What do you think?
Rate this book
Rust Belt Union Blues: Why Working-Class Voters Are Turning Away from the Democratic Party
In the heyday of American labor, the influence of local unions extended far beyond the workplace. Unions were embedded in tight-knit communities, touching nearly every aspect of the lives of members―mostly men―and their families and neighbors. They conveyed fundamental worldviews, making blue-collar unionists into loyal Democrats who saw the party as on the side of the working man. Today, unions play a much less significant role in American life. In industrial and formerly industrial Rust Belt towns, Republican-leaning groups and outlooks have burgeoned among the kinds of voters who once would have been part of union communities.
Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol provide timely insight into the relationship between the decline of unions and the shift of working-class voters away from Democrats. Drawing on interviews, union newsletters, and ethnographic analysis, they pinpoint the significance of eroding local community ties and identities. Using western Pennsylvania as a case study, Newman and Skocpol argue that union members’ loyalty to Democratic candidates was as much a product of the group identity that unions fostered as it was a response to the Democratic Party’s economic policies. As the social world around organized labor dissipated, conservative institutions like gun clubs, megachurches, and other Republican-leaning groups took its place.
Rust Belt Union Blues sheds new light on why so many union members have dramatically changed their party politics. It makes a compelling case that Democrats are unlikely to rebuild credibility in places like western Pennsylvania unless they find new ways to weave themselves into the daily lives of workers and their families.
Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol provide timely insight into the relationship between the decline of unions and the shift of working-class voters away from Democrats. Drawing on interviews, union newsletters, and ethnographic analysis, they pinpoint the significance of eroding local community ties and identities. Using western Pennsylvania as a case study, Newman and Skocpol argue that union members’ loyalty to Democratic candidates was as much a product of the group identity that unions fostered as it was a response to the Democratic Party’s economic policies. As the social world around organized labor dissipated, conservative institutions like gun clubs, megachurches, and other Republican-leaning groups took its place.
Rust Belt Union Blues sheds new light on why so many union members have dramatically changed their party politics. It makes a compelling case that Democrats are unlikely to rebuild credibility in places like western Pennsylvania unless they find new ways to weave themselves into the daily lives of workers and their families.
328 pages, Hardcover
Published September 19, 2023
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 6, 2024
This comparative study at the intersection of history, sociology and politics seeks to understand why unions workers, specifically Steelworkers in Western Pennsylvania, have shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over the last seventy years, with most of the shift concentrated in the last two decades. Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol tell a rich and nuanced story while bringing lots of new data to the fore, including systematic cataloging of changes in union newsletters/newspapers over time, tallies of bumper stickers in a Steelworkers parking lot, extensive interviews, as well as synthesizing other scholarship.
Their argument in part rests on the familiar story of deindustrialization and the effects it had on employment and communities. The novel twist, which they develop and emphasize, is that this ended up shifting unions from being at the center of a rich social network that fostered social events and ties to unions being simply about collective bargaining. For example, when everyone lived in one town the local could organize bbqs, sporting events and the like--but with sparser employment people started commuting much longer distances to their jobs and were less likely to have social ties to co-workers or through the union. This vacuum ended up being filled by other associations, like the National Rifle Association, that often connected people to the Republican Party, particularly the ascendant populist strain under Trump.
Some of their argument is bolstered by an interesting contrast between the United Steelworkers (USW) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). People in the building trades move from job to job so the union plays an important role in allocating the jobs but also is more active in fostering ties because of what would otherwise be a very lonely way to operate.
A lot of social scientists are content with just documenting and explain but Newman and Skocpol seek to provide advice to labor leaders (who still support Democrats) about how to bring their rank and file along, most notably through trying to resuscitate some of the richer social ties. They also have a plea to Democrats not to give up on this group and instead more actively court and engage it.
