ONCE AGAIN. ANGRY WHITE MEN. BUT TOM WATSON THINKS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND HILLARY HAVE MOVED ON.

BEYOND THE ANGRY WHITE MAN

By Tom Watson

Angry white men. They're the demographic that American presidential candidates have chased since the beginning of the republic. And because every resident of the office has been a white man save the latest, both parties have long sought to marry disatisfaction in that chunk of the electorate with rhetoric and policy to appeal to it.

Hillary Clinton's historic nomination has completely changed that calculation in way that builds and expands the coalition created by President Obama, and may lead to a permanent restructuring the American politics. Angry white men did not elect President Obama and they won't elect President Clinton - but the "passing of the baton" as the President eloquently put it the other night shifts that focused frenzy from white male votes forever.

Think about this through three distinct prisms:

1. The Democratic convention--Has there ever a national convention that left behind - almost completely - the quadrennial political obsession with winning the white male vote? I don't think so.

The Democratic Party on millions of television screens read as the modern political Big Tent from a cultural and socio-economic standpoint.

I'm particularly sensitive to the "angry white male" stereotype because, well, several times a week (at least) I am in fact, an angry white male. Yet watching the convention proceedings on the cable and network feeds (always the best way to judge), I felt a calm assurance in this wide American coalition.

The full representation of women in the process was stunning - as was the truly diverse and yes, representative, lineup of speakers. This felt like the real America to me, and it felt permanent, a real change.

2. Defeating populism twice--I'm not a populist, mainly because history tells me not to be. Populism has never led to a fair and sustainable popular movement, or to a diverse governing coalition. In fact, it's mostly been a white anger thing, often tinged with race hatred and scapegoating. And this year, even in some precincts of the political left, it still is. That doesn't mean the economic concerns of the shrinking middle class are not important; in fact, they're central to a stronger and fairer future. But the means to a better end is a not a symbolic and stylized revolt, but a sustained organizing effort that turns the always slow levers of policy and law. That's why I'm in favor of thinking radical and voting liberal.

When Hillary Clinton claims victory on the night of November 8th, she will have defeated two angry and sustained populist uprisings, and levied two defeats on two groups dominated by angry white men.

3. Trump as the cartoon AWM -- Another sign that we've reached the outer limits of the angry white male era is the angry white man who captured the nomination of the Republican Party. He is a buffoon - an ill-formed bigot and reality TV show star who has no personal relationship with the truth. His candidacy (and defeat) will rip at the very roots of the post-60s Republican Party, whose often successful coalition is built on white anger.

But these factors don't account for the looming submergence of the angry white male entirely. Indeed, the biggest factor may be Hillary Clinton herself. For almost three decades in public life, she's been the shining north star of hatred for angry white men who hate the system and need something to blame on a cultural basis.

She didn't seek this lasting combat, this endless trashing, and sexist calumny - the lies, smears, conspiracies and epithets.

"Lock her up" chanted by the crowds at the Republican National Convention is merely the end of that disgusting, trash-strewn alley. Yet her political endurance is a factor in destroying her enemies and leading them to final reckoning. You see, they thought they'd win - that she'd wilt, run for cover, collapse and whimper.

But Hillary is a unique figure with unique personal and political strengths. She never ran; she accepted political defeats sometimes, but always found a way to keep contributing, to be part of building the coalition that is about to be made permanent.

President Obama captured it during his stirring speech in Philadelphia, recalling their time together in his administration: "For four years, I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment, and her discipline. I came to realize that her unbelievable work ethic wasn't for praise, it wasn't for attention - that she was in this for everyone who needs a champion. I understood that after all these years, she has never forgotten just who she's fighting for."

Television producer Shonda Rhimes was more succinct: "She suffered a lot of body blows in the war on women."

Yet there she stands in the arena, the first woman nominated by a major party to be President.

The intersectional nature of the coalition she now seeks to both lead and expand may change American politics forever. And this (occasionally angry) white male is better for it.

###

August 10,2016