"When Clinton said 'Not everything is about an economic theory' she was wrong. It is. Even when it's hard to elucidate. It's always there." -Ta-Nehisi Coates, December 1, 2016

Democrats in Congress have just taken a bold step to once again make economic security one of the core issues of the party, by forming the “Blue Collar Caucus.” Even as the Democratic party frantically debates whether or not there is such a thing as “non-economic oppression” (Spoiler alert: there isn’t), and whether we were right to focus on it in 2016 at the expense of, shall we say, ‘normal, meat and potatoes economic oppression’ (spoiler alert: we weren’t), Congressmen Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA-13) and Marc Veasey (D-TX-33) have announced the formation of the multiracial, multiethnic caucus. Their pledge: to “focus Congressional efforts on alleviating the economic anxiety felt by working class Americans that was so pronounced in the 2016 election.” Bravo.

Discussing the aims of the Caucus, Congressman Veasey, who is African American, and who represents the 2/3 Hispanic/Latino, 16% AA, 1% Non-Hispanic White 33rd Congressional District of Texas, said the following:

Every hardworking American should have the economic security to provide for their families. Congress has the responsibility to enact policies that ensure an equal opportunity for all American workers to climb the ladder of success. *snip I’ve learned that Americans want real action to create jobs, raise wages, and ensure that they can improve the quality of life for their families and for future generations.

Congressman Boyle, an inequality focused Rust Belt Irishman, who as a state legislator was a founding member of the PA LGBT Equality Caucus, voted for legislation outlawing LGBT discrimination, and introduced language amending PA’s hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, described the aims of the caucus as follows:

Too many Americans think the best days for their families are behind them. And they’ve lost faith in their elected leaders to stand up for their best interests, protect their rights, and promote their prosperity. We can and must do better. *Snip The America I grew up in – and the one I still see today – is a forward-looking nation built by blue collar workers of all colors, crafts, and creeds. These workers literally built our nation. Now it is our duty in Washington to rebuild their trust in government by working for them. (emphasis added)

This is a relatively unprecedented development, and I say we support it. I have only found one other “blue-collar caucus” in U.S. Congressional history, though there may have been earlier ones. Formed in 1977 under a newly minted (and tragically economically centrist) President Carter, it was a bi-partisan caucus composed of 14 representatives who had some sort of blue-collar job in their pasts. Among its aims and accomplishments:

Successfully Pushing for a larger federal minimum wage increase, from $2.30 to $2.65, or 15 cents higher than the $2.50 that President Carter was proposing.

Proposing measures requiring or compelling members of Congress, by way of decreased pay, to spend recesses working another job

Proposing rolling back the $8,000 limit on outside pay for Congressman, to pave way for the previous proposal.

To some the last two objectives may sound silly, and there is no clear connection between the 70’s blue collar caucus and the current one. Indeed, it remains to be seen what the present edition will concretely do. But it is refreshing to see them do it. And we would do well to support their work and inform it, not bash it as catering to racist working whites or whatever else one might argue focusing on inequality does.

As I alluded to earlier, there is a near-symmetrical rift between those in the Democratic party who would ignore the economic lesson of the Rust Belt states going to Trump, for fear of putting to the side civil rights, and those who see civil and economic rights as inseparable. People like Ta-Nehisi Coates, who today in an epic twitter rant defies anyone to name a form of institutionalized oppression, such as black oppression or LGBTQ oppression, that does not have an economic base, impetus, cause. I will leave you with some of those tweets, and highly encourage you read the entire string, as well as the piece they are referring to. In solidarity, let us unite, and let us prepare for one hell of a tough fight.

x Interesting piece that errs in adopting the Clinton frame that there is oppression that is non-economic https://t.co/jPalYu8PAQ Ã¢ÂÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 1, 2016

x The Ferguson report revealed an entire scheme of municipal plunder. Anti-black policing was an economic model. Ã¢ÂÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 1, 2016

x Marriage discrimination isn't bad because simply because it makes people "feel bad." Ã¢ÂÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 1, 2016

x There's nothing "non-economic" about sexual harassment. If you're boss is demanding favors in exchange for a raise, that's economics. Ã¢ÂÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 1, 2016

x Anti-black Racism is the one I know, and at its very root it was always economic. Ã¢ÂÂ Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 1, 2016