Thursday, June 24, 2021

The Dog That Didn't Bark in the 2020 Election: The White Working Class

My latest is up at The Liberal Patriot, where I discuss how the white working class vote failed Trump in the 2020 election.
"Trump’s not-so-secret weapon going into the 2020 election was the white working class (noncollege) vote. That weapon didn’t work or didn’t work well enough to save him. The release of Catalist and Census data, as well as other data sources, now allow us to sketch a portrait of that demographic in the 2020 election and how their voting patterns fell short of what Trump needed.
So, here are ten things we now know about white working class voters in the 2020 election (margin shift and support figures all based on the two-party vote from Catalist):
1. White working class voters did indeed shift against Trump in 2020 relative to 2016, albeit not as much as pre-election polls suggested would happen. That 3 point shift against Trump was exactly what Trump didn’t need; what he needed was a 3 point shift toward him to replicate his 2020 success. It’s a popular, if unenlightening, exercise to claim that such-and-such a demographic group “won” the election for Biden, given the small vote margins in a handful of states. I won’t do that here but it’s fair to say that the white working class vote was “the dog that didn’t bark” in 2020. Trump needed more of their support, not less, in 2020 and he just didn’t get it."
Read the rest at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe--it's free!

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Biden Channels Tony Blair: Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

I never much liked Tony Blair but I always thought his slogan on crime was terrific. It looks like Joe Biden, responding to the surge in violent crime is starting to move in that direction with his speech today and associated policy proposals. It's a very good move.
I also don't much like Thomas Friedman but his column today was useful, particularly these quotes from an activist on the Northside of Minneapolis.
"Minority neighborhoods, like Northside, are being terrorized by gang shootouts and other crimes. Last Friday, a leader there, Sondra Samuels, who runs the Northside Achievement Zone, which works to strengthen education and job opportunities for Black families, called me. (I was born in the Northside and am a donor to NAZ.) She told me that nearby a 9-year-old girl, Trinity Ottoson-Smith, was killed by a stray bullet while jumping on a trampoline.
“We absolutely must commit to addressing racial injustice in housing, health, education, income and wealth, while we also commit to a ‘both/and’ strategy to address public safety,” Samuels said. That means “we need BOTH a radical transformation in the culture of policing AND sufficient staffing of police to keep our neighborhoods and children safe. That means re-funding the police, not defunding them.”
Black residents make up about 20 percent of Minneapolis but well over 60 percent of the shooting victims. Alas, you’d never know that from the public discussion, said Samuels, because these shootings mostly don’t involve white cops.
“For the last year, I and my neighbors have watched Black mothers react with incredulity when their child is killed in community violence and not by a white cop. Their tragedies do not trigger citywide protest rallies, people don’t say their child’s name and there are no citywide demands that this has to stop.”
Yup, she speaks the truth. Biden's response is a good first step to meeting these concerns. I hope it isn't the last.

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

All We Are Saying....Is Give Nuclear a Chance!

