade, tech, and security matters has expanded. Deals can be signed, then shelved, with minimal warning. Stability is no longer the default setting. This doesn't mean abandoning international investment. On the contrary, it means rethinking how to do it. The old model of betting on ever-deepening global integration is gone. What comes next is a world of selective engagement; one where investors must evaluate not only business models and earnings forecasts, but also geopolitical alignment and supply chain security. We're living through a reordering of the global economy. This agreement, modest as it is, fits into a broader pattern: occasional truces, punctuated by strategic divergence. Investors who adapt their approach now—diversifying intelligently, backing resilient enterprises, and anticipating future decoupling—will be in a stronger position to weather the volatility and capitalise on emerging opportunities. The US-China rivalry is not a story of one-off negotiations. It is a structural transformation with far-reaching consequences. This deal changes the tone, not the substance. For long-term investors, the challenge is to move beyond short-term noise and position for the future we are actually heading towards: one of competing economic blocs, disrupted trade flows, and heightened sensitivity to national interest. Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.


Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Two Israeli ministers sanctioned by 5 Western democracies
For the first time, five Western democracies, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, have sanctioned two far-right Israeli politicians, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who are also ministers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, for 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians in the West Bank. Former American President Joe Biden had also sanctioned Israeli settlers in West Bank violence, but these sanctions were lifted when President Donald Trump took office this January. In a joint statement, the five countries stated that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocated the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary David Lammy accused Ben-Gvir and Smotrich of 'inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months' and 'encouraging egregious abuses of human rights.' Ben-Gvir and Smotrich remain defiant in the face of sanctions imposed by the five countries. Ben-Gvir, who belongs to the extreme religious right-wing said, 'We overcame Pharoah, we'll povercome Starmer's wall,' referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Smotrich, the finance minister, learned of the sanctions decision while inaugurating a new West Bank settlement. He said, 'We are determined to continue building.' Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the sanctions 'outrageous'. On the other hand, Israeli human rights activist Eitay Mack describing the sanctions against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich as 'historic', elaborated, 'It means that the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken. It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing.' He said, 'It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next.' The International Criminal Court (ICC) has already issued a warrant against Netanyahu and former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant of human rights violation against the Palestinians in Gaza along with Hamas leaders. Netanyahu retorted saying that the ICC was biased. And the United States sanctioned four of the judges of the ICC for their action against Netanyahu. The four judges were ICC Second Vice President Reine Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru) and Beti Hohler (Slovenia). It had been the case that the whole countries faced sanctions as in the case of Russia after the Ukraine war, and Iran because of its alleged uranium enrichment programme. The question of course is how effective the sanctions against individuals are. In many, the countries can continue to do business with each other once the individuals have been named for sanctions. In May, Britain had suspended free trade talks with Israel. If Western democracies believe that Israeli violence in Gaza and in West Bank violated human rights of Palestinians, then the sanctions have to more than against individuals. There have to be economic sanctions against the erring country, and in this instance it happened to be Israel. Due to historical reasons where the whole of Europe had felt guilty of the Nazi genocide of European Jews, most countries have held themselves back acting against Israel. But Israel has stretched the patience of the European countries, and it had shown no restraint against the Palestinians, apart from refusing to implement the Oslo Accords which would have led the two-state solution of Palestine and Israel. Tel Aviv had been obstinate in its refusal to vacate West Bank as it did Gaza.


Zawya
6 hours ago
- Zawya
IAEA board declares Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations
VIENNA: The U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations on Thursday for the first time in almost 20 years, raising the prospect of reporting it to the U.N. Security Council. The major step is the culmination of several festering stand-offs between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran that have arisen since President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of a nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers in 2018 during his first term, after which that deal unravelled. Since Iran bristles at resolutions against it and this is the most significant one in years, it is likely to respond with a nuclear escalation, as it has said it will. That could complicate the current talks between Iran and the U.S. aimed at imposing new curbs on Iran's accelerating atomic activities. The resolution also comes at a time of particularly heightened tension, with the U.S. pulling staff out of the Middle East, and Trump warning the region could become dangerous and saying Washington would not let Iran have nuclear weapons. Diplomats at the closed-door meeting said the board passed the resolution submitted by the United States, Britain, France and Germany with 19 countries in favour, 11 abstentions and three states - Russia, China and Burkina Faso - against. DAMNING REPORT The text, seen by Reuters, declares Iran in breach of its obligations given a damning report the IAEA sent to member states on May 31. "The Board of Governors... finds that Iran's many failures to uphold its obligations since 2019 to provide the Agency with full and timely cooperation regarding undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations in Iran ... constitutes non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with the Agency," the text said. A central issue is Iran's failure to provide the IAEA with credible explanations of how uranium traces detected at undeclared sites in Iran came to be there despite the agency having investigated the issue for years. The May 31 IAEA report, a board-mandated "comprehensive" account of developments, found three of the four locations "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and that some activities used undeclared nuclear material". U.S. intelligence services and the IAEA have long believed Iran had a secret, coordinated nuclear weapons programme it halted in 2003, though isolated experiments continued for several years. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said this week the findings were broadly consistent with that. Iran denies ever having pursued nuclear weapons. While the resolution alluded to reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said it would take a second resolution to send it there, as happened the last time it was declared in non-compliance in September 2005, followed by referral in February 2006. (Reporting by Francois Murphy; Editing by Ed Osmond)