Why are working class whites so often defined as "whites without a degree?"

[All Along The Watchtower]

Specifically a Bachelor's degree. By this definition, many business owners and lower-level and even middle-level management types (particularly older/retired ones) are "working class' in spite of the fact that they have higher-than-the-median incomes and own decent amounts of wealth and property.  And the majority of those of this demographic who vote Republican are not only white, but white men.  And they also tend to be rural/exurban, Southern (or in regions with significant Southern/"American" ancestry), evangelical Protestant, married/married-with-children...you get the idea. Lots of variables other than not having a Bachelor's degree that can contribute to white people voting heavily Republican.

Furthermore, many people (including many white people - particularly the younger generation) with university degrees have relatively modest incomes - and some are outright in or near poverty. And even those who aren't are often far from economically secure, especially considering how the Great Recession and the recent exacerbation of economic inequality in general have made it very difficult for young people in general to build wealth (even taking into account the fewer working years that they've had in their lives so far). And even many of those young people who are both highly educated and high-income spend much of their income on basic living expenses i.e. rent, food, etc. (considering that prohibitively expensive major cities/metros are where the highest-paying jobs are concentrated these days...). So while many of the young, highly-educated and high-income people are indeed in a far better position to be well-monied and economically secure as they progress in their careers, their lives right now don't necessarily reflect that reality (and that's not even going into the albatross of student-loan debt...).

Not surprisingly, most of the people whom I described in the previous paragraph are quite liberal, and skew the Democratic Party's advantage among college-educated whites in presidential-year elections (note the qualification; Republicans have been winning college-educated whites in recent midterms precisely because so many of the younger, less economically secure voters sit out those elections).

Finally, even granting the fact that yes, many less-educated, modest-income whites do vote Republican (and again, usually overlap with all more most of the most conservative demographics, especially in recent decades), I'm not at all convinced that this is the "base" of the Republican Party. Considering that the most reliably Republican voters (and not just in presidential elections, and not even just in presidential primaries, but at all levels of government in aggregate) skew wealthier, propertied, white-collar professionals/managers/businessmen/self-employed, and yes, college-educated  - and that all of this is even more true of the major donors who bankroll the Party - it's hard for me to take anyone who thinks that "working class whites" are the "base" of the 21st century Republican Party seriously.

Unless, of course, one has ulterior motives...why are do many college-educated, economically secure (white) pundits - of all political stripes - in the major urban centers of the United States promote a simple meme about a certain segment of Republican voters that is, at best, very complicated (and even flat-out wrong in some cases)? It's almost as if certain people want the "disreputable" or "deplorable" Right (see: Donald Trump's supporters) to fit a certain caricature that exists mostly, only  in their minds ...

makes u think

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Worth noting by this definition Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are technically "working class whites".

[Kingpoleon]

PR:

Lower income people tend to be more socially conservative, and so those are considered "the base" despite many higher income and college educated evangelicals being socially conservative as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because for some stupid reason American pundits have decided that education (instead of, you know, income or occupation) is the basis of class divisions. Which is ridiculous on so many levels.

[Bismarck]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

[White Trash]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the right.

FTFY

[Santander]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

[RINO Tom]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

[RINO Tom]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

I think it's telling that while internet liberals are cackling at how trashy, racist and stupid the GOP is this year, Hillary is still talking about how Trump is just going to give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies and running TV ads about how he's secretly for free trade (LOL at everyone who thought she'd make this play for moderate Republicans by being less protectionist than he is).

[Green Line]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

I think it's telling that while internet liberals are cackling at how trashy, racist and stupid the GOP is this year, Hillary is still talking about how Trump is just going to give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies and running TV ads about how he's secretly for free trade (LOL at everyone who thought she'd make this play for moderate Republicans by being less protectionist than he is).

Hillary love free trade, IINO Tom. Deal with it.

[RINO Tom]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

I think it's telling that while internet liberals are cackling at how trashy, racist and stupid the GOP is this year, Hillary is still talking about how Trump is just going to give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies and running TV ads about how he's secretly for free trade (LOL at everyone who thought she'd make this play for moderate Republicans by being less protectionist than he is).

Hillary love free trade, IINO Tom. Deal with it.

Even if that's true and you proudly claim her as a total liar, as she's actively campaigning against it, my point sailed right over your head.

[Green Line]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

I think it's telling that while internet liberals are cackling at how trashy, racist and stupid the GOP is this year, Hillary is still talking about how Trump is just going to give tax cuts to his billionaire buddies and running TV ads about how he's secretly for free trade (LOL at everyone who thought she'd make this play for moderate Republicans by being less protectionist than he is).

Hillary love free trade, IINO Tom. Deal with it.

Even if that's true and you proudly claim her as a total liar, as she's actively campaigning against it, my point sailed right over your head.

Oh the point sailed right into my head, don't think it didnt.

