Democrats need less identity politics, more practical economics

In the 2024 elections, a wide swath of Americans — especially young non-college educated men, Blacks and Latinos — swung towards Donald Trump and the Republicans. Democrats know they must change course if they don’t want to become a permanent minority party that appeals only to those with college or higher degrees.

Of course, the debate about what went wrong, and how to right it, has taken a predictable turn — with the same old arguments between moderates and progressives on redistributive policies or identity politics. On the latter, I strongly believe Democrats must tone down their very heavy focus on race and gender issues — which are divisive and appeal primarily to the college-educated, while turning off most men and the working class.

Instead, Democrats must return to their economic roots and focus on helping the working and middle classes thrive in America. But these roots must grow in a different economic climate from that of the 20th century. While raising minimum wages and promoting unions remain worthwhile, helping people thrive in a primarily post-industrial economy requires a somewhat different approach. Anti-trade and anti-immigrant actions (separate from having a secure border) are also self-defeating, and will only raise costs and inflation down the road — exactly what hurt the Democrats so much in the past election.

Instead, Democrats should focus on the following three factors that distress voters without college degrees, especially the young and nonwhite. First, they must help those without four-year college get good skills and good-paying jobs; second, they must help reduce the cost of living in certain key sectors, starting with housing; third, they must help Americans navigate the tensions between their family needs and the workplace.

Creating skilled workers and good-paying jobs requires a mix of policies at all levels of government focused on economic and workforce development. The Biden administration got little political credit for its major investments in chips, clean energy and infrastructure, as well as its efforts to create good jobs, though these could pay strong dividends over time. Analysts like Harvard economist Dani Rodrik and Brookings’ Mark Muro have outlined a range of policies and practices to spur further economic development in a way that benefits both key regions and workers.

And we must support community colleges and other training providers to create a better-skilled workforce to fill good jobs. Community colleges are learning how to better partner with local industry while generating workers with the skills needed to attain well-paying careers. Organizations like Per Scholas, Year Up and Project Quest, which successfully prepare those without bachelor’s degrees for good jobs in high-demand sectors (like health care, IT and advanced manufacturing), need help scaling up their programs to reach a wider swath of workers. And we should also help employers create more apprenticeships and other work-based learning models.

At the same time, we must help workers navigate and adapt to artificial intelligence, which will no doubt raise productivities and standards of living while also displacing millions of workers from their current tasks and jobs.

Promoting more affordable housing, very simply, requires us to build more homes. Yet this is a hard goal for the federal government for two simple reasons: first, the barriers to more housing primarily lie in state and local regulations that stymie and complicate residential construction; second, these regulations benefit current homeowners, since restrictions on the supply of housing raise the value of the current housing stock.

At the same time, thoughtful housing analysts have devised a number of policies and practices by which the federal government could assist and incentivize state and local jurisdictions to ease the regulations that now strangle residential construction and reduce housing supply. If Democrats trumpet these practices, their appeal to young people will grow.

Finally, there is no doubt that more support for child care would help more workers — especially young mothers — join the workforce; while providing more paid family leave would ease the strain on Gen Xers and Millennials who must often care for both children and elderly parents. Of course, child care and paid leave cost more money, and we want to do so in a way that will not further grow our public debt. But, here too, creative approaches involving federal and state governments could generate more support for working families with politically acceptable financing mechanisms.

Reducing its reliance on divisive identity politics, while refocusing its rhetoric and actions on practical economic needs, would give Democrats a platform with broad appeal to young people and the working class while they fight to limit the damage caused by Donald Trump. They should start this refocusing and rebranding as soon as possible.

Harry J. Holzer is the LaFarge Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown, a senior fellow at Brookings, and a former Chief Economist of the US Department of Labor.