You know the tune and, hey, even socialists are singing it! Bhaksar Sunkara, editor of the leasing American socialist magazine, Jacobin, has a nice column in the Guardian pointing out the obvious: we need nuclear if we're serious about fighting climate change. I've always been struck by the inverse correlation between how apocalyptic people's feelings about climate change are and their interest in nuclear. The more intensely people feel about the former, the less willing they are to even think about the latter. This makes no sense.
"On 30 April, the Indian Point nuclear power plant 30 miles north of New York City was shut down. For decades the facility provided the overwhelming majority of the city’s carbon-free electricity as well as good union jobs for almost a thousand people. Federal regulators had deemed the plant perfectly safe.
New York’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, a key figure behind the move, said that the shuttering of Indian Point brought us “a big step closer to achieving our aggressive clean energy goals”. It’s hard to reconcile that optimism with the data that’s recently come out. The first full month without the plant has seen a 46% increase in the average carbon intensity of statewide electric generation compared to when Indian Point was fully operational. New York replaced clean energy from Indian Point with fossil fuel sources like natural gas.
It’s a nightmare we should have seen coming. In Germany, nuclear power formed around a third of the country’s power generation in 2000, when a Green party-spearheaded campaign managed to secure the gradual closure of plants, citing health and safety concerns. Last year, that share fell to 11%, with all remaining stations scheduled to close by next year. A recent paper found that the last two decades of phased nuclear closures led to an increase in CO2 emissions of 36.3 megatons a year - with the increased air pollution potentially killing 1,100 people annually.
Like New York, Germany coupled its transition away from nuclear power with a pledge to spend more aggressively on renewables. Yet the country’s first plant closures meant carbon emissions actually increased, as the production gap was immediately filled through the construction of new coal plants. Similarly, in New York the gap will be filled in part by the construction of three new gas plants. For the Germans, investment in renewables did eventually pay dividends, but it largely replaced the old nuclear plants’ output rather than reducing existing fossil fuel consumption. The carbon intensity of German electricity is higher than the EU average.
However, even a more aggressive investment in renewable energy wouldn’t have solved Germany’s problem. There are just a handful of large economies that have already mostly decarbonized their grids; all of them have a foundation of nuclear or hydroelectricity (or both), and then to greater or lesser degrees add renewables like wind and solar on top."
Read the whole column. The only really serious debate around nuclear should be about costs, which is a complicated issue having to do with construction costs, standardization, regulations and old vs. new technologies. That's a debate worth having. But we won't be able to have it until people realize that ruling out this clean energy source is a deeply unserious approach to the climate change problem.
I include a couple of links below to material on the cost issue should you be interested in looking into it.

Welcome, Biden Republicans!

At The Liberal Patriot, John Halpin explains why Democrats should welcome Biden Republicans with open arms if they choose to join the party.
"The Republican Party has made its position on dissidents from the Trump ideological line crystal clear. They are not welcome. If conservative stalwarts like Rep. Liz Cheney get booted from the party leadership for speaking plainly about the ex-president’s lies about a “stolen” election in 2020, there is little hope that the party of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush will return to a sensible conservative—and pro-democracy—position anytime soon.
So, how should these dissident Republicans respond? As an interesting debate hosted by the good folks at the Niskanen Center highlighted, there are three potential options: (1) some Republicans will want to stay and fight for a new, reformist position within the GOP; (2) others may want to bolt the party altogether and try a third-party option; or (3) disenchanted Republicans could switch partisan sides and become new moderate voices inside the Democratic Party.
TLP is neutral on which of these makes the most sense. It’s not our place to tell Republican voters what to do with their own party affiliation. It’s not easy for people to just leave a party that has defined their political identity for many years.
However, as liberal Democrats committed to an open-minded and egalitarian party, built around national economic development and cultural moderation, we believe Democrats should offer an outstretched hand and a welcoming face to anyone who might be looking for a new political home—as any smart party committed to winning more elections in moderate or conservative states and districts must do."
Read the rest at The Liberal Patriot. And subscribe!

Monday, June 21, 2021

Reminder: The Republican Party Is Still a Viable Electoral Force That Can Win Elections Even Without Skulduggery to Subvert Them

Democrats are certainly right to mobilize against the various attempts by state GOPs to make voting harder and expand the possibilities for post-election monkey business on vote counting and certification. But in the process I fear many are losing sight of the fact that the GOP is not such a beaten and bedraggled party that they can only win if they succeed in this electoral skulduggery. That is not even close to true, a case that is crisply made by conservative Sean Trende, one of the best quantitative analysts on the Republican side. I don't agree with Trende a good chunk of the time but he always provides a useful reality check on assumptions made by the mainstream cener-left. Read, learn and come to terms with just how difficult the Republicans will be to defeat even if their current legislative shenanigans on voting fail.