[Santander]

A fight has broken out at the Illinois Rhinoceros Sanctuary.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

Is this really the prevailing attitude among Democrats though? I know this sort of talk is common among ostensibly left-leaning Very Serious Beltway pundits, but does your average Democratic campaigner - or, say, your local liberal/progressive opinion leader - really think in those terms? Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I tend to believe that those people (who ultimately matter more than the pundits) are a lot more likely to still see Democrats as the party of "working families" and "the common man/woman".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

Is this really the prevailing attitude among Democrats though? I know this sort of talk is common among ostensibly left-leaning Very Serious Beltway pundits, but does your average Democratic campaigner - or, say, your local liberal/progressive opinion leader - really think in those terms? Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I tend to believe that those people (who ultimately matter more than the pundits) are a lot more likely to still see Democrats as the party of "working families" and "the common man/woman".

I'm currently living in a heavily Democratic town with a median family income of ninety-three thousand dollars a year so it's very possible that my perceptions aren't representative. I sincerely hope that's the case. But I've heard a lot of similar attitudes in other areas, so it seems pretty well-advanced at least among coastal whites.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because saying that makes it sound like the republican base is poor people. Which is obviously rediculous but it fits the identity politics narrative of the left.

Pretty much this.  Politically active liberals (including much of the media) hardly represent a majority of Democrats, but they MUCH prefer - by and large - to picture their fight as against a bunch of Stone Age rubes than against self-sufficient people who just think the Democrats' ideas are stupid.

And I've never understood quite why this is, considering that the 'guy with briefcase hustling someplace' demographic is a massive paper tiger in terms of knowing what they're talking about and having good ideas.

Is this really the prevailing attitude among Democrats though? I know this sort of talk is common among ostensibly left-leaning Very Serious Beltway pundits, but does your average Democratic campaigner - or, say, your local liberal/progressive opinion leader - really think in those terms? Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I tend to believe that those people (who ultimately matter more than the pundits) are a lot more likely to still see Democrats as the party of "working families" and "the common man/woman".

I'm currently living in a heavily Democratic town with a median family income of ninety-three thousand dollars a year so it's very possible that my perceptions aren't representative. I sincerely hope that's the case. But I've heard a lot of similar attitudes in other areas, so it seems pretty well-advanced at least among coastal whites.

As far as coastal whites go, you're probably right. I've heard a few things of this general caliber in my circle of acquaintances (although the Department is fairly diverse and I thankfully haven't heard nonwhites join into this rhetoric). I guess this means that one of the challenges facing Democrats in the future will be to prevent this group from taking over the party and dictating the new line. My hope is that the old union-backed populist machines of the Midwest will hold their own, and that the Black and Hispanic components will be more prone to allying with them than with the yuppie faction.

[Crumpets]

They're obviously not 100% interchangeable, but using a college degree as a cutoff is an easier line to draw than some arbitrary income level or job description and defines a group with a significant amount of overlap.

[DC Al Fine]

They're obviously not 100% interchangeable, but using a college degree as a cutoff is an easier line to draw than some arbitrary income level or job description and defines a group with a significant amount of overlap.

This. Class is complicated, so there are always going to be mistakes when using one or two stats to define it.

Because for some stupid reason American pundits have decided that education (instead of, you know, income or occupation) is the basis of class divisions. Which is ridiculous on so many levels.

To use the factors Tony listed:

Education misses older voters who would be college educated today, and many successful business owners, salesmen etc.

Income doesn't capture the cultural differences between the low income son of a doctor and a low income daughter of a nurse's aid. It also has the opposite of the education's bias of defining working class as old, since there are plenty of younger people who will be middle class in the near to medium term.

Occupation is a massive grey area. "Sales" could mean B2B sales with six figure commissions or working at a cell phone booth in the mall.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ignorance and laziness.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Ignorance and laziness.

Agree.
Most working class whites don't have a degree but some do...especially technical or associate level degrees.  But to me the working class distinction is like porn...you know it when you see it.  Especially since I grew up in and around working class white families.

For example...they like to sit around the yard in the summer in lawn chairs and graze on various prepared foods and drink lots of beer.  Vacation means one of a few things:

Camping in an RV at a lake
Going to Branson
Going to Vegas
Going on a cruise

Lawn games (Bocce ball!) are a must.

Cake is usually served.  Because cake.  Verin wasn't kidding about the cake.

[Nym90]

As others have mentioned, because it's an easy (if, as you pointed out, sometimes flawed) way to make it clear how to categorize each person. "Working class" is an imprecise term that could mean different things to different people.

And it's been clearly demonstrated that having or not having a college degree is a good predictor of voting behavior.

[Person Man]

You mean this characterization is wrong-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWNho8g0lsU

Who would have guessed?

But seriously... I think it doesn't have as much to do with education and income or even religion and as much to do with how much being "white" in as much as it is with people identifying with the fact that they are white. For a lot of people who are less religious or more educated, maybe it is a simple function of them not really being communally rooted and more of them being rooted with their training/profession? This isn't necessarily anything new. Even in the medieval times, there were serfs, peasants and Yeomen who were really more defensive of the Ancien Regime and participated in the defense of their Lords, God, and country and then there were the Guilds people in the city that based more of their livelihoods on trade and moving.  This kind of dynamic is kind of obfuscated in this country by the fact that bourgeoisism is centralized in our ethnonational identity. 

[King of Kensington]

Most working class whites don't have a degree but some do...especially technical or associate level degrees.

And most people with associate degrees are working class.  When the punditocracy speaks of the "college educated" they mean bachelor's degree or higher.