Thomas Frank has perhaps done more damage to the Democratic party than any 1 person in recent memory, by giving currency to the phrase “voting against their economic interests”. 12 years after his book came out, Democrats still buy the premise that poor white people in Dumbfuckistan vote for Republicans in large numbers, and that they do this because Democrats don’t offer an economic message for the White Working Class (™, trumpet fanfare).
Frank wrote his book in the wake of George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004; thinkpieces along these same lines are essentially a cottage industry in the wake of Trump’s scraping through the electoral college. And they are all entirely wrong and need to stop.
Fortunately we do have some numbers that show how different groups of people actually voted in 2016. Read them a couple of times, because it can take a moment to realize how entirely backwards the Democratic narrative is from that loss.
Clinton didn’t just win voters from households making less than $50K, she dominated. She won by 12 points. And she closed the Democrats’ normal gap among voters making more than $100K to parity. The gap in support was in voters making $50K to $100K (and in fact other polling narrows it down to $70K to $100K).
Croesus apocryphally said that no man has ever thought himself rich. Fair enough. But it struck me as ridiculous that we were calling $80K per year, $30K above the national household median, “working class”. And that’s because I wasn’t thinking about race.
The median white high school graduate in the US today makes $36K. In a two-earner family (and this is still “normal”, if a bit waning), that yields $72K as a hypothetical median white high-school educated household. That is to say, exactly Trump’s economic sweet spot. Now, life is hard everywhere, but it’s just incredibly out of touch to call $72K poor, anywhere. Even the richest cities have a lower median household income than that. That’s the wage premium that comes with being white. (The median black high school graduate income is $12K, meaning a 2-earner family is at $24K.)
Christ Ladd, at Forbes, has taken this argument to its conclusion, a conclusion I find very troubling but can’t summon an argument against. Looking back at the Roper Center numbers, voters concerned about “the economy” preferred Clinton by 11 points. Voters concerned about “foreign policy” voted Clinton by 27 points. I don’t think you can overstate the reversal this represents of the parties’ perceived strengths 30 years ago. Meanwhile, voters concerned about “terrorism” preferred Trump by 17 points, and those concerned about “immigration” preferred him by 31 points. Now, it’s important to remember that those 4 rubrics are not equal. Voters concerned about the economy were 52 percent of the electorate, more than the rest of the issues put together (foreign policy and immigration were each 13 percent, and terrorism was 18 percent. So Clinton decisively won the huge block of voters concerned about the economy.
This leads to an awkward question: why, after an election in which the Democratic candidate won voters concerned about “the economy” by 11 points, is the Democratic party talking about changing its economic message? And why is the party doubling down on its values about immigration, when it lost “immigration” voters by 31 points?
The repudiation of the first major-party female candidate by a male party power structure is clearly a large part of that. But I think in the Democratic party there’s also a racial microcosm of the country as a whole: as minorities become more empowered and more confident, white power holders feel threatened and try to fit the square pegs of this new energy into the round holes of 2-generations-old leftism. (Ta-Nehisi Coates writes about class-conscious white people who seem genuinely puzzled that black people happen to be disproportionately poor).
I’m going to do immigration in a later post, so I won’t go into that here. But like with so many issues, reductionists everywhere are ignoring the intersectionality of all these questions. Economic growth is driven by immigration; both terrorism and counterterrorism have nexuses with immigration.
In broad strokes, you could describe the split in the Democratic party as “class-forward” vs. “culture-forward” (I’m definitely the latter). The class-forward group wants to say that Democrats failed to deliver an economic message to displaced factory workers (note, incidentally, it’s always that, and not displaced typists or switchboard operators). But I have to conclude that if the Democrats had a fundamental problem with our economic message, we would not have won both the poorer half of the country and voters explicitly concerned about the economy as broadly as we did. The class-forwarders accuse people like me of just throwing up our hands and saying “Trump voters are racist”; and, yes, maybe we’re too quick to do that. But the numbers are hard to get around, on that. Feel free to cast those Roper results in a non-racist light in the comments, if you think I’m giving up too soon.
