Economic Issues by Themselves Will Not Change Democratic Fortunes

By Mike Koetting March 25, 2025

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild, in her recent book, Stolen Pride, observes that in addition to a material economy there is a “pride economy.” I think recent Democratic losses have as much to do with shortages in that economy as with problems in the material economy. It’s not something voters talk about, so it the poll-centric mainstream media misses it. But I submit it is at the heart of why people vote for a person who is a known liar and is unlikely to actually deliver economic improvement for most of his voters. One way or another, he assuages the loss of self-worth that has afflicted a large swath of the population. This is certainly related to the material economy, but is in fact a different dimension and it is losses in that dimension that have made the road so difficult for Democrats.

To be fair, managing what has happened in the pride economy would have been a difficult, maybe even impossible, task for Democrats.

For openers, Democrats became the party of the oppressed as Republicans settled into the party of “let’s keep everything the way it is,” or, better yet, the way it was 50 years ago. From the Sixties on, the Democrats championed changes in society that were necessary to allow more individuals to be more self-actualizing. These changes, appropriate as they were, created major perturbations in the pride economy. Being right is no guarantee you won’t offend people who feel their status has been eroded.

At the same time as various social changes were bursting out, the economy began punishing workers without college degrees and delivering large rewards to those with college degrees. The pride hit was compounded by the lingering sense among economic losers that they were somehow responsible for their own situation, what Hochschild calls the “pride paradox”. And if that weren’t bad enough, the people telling them they should forget about things that gave them pride were educated folks who weren’t facing the economic headwinds they were.

If one can’t somehow relate to the emotional impacts of these combined changes, you can’t understand MAGA.

The changes in the underlying economic structures were inevitable because of the conjunction of capitalism and technology. But the particulars of wild inequality were primarily because of Republicans, starting with Reagan and his tax policies. Democrats got blamed, largely over Bill Clinton’s outspoken support of free trade. That these measures passed with more Republican votes has been conveniently forgotten. In any event, Democrats could and should have done more to mitigate the growing economic inequalities—and resulting social chaos. Clinton, and Obama after him, trusted capitalism too much.

Still, the Democratic agenda is consistently decried as “socialist”. This has nothing to do with the economic arrangement but is a code word for all the changes in life that have happened in the last 50 years that are felt to have reduced the self-worth of Whites. In some cases this was a false worth, but in some very concrete ways as economic roles in society shifted so rapidly, especially for men without a college degree, it is very real.

The road for Democrats to restore their party, and not incidentally reduce the level of toxic partisanship, starts with economics. But it also requires careful attention to the pride economy. Economics alone will not do the trick. Fatuous media pronouncements notwithstanding, Democrats have had more populist economic agendas but that has not given them a consistent electoral majority.

The cornerstone of a different narrative will have to be material, straightforward economic steps that immediately improve lives. True change will take a long time—as the Biden administration demonstrated all too graphically. Shorter run changes cannot accomplish everything and Democratic leaders must accept the limitations of the short run. Indeed, they need to get more votes than they currently have just to achieve the most basic changes.

And while it would be wrong for Democrats to give up their role as the party that protects the oppressed, it would be useful if they could remember that what is true of the economy is also true of other societal changes: not everything can be done in the short-run and, without widespread support, the hoped long-run will never get here. Hence, choosing battles judiciously is essential. Not every identity issue makes sense.

Finally, as obvious as it is, it needs to be said. Democrats need a terrific communicator. Biden’s agenda was superb. The irony of how many of his initiatives supported Red states has been well documented, but has not been effectively communicated. Democrats need another Bill Clinton but one who trusts capitalism less and is willing to wholeheartedly take on the fight to redistribute both income and pride.