Words of insight on disaffected Americans from a 1972 Sydney Harris column (I originally posted in June). Amended with post-election insight from David Brooks, NYT and Sen. Bernie Sanders
In June, I asked our Democratic leaders, based on a 50 year old column, to reach out to today's working class, young, and other disaffected Americans. Bernie Sanders and David Brooks comments follow.
Voters to Elites: Do You See Me Now? The Brooks column. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/trump-elites-working-class.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare/
Also, Bernie Sanders commented in Mint that the working class felt abandoned by the Demo Party “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them,” Sanders said in his statement.
My initial column follows
Harris or Harris/___ need to reach out to the working class and discouraged Americans. The discouragement is not a new revelation; our strategy needs to adapt and be new to defeat Trump.
Borrowing from another Harris. —Sydney J. Harris, a prominent American journalist and syndicated columnist, wrote extensively on social, cultural, and political issues throughout his career. In one of his columns from the 1970s titled "The Greatest Risk in Little Man’s Frustration," Harris delves into the psychological and societal impacts of frustration experienced by the "little man," or the average individual in society. By re-reading the core ideas presented by Harris, I recommend that the Harris on the ticket acts on the implications for today. This was written around 1972.
Harris begins by identifying the "little man" as the ordinary person who feels powerless and insignificant due to societal structures and events beyond their control. Harris’s use of ordinary person encompasses my terms of ‘everyday people”, as opposed to elites, and would include working-class people.
(“Little Man”, in my opinion, includes people who are working class, rural and urban, and red and blue America–but does not include the wealthy).
Harris argues that the greatest risk associated with this frustration is not just the personal dissatisfaction it breeds but its potential to lead to destructive behaviors. When people feel consistently unheard and marginalized, their pent-up frustrations can manifest in ways that disrupt social harmony and stability. And they gravitate to the kind of populism, manipulated by Trump; others choose to sit out elections, attend the January 6 attacks, or lash out against minority communities.
Harris points out that this frustration is often exacerbated by the rapid pace of societal change and the increasing complexity of modern life (again, written around 1972). Harris wrote that individuals may struggle to keep up with technological advancements, shifting economic landscapes, and evolving social norms (sounds familiar). As these changes outpace the ability of the average person to adapt, feelings of alienation and helplessness grow. Since Harris wrote this fifty years ago, the wording has changed; technology has accelerated leaving people confused or frustrated; wages and salaries have not grown and reflect only a historically low percentage compared to CEO’s; and social and cultural norms continue to evolve at a pace faster than we can use words to describe.
Harris discusses how leaders and institutions often fail to address this frustration, focusing instead on superficial solutions. Trump pounced upon this as it exists today, also building upon Reagan. Trump fingering Democrats for neglect deepened the sense of disenfranchisement among the populace. Fifty years ago, Harris warned that if these frustrations are not acknowledged and addressed constructively, they can lead to widespread disillusionment and the erosion of trust in societal institutions.
Trump and MAGA only benefited from the loss of trust and increased cynicism.
Harris’s column from the 1970s remains relevant today as it highlights the enduring challenge of addressing the frustrations of the "little man." His insights underscore the importance of empathy, understanding, and proactive engagement in mitigating the risks associated with societal frustration. By acknowledging and addressing the concerns of ordinary individuals, society can foster a more inclusive and resilient environment, reducing the potential for destructive outcomes.
Clinton said “I feel your pain”. Whether it is Biden/Harris or Harris/other tickets, national and state candidates who fear the loss of democracy need to learn and apply this insight. Show “empathy, understanding, and proactive engagement” to working class and middle America, and historically disenfranchised groups. Whatever her role, Harris will need to accelerate her attention to domestic and international issues. In the past year, I recall Harris speaking to black sororities, social justice or reproductive groups. However, this week, she spoke against Project 2025, though not ‘closing the deal’. Political leaders can share stories from Americans about how 2025 will hurt America in 2025 and in years to come. The top of the ticket will have to translate the threats of Project 2025 and the loss of democracy to the tabletop vernacular. Even phrases of ‘loss of democracy’ won’t reach people. Child care costs, access to rural health care, tuition, and higher wages will reach people.
We will need more from the top of the ticket and surrogates to ensure America in 2025 is a democracy. We can learn from history and Sydney Harris.
thank you Mr. Peters. Building bridges sounds very positive, like re-building the Balt bridge, or finding common ground. Not everyone will want to cross the bridge, especially during these troubled times. For democracy’s sake, for all of our children’s sake, I want enough bridges and enough humans to extend themselves.
Thank you Mr. Rosenberg for giving insite into the divide. America is made up of different view points. In a democracy we can share those different points of view. Thank you for sharing so well:)