"[I]f we wish to glean some insight into 2020 that has a chance of standing the test of time, perhaps we might instead start with some narratives or lessons that seem unlikely to hold water. We can start with President Joe Biden’s assertion in Brussels that the Republican Party is “fractured” and “vastly diminished in numbers.”
The truth is that the 2020 election was a particularly close affair — perhaps one of the closest in recent years, depending on how it is examined. Had some 6,000 people changed their minds in both Georgia and Arizona along with 10,000 in Wisconsin, Donald Trump would be president today. Senate control likewise was decided by around 13,000 Georgia voters opting for the Libertarian candidate rather than Sen. David Perdue. The Democrats’ House majority stands at around five seats.
This occurred against a rather grim backdrop for Republicans. In 2020, national gross domestic product dropped a gut-wrenching 33% in the second quarter, the quarter to which many elections forecasters pay the most attention.
The election also occurred against the backdrop of a pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people before the election occurred. While some leaders were able to harness the pandemic to improve their lot, often by reassuring the public and providing competent assessments of the pandemic to their voters, Trump seemed at times determined to do the opposite.
Not only that, but Republicans were badly outspent. Sen. Dan Sullivan was outspent 2 to 1 in his bid for a second Senate term from Alaska, as were Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Sara Gideon outraised Sen. Susan Collins by almost 3 to 1 in Maine, while Barbara Bollier outspent Sen. Roger Marshall by almost 5 to 1 in the race for an open Senate seat in Kansas. Republicans were outspent in the presidential race by about $200 million, and overall spending favored Democrats as well.
I march through this not simply to relive the 2020 election, but rather to point out what should be obvious: Republicans had almost everything going against them, yet Democrats basically had to win three coin flips to get their trifecta. This was an election that easily could have gone to Republicans. This is to say: If there is a “big lesson” to be learned from 2020, it probably is not that Trumpism has divided, disrupted, and dispirited the party of Abraham Lincoln.
Eliminating the “Trump destroyed the GOP” lesson is an important step in figuring out what 2020 was about. But another conclusion seems to flow from this, which is perhaps uncomfortable for those who have been appalled by much of the past four years: The appeal of Trump and Trumpism (to the extent those are different phenomena) are genuine. Moreover, among some groups, that appeal expanded from 2016 to 2020.
In an interview with the New Yorker, elections analyst David Shor explained: “Trump didn’t exceed expectations by inspiring higher-than-anticipated Republican turnout. He exceeded them mostly through persuasion. A lot of voters changed their minds between 2016 and 2020.”
Trende then goes on to discuss these voting shifts, focusing on Hispanics but offering remarks on other constituencies as well. Again, I don't buy everything he says here but it is very much worth reading.

Voter Consensus: Make Early Voting Easier, Establish National Guidelines for Mail Voting and Early Voting, Require Photo ID to Vote

 New Monmouth Poll data:

Make Early Voting Easier:
71 percent white/73 percent nonwhite/69 percent white noncollege (WNC)/73 percent white college graduate (WCG)
Establish National Guidelines for Mail and Early Voting:
65 white/67 nonwhite/66 WNC/65 WCG
Require Photo ID to Vote:
77 white/84 nonwhite/83 WNC/65 WCG
Interesting, especially the nonwhite figure on photo ID for voting.

