Class and identity politics are not separate but “operate in tandem” (xiii). Indeed, as far back as Jefferson, American parties have employed the rhetoric of identity. Isenberg argues that class history in the United States (US) is more complicated than the version that history books present. In 2016, Donald Trump “tapped into a rich vein of identity politics: the embrace of the common man, the working stiff, the forgotten rural American” (xv). In so doing, he joined a tradition of other politicians such as Andrew Jackson, who complained of a rigged election in 1824, and James Vardaman, who was known as the “White Chief” from Mississippi in the early 20th century. Vardaman attacked Theodore Roosevelt for embracing Black people and insulted his wealthy pedigree. Similarly, Trump used class symbols to appeal to the disinherited, rural outsiders, provincial voters, so-called working stiffs, and those fearful of losing class status (xxi). He signaled through his language and optics that he was one of them and channeled their resentment toward pedigreed elites, urban insiders, professionals, and those with faith in upward mobility. Appealing primarily to the white workforce, he targeted those who did not graduate college.