The 1999 Israeli elections sent shockwaves through the small nation’s political landscape. Though the well-established Likud party and One Israel coalition led the parliamentary vote count, the ultra-religious Shas party emerged as an unexpected challenger, finishing just one percent behind. Led by Mizrahi clerics, Shas focused on promoting traditional and religious values. Strikingly, however, nearly 75% of its voters were secular Mizrahis. Although these non-religious voters did not agree with Shas’s theological agenda, they felt that the party validated their traditional Mizrahi culture and identity. In contrast, mainstream political parties made Mizrahi voters feel looked down upon.
Recently, I read an interview with Dan Osborn, a former mechanic and independent Senate candidate in Nebraska, and it reminded me of why Mizrahi voters chose Shas. Osborn recently lost a surprisingly close election to Republican Deb Fischer. He agrees with Democrats on most issues, ranging from taxes to abortion, but ran as an independent because he felt the party patronized and alienated blue-collar workers like himself. His explanation for not caucusing with Democrats echoed the sentiments Mizrahi voters espoused in 1999, who felt dismissed by the mainstream parties of the time.
Together, Shas and Dan Osborn can help explain why Democrats underperformed in the recent election. Many voters felt alienated by the Democratic Party, viewing it as elitist and more focused on cultural issues than everyday concerns.
Over the past few decades, the Democratic Party has become the political home of affluent, educated voters. Thirty years ago, the richest 20% of districts voted for Republicans at twice the rate they voted for Democrats. Today, these districts support Democrats five times as often. Additionally, Democrats now consistently outpace Republicans in campaign donations from individuals in relatively high-paying, educationally intensive occupations such as medicine and academia.
This demographic shift has influenced the party’s priorities. Wealthy, highly educated Democrats often advocate for socially liberal policies, which can feel out of touch with the concerns of many working-class voters. For instance, while party elites champion progressive causes such as gender inclusivity and climate action, key Democratic constituencies — including Black and Latino voters — tend to prioritize different issues, such as economic security or public safety.
This growing disconnect fuels perceptions that, as Dan Osborn put it, Democrats care more about “pronouns” than inflation.
When Democrats explicitly run on issues of economic fairness rather than polarizing social issues, their electoral performance is often significantly better. For example, in Arizona, Democratic Senator-elect Ruben Gallego centered his campaign on inflation and his humble background. He outperformed Harris, who lost the state, by around four percent. Similarly, Sherrod Brown, a former Democratic senator from Ohio, outpaced Harris by nearly three percent by campaigning solely on union outreach, workers’ concerns and his blue-collar credentials. Their campaign strategies were relatively similar to Dan Osborn’s, who ran even further ahead of Harris, likely because he didn’t have the Democrat label in solidly red Nebraska.
In contrast to the Democrats’ perceived elitism, Donald Trump positioned himself as a relatable figure for many voters, despite his immense wealth. Trump’s appeal is sometimes rooted less in his policies and more in his unconventional engagement with non-traditional political audiences. He spent hours talking about everything from Martians to martial arts with Joe Rogan, went live with Twitch streamer Adin Ross, joked about drugs with absurdist comedian Theo Von and hung out with fratty YouTube pranksters The Nelk Boys. He met with Arab voters in Michigan, held a rally in the South Bronx — a district he had no chance of winning — and entertained the views of once-fringe figures like RFK Jr. and Alex Jones (remember, conspiracy theorists vote too!). This wide-net approach helped him connect with disengaged voters and fostered the powerful perception that he valued overlooked voting groups. Much like how Shas won Mizrahi voters simply by acknowledging their culture, Trump won the “disengaged vote” by sending the message that he acknowledged the existence and concerns of voters who were typically ignored.
Trump enjoyed this support from disengaged and overlooked voters despite the fact that his economic policies may hurt these same people. However, few voters — on either side of the aisle — have deep economic knowledge, and perceptions of the economy are not reflective of the economic reality. These voters backed him because he appeared to care about their everyday concerns, regardless of the fact that he may not necessarily solve their problems.
Just as people did in 2016, many have tried to pin Trump’s victory on sexism or racism. But they are wrong. Trump improved his voting margins in nearly every demographic group — including those whom, according to pundits, he was insulting. Moreover, compared to 2020, he actually won a smaller share of white voters over the age of 65, the demographic seen as most aligned with his style of anti-wokeness. The truth is that Trump won because he was willing to take all comers. Meanwhile, Democrats struggled to shake the perception that they were selective about the audience they were trying to appeal to. To win in 2028, Democrats should look to Nebraska — and maybe to 1999 Israel.
Ben Aizenberg can be reached at benjamin_aizenberg@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
