Introduction

We focused on exploring the views and lived experiences of white working-class people regarding how they define and see the white working class, race, and change, the challenges of selecting a president, and the opportunities for building cross-racial coalitions at a local level. Our analysis has been grounded on primary data from 415 interviews across five different locations in the US, namely: New York City, Birmingham, AL; Dayton, OH; Phoenix, AZ; and Tacoma, WA. More than 250 of these discussions were with individuals who identified as white and working class, and they took place in neighborhood locations such as houses, community centers, diners, and places of worship. The detailed discussions enabled us to connect discussions between different communities and places in order to address some of the issues that we outlined at the start of this book.

The fieldwork took place in 2016 and 2017 during the course and aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, and after the inauguration of President Donald Trump. As a candidate, Trump stalked the discussions that we had with residents and stakeholders. He put himself forward as being the public voice of white working-class disenchantment on issues of immigration, change, and race—in short, pulling together anxieties over economic and cultural insecurity. Trump shaped the discussions but his message was met with a mixed response, with some people concurring while others strongly disagreed. This is a much more nuanced picture than put forward by commentators who viewed the ascent to the presidency as being underpinned by white working-class discontent.

This concluding chapter addresses the issues of defining white working-class communities, the challenges of choosing a president, the importance of qualitative data and lived experiences in revealing a granular and detailed understanding of macro-changes in society, and the prospects of cross-racial coalition building. This leads to implications for policy and practice as regards engaging with groups and communities who had been marginal to framing interventions prior to 2016.

In moving forward, it should be noted that the fieldwork took place in a specific moment in time of the 2016 presidential elections. The result was a political shock to many but should be seen in the context of wider global political change and the rise of populism.