Saturday, June 19, 2021

Against Progressophobia

Bill Maher, unusually among liberals in the entertainment industry, has been willing to call out nonsense on the left as well as the right. Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal wrote about one of Maher's recent commentaries, where he took issue with what he sees as "progressophobia" on the left.
"[Maher] zeroed in on one aspect that fuels a lot of grievance, and that is the uninformed sense that America has largely been impervious to improvement.
Mr. Maher called this “progressophobia,” a term coined by the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker. Mr. Maher defines it as “a brain disorder that strikes liberals and makes them incapable of recognizing progress. It’s like situational blindness, only what you can’t see is that your dorm in 2021 is better than the South before the Civil War.”...
“If you think that America is more racist now than ever, more sexist than before women could vote, you have progressophobia,” Mr. Maher said. Look at the changes America has made on disputed issues like gay marriage and marijuana legislation. “Even something like bullying. It still happens, but being outwardly cruel to people who are different is no longer acceptable. That’s progress. Acknowledging progress isn’t saying, ‘We’re done,’ or, ‘We don’t need more.’ And being gloomier doesn’t mean you’re a better person.”....
“In 1958,” he said, “only 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Now Gallup doesn’t even bother asking. But the last time they did, in 2013, 87% approved. An overwhelming majority of Americans now say they want to live in a multiracial neighborhood. That is a sea change from when I was a kid.” Mr. Maher was born in 1956....
The comedian Kevin Hart had recently told the New York Times, “You’re witnessing white power and white privilege at an all-time high.” Mr. Maher: “This is one of the big problems with wokeness, that what you say doesn’t have to make sense or jibe with the facts, or ever be challenged, lest the challenge itself be conflated with racism.”
He added: “Saying white power and privilege is at an all-time high is just ridiculous. Higher than a century ago, the year of the Tulsa race massacre? Higher than when the KKK rode unchecked and Jim Crow unchallenged?” He acknowledged that “racism is unfortunately still with us,” and its “legacy of injustice” lingers. “I understand best I can how racism singes a person’s soul so much they might see it everywhere. But seeing clearly is necessary for actually fixing problems, and clearly racism is no longer everywhere. It’s not in my home, and it’s probably not in yours if I read my audience right, and I think I do. For most of the country the most unhip thing you could ever be today is a racist.”....
“There are a helluva lot of Americans trying really hard these days to create a new spirit of inclusion and self-reflection, and this progressive allergy to acknowledging societal advances is self-defeating. . . . Having a warped view of reality leads to policies that are warped—blacks-only dorms and graduation ceremonies, a growing belief in whiteness as a malady and [that] white people are irredeemable. Giving up on a colorblind society—only if you believe we’ve made no progress does any of that make sense.”
Yes, some things are worse, “but where progress has been made it’s not a sin, and it’s certainly not inaccurate, to say, ‘We’ve come a long way, baby.’ Not mission accomplished. Just a long way.”
This was one of the themes of my underground cult classic (meaning nobody read it) The Optimistic Leftist. In the preface to that book I remarked:
"It is...staggeringly obvious...that pessimism dramatically undermines the appeal of the left. Why on earth would anyone sign up with a movement that believes the situation is so hopeless? What’s so inspiring about that?
Nothing. Yet the left persists in promoting a viewpoint that leads to paralysis and inaction, rather than robust action and positive change.
The left wasn’t always like this. Historically, the left has been identified with a belief in the future and the feasibility of dramatic improvements in human welfare. That is how I saw it when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s and I was happy to join.
But something went wrong in the 1970’s. The great hopes of the 1960’s went aground on the harsh realities of stagflation and then rising inequality and a resurgent right. It was indisputable that progress in important ways was slowing down rather than speeding up as most on the left had hoped.
Various significant electoral defeats for the left followed--most famously the rise of Reagan in America and Thatcher in the UK. And anti-government ideology thrived, both in politics and economics. The idea that government was the problem, not the solution, gained political credibility that would have seemed unimaginable in previous decades and economics became dominated by theories that glorified the results of the untrammeled market.
If that wasn’t bad enough, new threats like global warming emerged that cast doubt on the future of humanity writ large. Scientific progress, which once spurred visions of flying cars and lives of abundance and leisure, now seemed powerless to stop the apocalypse (if not complicit in bringing it on).
Optimism went out of fashion on the left where it has remained to this day. Instead, the left concentrated on reminding voters just how terrible things were becoming. And there was certainly a lot of plausible material along these lines, as Western capitalism continued to underperform in terms of both growth and the distribution of benefits from growth. Data accumulated over time documenting this poor performance—particularly in the early 21st century and in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis--which the left duly promulgated.
Even the great victories of the left in the social realm tended to get lost in this litany of despair. Not to mention concrete policy victories such as those secured by President Obama. In short, when the left was winning, it often acted as if it was losing. Not surprisingly, the desired surge in left support has not materialized.
It is time to recognize that pessimism convinces no one. Marx was wrong about the immiseration of the proletariat and contemporary leftists are wrong about the immiseration of the middle class. What is correct is that progress has slowed down, not that it has stopped or reversed. What is correct is that people want to move up from their current life, not that they believe there is nothing good about their current life. What is correct is that pessimism makes people less likely to believe in positive change, not more likely.
Finally, what is correct is that the best tonic for the left will be the return of solid and better-distributed economic growth—eminently possible even without a “political revolution--not a continuation of current poor performance, no matter how well-documented. Good economic times will promote upward mobility and a sense of personal optimism. That optimism, in turn, will promote a climate of social generosity, tolerance and orientation toward collective advance that will greatly facilitate the agenda of the broad left.
That has been generally true throughout history and recent history indicates that it is still true today. It is time for the left to realize that their romance with pessimism is a bug not a feature of their current practice. There is no substitute for optimism and an economic climate that promotes optimism."
Someday (maybe) people will realize I was right about most of this stuff. Meanwhile, cheer up. There really has been a lot of progress and it is actually harmful to the cause of more progress to deny that.