Buchanan's "populist" appeal ought to be more sobering than uplifting for the left for another reason as well. As has been noted repeatedly, he appeals particularly to Republican voters who earn less than $35,000 a year. Think about that for a second: Republican voters who earn less than $35,000 a year. In simple economic terms that would have to be the stupidest fraction of the American electorate. Why do they register Republican in the first place? I'll bet the answers have less to do with
cutting capital gains taxes or "tort reform" than with asserting racial,
gender, and nativist privilege.
Reed did not say that these voters were the stupidest, Period. He said that "In simple economic terms" they would be the stupidest. In that context he is clearly correct. And he is almost certainly correct in his
explanation. (Not since 1964 has a Democratic presidential candidate received a majority of the white male vote.)
In a period with a high degree of political activity (such as the late 30s or late 60s) some or many of this group might well overcome their racist or sexist standpoint -- but in the meantime worry about attracting them to leftist causes should not occupy a minute of anyone's
time. The constituency of the left *at this time* must be defined as that sector or those sectors of the population that will respond to black and female leadership.
Carrol