It’s the Culture, Stupid

ELIJAH NOUVELAGE | Credit: AFP via Getty Images

In 1992, James Carville, a political strategist on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, coined the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid” to hammer home the importance of focusing on the economy if Clinton wanted to win the 1992 election, and in the aftermath of his victory Carville’s maxim has remained a pillar of Democratic politics.

However, Kamala Harris’ surge in popularity after Biden dropped out of the race is showing that presidential elections have become about more than just the economy. They are about the culture. It is about time we realize that “It’s the culture, stupid.” 

The surge of support and energy surrounding Harris’ campaign has caught many people off guard. The memes are endless. Harris is Brat. The Republicans are in a tailspin. Her fundraising has exceeded all expectations. Her poll numbers look very good. Many pundits who had predicted a Donald Trump victory now anticipate a Harris victory, and former president Jimmy Carter is even willing himself to stay alive so that he can vote for her. The superlatives seem to be endless. 

Harris has galvanized the culture and tapped into America’s progressive zeitgeist, yet alarmingly few Democrats would have predicted this surge in support. If the Democrats could have imagined such a stark shift in fortunes, surely President Joe Biden would have dropped out of the race sooner. 

Yet almost no one predicted any of this, and for far too long the Democrats appeared to be alienated from the culture and spirit, or Geist, of their community. This is a massive problem, which Harris is helping to solve, but to understand this dilemma we have to go back to at least 1992 because “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The Economy

The United States is many, many things, but one thing that it has always been is an economic endeavor. Colonizers came to the New World because they wanted to get rich. The transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery were economic, profit-driven endeavors. The perpetual oppression and exploitation of African people was part of a global economic system built around generating wealth for Europeans. Underpaying or not paying one’s workers has always been a method for generating profit and wealth for landowners and business owners, and the United States built an entire society around this approach.

Obviously, Carville’s phrase had nothing to do with America’s history of genocide and ethnocide, but if Americans needed a simple phrase to explain why colonizers stole indigenous land, forcefully removed and exterminated indigenous people, and created a system of chattel slavery for African people, the answer would be “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Since colonization, the economic system created by Europeans has shaped the lives of all of the people who live on this land. For non-European or non-white people, their role in this system was to be perpetually exploited and disempowered. Europeans and white people, regardless of whether they were active or conscious participants, existed as the empowered exploiters. They lived and profited at the expense of others, and today, we often refer to this dynamic as “white privilege.” 

The “privilege” that these white Americans possess is the economic bounty of America’s exploitative system, and their “privilege” is problematic because it normalizes dehumanizing and exploitative actions. This is why white people are encouraged to check, or rein in, their privilege when they interact with people, and especially people of color. Their economic bounty is also their social and cultural burden. Their cure is also their poison. (This is a pharmakon.) This dynamic is why it cannot be as simple as “It’s the economy, stupid.” But it is also why it is so easy for white Americans to believe that “It’s the economy, stupid.”

For white Americans, the economy has existed as a vehicle for financial empowerment and freedom. That freedom was built at the expense of non-white people, and white people do not need to even be aware of or active participants in this system to reap some of the benefits. The system was created hundreds of years ago, and all Americans live within it. 

Due to the connection between economic empowerment and freedom within white American culture, it is normal for the economy to become the defining issue in American politics when voices of color have been marginalized. In the 1990s, Black voter turnout was way less than during Obama’s presidency and it was also less than what is anticipated in this election now that Harris is the presumptive Democratic nominee, so Carville’s focus on the economy spoke to the white swing voters who would decide the election. To win the support of these voters, the Democrats needed to show how the federal government would benefit them economically.

This bizarre and often destructive focus on the economy is so integral to how the West interprets and understands the world and humanity that western philosophers and economists have even created the term homo economicus or “economic man” to describe how they believe human beings are supposed to exist. Homo economicus is a concept of human beings that assumes that people are “perfectly rational” and act in ways that maximize utility as a consumer and profit as a producer.

Homo economicus is a ridiculous idea because within this construct a slave owner could be considered “perfectly rational” and a great example of homo economicus so long as slavery maximizes their utility as a producer by generating as much profit as possible, and they chose to maximize their utility as a consumer by spending their money on ventures that make a profit and at a bare minimum do not lose money.

