Progressives Won’t Help the Working Class by Abandoning Marginalized Groups

Since the election, two themes have recurred in analyses of the current political moment: Pundits are calling on progressive political leaders to abandon so-called identity politics and center working-class concerns, and others are defining this election as a potential realignment of political parties.

We and our colleagues at Dēmos are laser-focused on this drumbeat because it strikes at the core of our mission to build a just, inclusive, multi-racial democracy and economy where ordinary people hold power.

Working class is as much an identity as gender, religious affiliation, immigrant status, place, race, and ethnicity. All of us hold multiple identities. But in the political context, “identity politics” is often a dog whistle for Black and brown communities or members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Political leaders and pundits’ calls to deprioritize communities of color and marginalized groups distort the nation’s power dynamic and risk sidelining voices working to build a more equitable society. Such takes also pretend the far-right offers credible solutions to pressing economic issues while minimizing the critical role progressives play in challenging the systems that drive economic inequality. Any critique of movement or “identity politics” without a power analysis misses the forest for the trees.

Average incomes will not increase as more corporations shut down their DEI offices.

Last month, Demos released its Power Scorecard, a data-driven tool that tests our core theory: Political and economic power are inextricably linked, and one is predictive of the other. The tool ranks and measures people power in all 50 states (called a power score) by examining 30 indicators of economic well-being and 30 indicators of civic and democratic vitality. Some economic measures include the percentage of households that can cover everyday costs, avoid debt, maintain stable housing, and access affordable childcare. Measures of civic vitality include voter turnout, percentage of unopposed elections, ease of voting, and descriptive representation in government.

Our findings shed light on how conditions in each state influence the agency and control ordinary people exert in our democracy and economy. Common threads among the highest-ranked states include lower rates of child poverty and incarceration, less concentrated poverty, a greater percentage of workers represented by unions, higher voter turnout rates, and more state checks on corporate contributions to political candidates.

We could not disaggregate data by race for all indicators, but a limited analysis reveals “identity groups” are most disempowered in all states. This is not surprising, and it’s precisely why progressive activists advocate for bold, structural changes such as living wages, access to healthcare as a human right, expanded labor rights and protections, and policies to curb corporate power. And yes, they also call for political leaders to address racial and gender inequalities. Movement activism is rooted in the understanding that economic disparity, systemic racism, and gender inequality are interconnected problems requiring interconnected solutions.

We are aware that opinion polling over the last couple of years continuously revealed voters’ worries about their ability to make ends meet and financially get ahead. Policymakers on all sides of the political spectrum should heed these concerns. But as political leaders assess their messaging failures and policy disconnects, they must avoid the convenience of tunnel vision or public discourse that falsely suggest “identity groups” wield undue or disproportionate influence. Working-class people of all races are constrained by a system in which economic and political power are concentrated in the hands of an elite few.

As much as progressives are agitating to dismantle economic and racial disparities, a well-funded opposition is invested in maintaining a power structure that bends to the will of the wealthy and powerful. The far-right may have successfully tapped into some voters’ frustrations, but their policy proposals will exacerbate economic polarization and diminish ordinary people’s political power. Their standard bearers continue to favor tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, weakening unions, and restricting access to the ballot. If progressive political leaders acquiesce to calls to sideline “identity groups,” they will alienate the very movement voices working to address root causes of economic insecurity. Culture wars are a divisive political tactic, not an economic policy solution.

To put a finer point on it, average incomes will not increase as more corporations shut down their DEI offices. Housing will not be more affordable due to mass deportation. Grocery prices will not decline due to state legislation banning transgender people from public bathrooms. And tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will not and have never trickled down to ordinary people.

Black and brown communities bear a disproportionate share of economic hardship, from unaffordable housing and inflationary pressure on consumer goods to exploitative labor practices. There are historical and ongoing systemic reasons for this disparity—a historical record that the far-right is actively trying to erase with book bans and factually diluted K-12 curriculums. Ignoring these complicated truths in the name of appealing to an idealized working-class voter devoid of any identity is a failing strategy—and the people who will suffer most are working-class voters of all races and identities.

Progressive leaders must reject false choices rooted in the idea that social and economic advancement is a zero-sum game or that working-class people must spar over scraps while all the spoils go to the elite few. Instead, they should amplify the voices of those actively challenging systems that sustain social injustice and vast economic inequality.