I argue in my book, Liberal White Supremacy: How Progressives Silence Racial and Class Oppression, that the divides among the political left can be understood through an analysis of four factors: Perspectives on capitalism, tactics (confrontational versus non-confrontational), approach to racism, and approach to working-class issues. This book extended the analysis I put forward in my 2016 CounterPunch article that criticized Hillary Clinton’s inability or unwillingness to emotionally connect with working-class people.

Like many others, I have argued that the Democratic Party has lost touch with the working class. However, unlike some critics, I do not believe prioritizing working-class people requires abandoning so-called “cultural” issues, such as transgender rights and racism. Labeling these systems of oppression as “identity” or “culture wars” is a reductive silencing tactic. Working-class people deal with multiple oppressions, including transphobia, ableism, racism, and sexism. Being “working class” is also an identity, one that is often defined through a white lens. That is why in my book I call for an intersectionality that does not whitewash racism or deny class elitism.

These core issues underlie the recent conversation between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates. On September 28, they discussed “how the left should think about the work of politics and persuasion in this moment,” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder. In this conversation, Klein addressed Hillary Clinton’s statement on the “basket of deplorables,” which he viewed as dehumanizing. This piqued my interest because I used this statement in my book as the point of departure for my analysis of the Democratic Party’s class elitism. I state, “Many have noted that Trump’s behavior emboldened white supremacists, giving them national permission to be more forthright in their racism. We could make a similar claim about HRC and the liberal class. Her condemnation of Trump supporters gave liberals permission to openly denigrate the group of people they had long despised, working-class European Americans and so-called rednecks.” In his conversation with Coates, Klein referenced Clinton’s statement, using it to highlight two points about politics and the Democratic Party: 1. Working-class people in red states feel disliked by Democrats, and 2. The Democratic Party must focus on “big-tent politics” and coalitions that can build power.

In Liberal White Supremacy, I write about my childhood in the “red” part of Southwestern Pennsylvania. Many people in this community, including my late father, did not care about being liked. The anger they felt toward liberals was fueled by frustrating interactions with people they saw as elitist, self-righteous bureaucrats, who enforced rules that made no sense to them and did not benefit them (e.g., in public assistance and public schools).

My book shows these frustrations toward liberals exist not only among working-class people in red states but also among radical progressives who liberals shamed for being disruptive to the process, while fighting injustices in their public school system. When I saw children, including my own, being harmed by overly authoritarian educational approaches or subjected to queerphobic and racist comments, I was not concerned with being liked, keeping friends, or following inadequate procedures to address these issues.

On Klein’s second point, I agree that the Democratic Party and liberals should build bridges and coalitions. However, those bridges must be maintained rather than exploited to further careers and empires, abandoning the working-class once Democrats regain control. I suspect that some wealthy liberals advocating for coalitions to grow Democratic power are driven mainly by a desire to return to the civil discourse, comfort, and safety they experienced under Barack Obama’s presidency, one that allowed them to quietly pursue their careerist ambitions rather than continuing the fight for the working class, people of color who sustained them. In my book, I  stated, “Donald Trump and Barack Obama, ironically, serve the same psychological purpose for European American liberals. They simplify the world of racists into easy-to-compartmentalize, dichotomous groups of good and bad people. By loving Barack Obama and hating Donald Trump, liberals can prove that they belong on the good, nonracist side. Trump’s persistent refusal to play along with liberal rhetoric of colorblindness and unity was a rude awakening for many progressives who were in a ‘post-racial’ slumber during the presidency of Barack Obama.” They are now ill-equipped to face openly racist politicians in power.

Furthermore, in response to Ezra Klein’s position that Charlie Kirk practiced politics the right way, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote, “The reduction of Black people to serfdom was the unfortunate price of white unity…the hard question must be asked: If you would look away from the words of Charlie Kirk, from what else would you look away?” I see this as the central point we should consider when thinking about “big-tent” politics for the Democratic Party. To what extent is this about building white solidarity? After all, the history of constructing whiteness involved sacrificing class solidarity for racial (white) solidarity. We can honestly engage with this criticism while simultaneously recognizing the need for the Democratic Party to build power through coalitions.

Reverend William Barber II, Co-Chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, criticized Democrats, such as Obama, for centering the middle class. The language Obama used did not humanize poor and working-class people. As we call on Democrats to talk to people across the political divide, we must ask: Who is being included in the tent? Whose voices will be privileged? How will the most vulnerable and marginalized communities in these coalitions be supported and uplifted after democrats use them to gain control?

The post On Liberal White Supremacy and the Democratic Party: A Response to Ezra Klein’s Call for “Big-Tent” Politics appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.