The expansion of slavery in pursuit of profit would be perfectly rational for homo economicus. Homo economicus is supposed to embody a theoretically “perfectly rational” human being, but in reality, he often manifests as an irrational man.

For the economic man, it is always the economy stupid, but this agenda is problematic and not something that can be embraced by people of color.

The Culture

Culture is a word that all of us use, but if we think about it, we do not know what it means. Culture often manifests as an emotional expression that comes with a sense of belonging. We can feel and experience culture, but rarely do we have to define culture.

In my book, The Crime Without a Name: Ethnocide and the Erasure of Culture in America, I define culture as the things people living in a specific place create so that they can survive in perpetuity. Culture is communal because the food, language, clothes, buildings, art, etc. that these people make are always shared and exist so that the community can survive. The environment also shapes culture because it influences what people need to do to survive. Cultures are different because they exist in different places and not because one is better or worse than the other. 

A good culture has a philosophy grounded in sustaining and nurturing the people and environment that make up and shape their community. You could also call this culture a friendship.

However, a “culture” that is based on division and exploitation, and does not profess a connection to the environment would be considered a bad culture because it is neither sustainable nor nurturing. This bad culture would be the opposite of what we consider culture to be, so it would be more akin to an aculture, or “not-culture,” than a culture. 

In my book, I talk about ethnocide—meaning the destruction of a people’s culture while keeping the people—in the context of the transatlantic slave trade and chattel slavery in the United States. America’s colonizers wanted to create a “culture,” or aculture, built upon the destruction of African and Black culture, and the preservation of African and Black bodies.

America’s economically-driven, ethnocidal culture is neither sustainable nor nurturing. The world of homo economicus is acultural, and this is why culture is so important to people of color in America. People of color know that building a society upon their perpetual exploitation is neither sustainable nor nurturing, so when people of color get into positions of power, it is natural for them to try to create a sustainable and nurturing environment. It is natural for them to attempt to create culture in America.

For people of color, the maxim has always been, “It’s the culture, stupid.”

Reconstruction and Culture

When examining American history, it becomes obvious that Reconstruction from 1865 to 1877 represents the United States’ first attempt at making a sustainable and nurturing culture. It was an era that allowed white and Black Americans to attempt to be friends.

Once cross-racial, cultural bonds could be formed, the United States then had to address systemic economic inequalities. Promising emancipated Black Americans forty acres and a mule at the start of Reconstruction is one example of the potential for economic empowerment, once a shared culture has been formed.

However, as we know, the entrenched racial divisions of that era also resulted in President Andrew Johnson dismantling much of the agenda of Reconstruction, which included taking back the acres and mules that the federal government had already given and promised to Black Americans.

The clash between the creation and destruction of culture has always defined the United States, and for far too long the destruction of culture in the name of economic empowerment has been the American norm.

This destructive norm can alienate Democratic politicians from left-leaning voters of color because the language of economic empowerment will not resonate as much. Yes, people of color care about the economy, want economic stability, and want to create generational wealth, but they know (and history has shown them) that culture must come first and economics must come second.

This pattern of culture preceding economics holds true for Reconstruction and also the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Once segregation became illegal, and civil rights and voting rights acts had been created, economic empowerment and ending poverty became the focus of many civil rights activists including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Culture came first and economics came second.

Economic empowerment without a cultural connection will ring hollow and shallow to voters of color. President Biden’s economic policies have been very good, but these successes did not galvanize the Democrat’s diverse base. Biden’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict made these same voters question if they could connect to Biden at a cultural level. Many of these voters decided that they could not vote for him regardless of the improved economy because they did not believe that they had a shared culture.

Biden followed a 90s playbook and a homo economicus worldview, and people felt more like economic beings than human beings. As a result, he lost the Democrat’s post-homo economicus voters and had to drop out of the race.

Right now, Harris is galvanizing the culture and her supporters trust that cultural empowerment precedes economic empowerment. If she wants to win the presidency, she needs to remember, “It’s the culture, stupid.”