When, in the 60s & 70s, our major cities were being de-industrialized and minorities, the last ones in so to speak in terms of reaping benefits from industrialization, were stranded in collapsing economies, did the prevailing "liberal" discourse frame this in terms of the broader economic problem it was, treat people affected with respect, make honestly discussing our economic future (automation, globalization), protecting working class interests and re-vitalizing our cities a priority? No. "Liberal" leaders, specifically Moynihan, led a debate over the "underclass" that, for the next 30 years, substituted an argument over welfare (whether it was deserved, how much to provide, who should pay for it) for honesty about what was happening to the American economy.

When these structural changes began to most seriously affect the white working class, "liberals" did little more than suggest they simply train and educate themselves out of the working class. Once again refusing to rock the boat or upset their increasingly important Wall Street supporters, by honestly discussing, much less addressing, the larger problem of structural change -- the ways unregulated financial elites were taking advantage of that change, and the inevitable consequences for almost everyone else down the line.

Why, as the rot of a failing economy continues to spread farther and farther up the economic ladder, should we expect anything more from them than just another sorry, totally inadequate, welfare sop?

The problem isn't that they aren't well-intentioned, or don't care. The problem is that they don't know (much). And that it isn't in their own personal interest, economic and political, to do so.