Jacob Circle is a circle with no purpose
I lived just north of Jacob Circle in Mumbai for three years. It is a traffic circle in search of a purpose. The circle is the intersection of two main arteries, K K Road and Arthur Road, and four smaller roads, Bapurao Jagtap Road, Ripon Road, Anandilal P Marg, and G Babu Sakpal Marg (I have no idea why some roads are officially recorded as “road” and other as “marg”, and will leave that to parsers of Marathi nationalist politics). The whole area, Vaishali Nagar, is constricted between the Western and Central rail lines. Arthur Road runs parallel to both, and continues on for a while in each direction. But the other roads, running more east-west, all have to end quickly.
K K Road to the West almost immediately crosses over the Western line, including a flyover of the famous Dhobi Ghat open-air laundry, to tee into Dr. E. Moses Marg at the Mahalakshmi racetrack and train station. To the East it almost as quickly intersects N M Joshi Marg and becomes the “S” bridge to Byuculla. Both of these interchanges are constantly congested, but Mahalakshmi gets the worse of it. Traffic regularly backs up all the way to the circle.
Ripon and Bapurao Jagtap Roads head off into the neighborhoods along the central line, but Anandil P Marg and G Babu Sakpal Marg both immediately turn right and head to the Arthur Road jail, which Arthur Road already goes to.
The Saat Rasta Project
I ran across this idea to do something more sensible with those roads. If you continue both of their initial courses out of the circle, they would meet up with Dr. E. Moses Marg after its turns around the racecourse. The architects here plan to build two underpasses beneath the Western Line and turn K K Road into a pedestrian-only green space.
This sounds really neat at first blush. The Western Line already suffers from a shortage of crossings, which contributes to the annual death toll as people try to cut across to avoid a multi-mile walk. Currently K K road is the only crossing, for vehicles or pedestrians, between Lower Parel and Mumbai Central. In contrast, the Central line has one vehicle and two pedestrian crossings at Currey Road, the vehicle bridge at Sane Guruji Road, two pedestrian crossings at Chinchpokli, the “S” Bridge, the Expressway flyover, and Nesbit road in the same North-South distance.
History plays a role here, of course. Back when the mills were still in operation, the Western Line was the track that you either lived on the right or wrong side of, and making it harder to cross that track fulfilled a societal function. But the mills have been shuttered for thirty-five years, and are starting to be redeveloped with the same kind of posh residences and businesses you used to find only west of the tracks.
That aside, widening and extending the two smaller roads seems like a great idea, assuming an underpass is actually feasible (we’re basically at sea level here). That would break up traffic into cars going north and cars going south on Dr. E. Moses Marg, and pedestrians just trying to get across the tracks or to the station. But, yeah: widening. There it is. The space is tight there already, and there are stores, chawls, temples, and a mosque hard against the narrow existing road. So I would imagine the political resistance here would be pretty high.
Do you think the track could bend?
A third little datum for this is that apparently the monorail that languished through the three years I lived there has finally been finished and actually runs trains down to Jacob Circle. This means there’s at least the potential for even more foot traffic in the area.
I don’t really understand the purpose of the monorail. Most of Mumbai’s transit is oriented north to south; the island is about 5 times as long as it is wide, but it can be faster to get downtown than across town in a lot of cases (see above about the history there). The monorail, at least in the south, doesn’t seem to address that at all; it jogs diagonally at one point, but that’s it. I just don’t see what its actual purpose is. I know transit can create its own ridership, just like roads with traffic, but I also don’t see what business or political purpose that traffic serves.
Green space would be nice
The part about the project that sounds best is that it juts several acres of green space east from the racetracks into the center city area. In practice this means making the mill town look and feel a little more like Old Bombay (at least in terms of scale and openness), which has all of the pros and cons that come with making poor parts of a city feel richer (though in practice that ship sailed years ago). I’d like to see more about this plan, and I’m curious to see how it’s received.
I’m sad that it’s come to this, but the web is so actively terrible that I realized I didn’t have the time to fight it anymore. My dreams of making the static blog happen again are on hold for a bit, because I need to stop fiddling settings and start writing again.