Overall, this was a really enjoyable and enlightening read that brought a lot of new data into the world. Ultimately, however, it documents a series of associations and sequences of events so cannot settle questions of causation. The atomization of workers is a consequence of deindustrialization but is it itself a cause of shifting party affiliations? Or is the deindustrialization also the cause of that? And the advice to union leaders is worth a try but there are, as they document, very good reasons unions no longer serve the social functions they used to and so it may be fruitless to try to bring that back.
Their argument in part rests on the familiar story of deindustrialization and the effects it had on employment and communities. The novel twist, which they develop and emphasize, is that this ended up shifting unions from being at the center of a rich social network that fostered social events and ties to unions being simply about collective bargaining. For example, when everyone lived in one town the local could organize bbqs, sporting events and the like--but with sparser employment people started commuting much longer distances to their jobs and were less likely to have social ties to co-workers or through the union. This vacuum ended up being filled by other associations, like the National Rifle Association, that often connected people to the Republican Party, particularly the ascendant populist strain under Trump.
Some of their argument is bolstered by an interesting contrast between the United Steelworkers (USW) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW). People in the building trades move from job to job so the union plays an important role in allocating the jobs but also is more active in fostering ties because of what would otherwise be a very lonely way to operate.
A lot of social scientists are content with just documenting and explain but Newman and Skocpol seek to provide advice to labor leaders (who still support Democrats) about how to bring their rank and file along, most notably through trying to resuscitate some of the richer social ties. They also have a plea to Democrats not to give up on this group and instead more actively court and engage it.
Overall, this was a really enjoyable and enlightening read that brought a lot of new data into the world. Ultimately, however, it documents a series of associations and sequences of events so cannot settle questions of causation. The atomization of workers is a consequence of deindustrialization but is it itself a cause of shifting party affiliations? Or is the deindustrialization also the cause of that? And the advice to union leaders is worth a try but there are, as they document, very good reasons unions no longer serve the social functions they used to and so it may be fruitless to try to bring that back.
May 30, 2023
After the 2016 election, pundits often declared that the "unexpected" support for Trump among working-class voters came down primarily to economic issues. In this thoughtfully researched book by grad student Newman and professor Skocpol, the long-term evolution of workers' unions and their impact on workers' social identities provides answers that economic factors alone don't address. Based on interviews with current and retired union members, research in union newsletters, and more, the authors show that in midcentury America, the union played a central social role in workers' lives, bringing them together in common purpose with a strong historical memory. The current role of unions seems to be less entwined with workers' everyday lives, and gun clubs, churches, and other institutions (often of a more conservative bent) fill that gap. The study provides more detail and nuance than this summary, of course, and for readers interested both in labor history and in political history, the information found in this book will add to their understanding of the changes in political views over the past 50-75 years. Well worth the read. 4 stars.
Thank you, Columbia University Press and NetGalley, for providing an eARC of this book. Opinions expressed here are solely my own.
Thank you, Columbia University Press and NetGalley, for providing an eARC of this book. Opinions expressed here are solely my own.
October 7, 2023
Rust Belt Union Blues is an excellent book discussing the fall of unions and the rise of right leaning blue collar workers. Lainey Newman and Theda Skocpol have done an impressive job with discussing the often forgotten sway that unions once had in the American midwest.
One aspect of this work that really shines is the amount of research and data that was conducted. Often, books with political focuses are high on opinion and speculation and low on data and statistics. This book is different, with Lainey Newman having conducted dozens of interviews, scoured hundreds of archived articles for flag words and their context, and even doing some creative analysis by counting and categorizing bumper stickers and their political and social relevance. The amount of work and diligence that went into this publications is on par with a seasoned and professional scholar, and so Newman doing this initially as her senior honors thesis is incredible.
Newman makes a strong case for why unions have largely disappeared from both conversations and workers’ lives, what those unions have been now overshadowed by (guns clubs and churches), and how this has changed the political landscape of a significant portion of Pennsylvania voters. Although this is an academic work, there was still a sense of loss and tragedy while reading it, which comes from the recounting of desperate unions and workers trying to keep steel mills running - even attempting (but failing) to collectively acquire one. There is no doubt that much of the rust belt, and by extension the US, lost a meaningful part of their identity with the decline of American steel and other industries.
