I just finished Matt Vespa’s excellent Townhall article about how Rob Flaherty, Kamala Harris’ digital director knew something was not quite correct with her entire campaign.  Vespa uses a phrase that has become a trope of primarily liberal pundits (a few conservatives also): “working class.”  Vespa (who is conservative) writes, “Most of the messengers within the Democratic Party aren’t working-class.”  Does Vespa mean that most of the messengers within the Republican Party are working-class?  Is its usage here favorable or unfavorable?

And, on the Monday edition of The View (of all places), co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, the former Trump press secretary, stated, “The Republican party is now the party of the working class.”  Is that favorable or unfavorable?

And, according to an article in the WSJ, Trump has transformed the Republican party into the “working class” party.  The Journal article suggests that the shift has important implications for the policy agenda of both parties.  Again, is that favorable or unfavorable?  

Since the phrase “working class” has become so popular lately, let’s dive deeper into it.

“Working class,” according to Investopedia, “is a socioeconomic term used to describe persons in a social class marked by jobs [that require] physical labor.”  “Working class” identifies people who derive their living mostly from labor, as opposed to from capital (investments, real estate, businesses, etc.) and/or inheritance.  Interestingly, roughly 22 percent of respondents to a poll defined “working class” as “working and nothing else.”

“Working class” and “blue collar,” the section of the labor force that performs manual labor, are often used as synonyms.

Karl Marx, one of Germany’s most brilliant philosophers and a darling of the far left, defined the working class (or proletariat) as individuals who sell their labor for wages and who do not own the “means of production” (the necessary machinery, land, and processes to produce the goods essential for society’s function).  His social, political, and economic theory was based upon the struggles of the working class during the Industrial Revolution in Europe.  Marx termed those in charge — the bosses, owners, and managers — the bourgeoisie.  According to Marx, the working class perform the labor, and the bourgeoisie obtain the profits from this labor.  From this system, Marx determined that the workers are exploited while the bourgeoisie get more powerful and wealthier.

Similarly, the late Senator Edward Kennedy, throughout his political life, had a single-minded focus: the betterment of the lives of the working class.  To Kennedy, this was great politics.  Yep, that’s the same Kennedy who drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island and managed to save himself but not working-class schoolteacher Mary Jo Kopechne.

However, Karl Marx (and Ted Kennedy) conveniently (on purpose?) overlooked the fact that taking a risk with the means of production (capital) involves work.  In fact, a study published in Current Biology suggests that the brain slows down its activity to manage the buildup of a potentially toxic neurotransmitter in the prefrontal cortex.  This brain function leads to physical fatigue.  Mental work is more tiring than physical work.  Mental exhaustion can be worse than physical exhaustion because there are many different ways in which mental exhaustion can hurt you (such as an error in judgment), some of which are quite permanent.

Bottom line: It is quite unfair to indiscriminately without explanation use the term “working class” since it implies that people in other classes (the bourgeoisie?) do not work.  Its use can be misleading and either favorable or unfavorable depending upon the context.  Hopefully the phrase will in the future fall into disuse.

Image via Pxhere.