Why Has the Left Turned Away From the Working Class?

By Antonio Ancaya

(Image Source: eriereader)

The growing political divide in today’s world is undeniable, and a key aspect of this divide is the left’s shifting stance toward the working class. Historically, the left was the “party of the working man,” advocating for policies that championed working families. However, that seems to have changed. Today, the left is more aligned with neo-liberal policies that benefit the global, managerial, college-educated elite. This shift begs the question: why did the left abandon the working class?

The answer lies in a perceived betrayal. As the working class became more prosperous, many found their interests diverging from the left’s platform. For decades, leftist academics had envisioned that as workers improved their economic standing, they would eventually rise up and replace capitalism with socialism. But the opposite occurred. As their financial situations improved, many working-class people became more supportive of capitalism, and consequently, more politically conservative.

This shift left many left-wing intellectuals and politicians feeling frustrated and disillusioned. The working class, once thought to be a revolutionary force, was content with modest ambitions: stable jobs, decent wages, a comfortable home, and the ability to provide for their families. Instead of seeking radical change, the working class sought stability. This pragmatic outlook didn’t align with the left’s ideological vision of transforming society.

In response, left-leaning politicians and academics shifted their focus. No longer relying on the working class for support, they turned to identity politics, appealing to minority groups and immigrants. Unlike the politically fragmented working class, these groups often vote more uniformly, sometimes guided by community or religious leaders. This allowed the left to secure a new base of voters while moving away from working-class concerns.

Academically, the narrative also evolved. Historically, leftist thinkers vilified capitalists, but over time, their resentment shifted towards the white working class. In this new framework, white people became the modern “bourgeoisie,” and minorities were recast as the “proletariat.” This reimagining of class struggle drove a deeper wedge between the left and the working class.

The Left's Self-Perpetuating Cycle of Failure

This abandonment of the working class is evident in the state of left-wing-controlled cities across the United States. Many of these cities are plagued by chronic problems—crime, poverty, failing public services—that worsen despite decades of leadership from left-wing politicians. The reason for this is not accidental; it is deliberate. The left benefits from maintaining the status quo or, in some cases, making it worse.

To understand why, it’s important to examine the motivations behind political affiliation. Why do people join conservative parties? The answer lies in the desire for stability. Business owners, families with children, and those who are generally doing well in life tend to support conservative parties because they don’t want rapid, disruptive change. They want to conserve what is working for them. 

On the other hand, those who join left-wing parties tend to be dissatisfied with the current system. They seek change because the status quo isn't benefiting them. Left-wing parties thrive on promises of change—promises that resonate with people who are struggling. If you live in a city with crumbling infrastructure, high crime, and poor services, it makes sense to vote for a candidate promising to fix these problems.

However, once a left-wing politician is elected, meaningful change often doesn’t happen. In some cases, the situation worsens. Why? Because if things improve too much, people no longer need change. When life stabilizes and conditions improve, voters begin to favor the conservative message of preserving the gains that have been made. The left knows this, and thus, there’s little incentive to solve the problems that got them elected in the first place.

This creates a cycle: a left-wing candidate promises change, fails to deliver, and is voted out for another left-wing candidate making the same promises. Real improvements would diminish the left’s voter base because satisfied citizens tend to vote for stability, not upheaval. 

 The Role of Identity Politics and Race

This strategy is evident in the left’s approach to identity politics, particularly around race. While the vast majority of Americans are not racist, the left consistently insists that systemic racism pervades society. This isn’t because they believe it’s the most pressing issue, but because it is politically advantageous. By keeping race at the forefront, they keep voters dissatisfied, ensuring their support for candidates promising to address these supposed systemic issues.

The left’s hyperfocus on race has fractured the electorate across Western democracies. It sows division and keeps people polarized, which benefits those in power. Even though this rhetoric can be deeply harmful to the fabric of a multicultural society like the United States, it is politically expedient. If racism were resolved, the left would lose one of its key electoral tools. The problem, from their perspective, is not meant to be solved—it is meant to persist.

 Crisis as a Tool for Control

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a stark example of how the left manipulates crises for political gain. Throughout the pandemic, left-wing leaders maintained a state of constant crisis, repeatedly promising that they would restore normalcy. However, true resolution never came. The prolonged nature of the pandemic allowed the left to consolidate power, introducing emergency measures and regulations that increased their control. By keeping the crisis alive, they retained power and influence, while the return to “normal” was perpetually delayed.

For the left, crises—whether based on race, public health, or economic disparity—are opportunities to entrench their influence. The longer a problem persists, the more they can promise to fix it, even if the actual goal is to maintain their grip on power. In this model, solving the problem is not the objective; sustaining it is.

Conclusion

The left’s shift away from the working class is a direct result of political and ideological calculations. As the working class grew more conservative and content with stability, the left sought out new voter bases, turning to identity politics and leveraging crises to maintain power. This strategy keeps the left in control by perpetuating dissatisfaction and crisis. Whether it’s left-wing cities deteriorating or the exploitation of racial and public health issues, the left’s promises of change often result in little actual progress. After all, solving the problem would mean losing the very voters that put them in power.