If I had one criticism for this book, it would be that while clearly leaning away from Trump-ism and extreme right-wing ideology, Newman often takes a neutral tone when discussing these issues. For example, after quoting a miner who berated a coworker for supporting the KKK, but ending his statement with, “if it wasn’t for all that” (as in the Union’s policy of inclusivity), “I’d probably join the KKK,” Newman points out that this miner clearly had prejudice, and then goes on to discuss how at least the union helped prevent him from joining an “abhorrent extremist organization.” Personally, as someone who considers himself very liberal, I would have liked to see more condemnations of racists, and more evidence and arguments tying racism, sexism, etc to the modern Republican party. I understand this would have been out of scope for this thesis, and would have betrayed the fairly objective viewpoint required in this sort of journalism-like piece, but nonetheless I would have liked it. If anything, Newman *not* doing this shows her commitment to being fair and letting the data and evidence speak for itself, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So in all, this isn’t much if a criticism, and more of a personal preference of mine that has me wondering why I’ve bothered mentioning it.
Overall, this is an intelligent and eye opening work about the American midwest, which once was home to a great steel industry and its unions, and now often feels overlooked and left behind. It’s ultimately no wonder that the general political view of the region has swayed from Democratic to Republican, and this begs the question: will liberal leaders be able to convince rust belt residents to hold their economic and social ideals over their prejudices and gun rights ever again?
One aspect of this work that really shines is the amount of research and data that was conducted. Often, books with political focuses are high on opinion and speculation and low on data and statistics. This book is different, with Lainey Newman having conducted dozens of interviews, scoured hundreds of archived articles for flag words and their context, and even doing some creative analysis by counting and categorizing bumper stickers and their political and social relevance. The amount of work and diligence that went into this publications is on par with a seasoned and professional scholar, and so Newman doing this initially as her senior honors thesis is incredible.
Newman makes a strong case for why unions have largely disappeared from both conversations and workers’ lives, what those unions have been now overshadowed by (guns clubs and churches), and how this has changed the political landscape of a significant portion of Pennsylvania voters. Although this is an academic work, there was still a sense of loss and tragedy while reading it, which comes from the recounting of desperate unions and workers trying to keep steel mills running - even attempting (but failing) to collectively acquire one. There is no doubt that much of the rust belt, and by extension the US, lost a meaningful part of their identity with the decline of American steel and other industries.
If I had one criticism for this book, it would be that while clearly leaning away from Trump-ism and extreme right-wing ideology, Newman often takes a neutral tone when discussing these issues. For example, after quoting a miner who berated a coworker for supporting the KKK, but ending his statement with, “if it wasn’t for all that” (as in the Union’s policy of inclusivity), “I’d probably join the KKK,” Newman points out that this miner clearly had prejudice, and then goes on to discuss how at least the union helped prevent him from joining an “abhorrent extremist organization.” Personally, as someone who considers himself very liberal, I would have liked to see more condemnations of racists, and more evidence and arguments tying racism, sexism, etc to the modern Republican party. I understand this would have been out of scope for this thesis, and would have betrayed the fairly objective viewpoint required in this sort of journalism-like piece, but nonetheless I would have liked it. If anything, Newman *not* doing this shows her commitment to being fair and letting the data and evidence speak for itself, and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. So in all, this isn’t much if a criticism, and more of a personal preference of mine that has me wondering why I’ve bothered mentioning it.
Overall, this is an intelligent and eye opening work about the American midwest, which once was home to a great steel industry and its unions, and now often feels overlooked and left behind. It’s ultimately no wonder that the general political view of the region has swayed from Democratic to Republican, and this begs the question: will liberal leaders be able to convince rust belt residents to hold their economic and social ideals over their prejudices and gun rights ever again?
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews