adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

The 'diploma divide' in American politics | TheHill – The Hill

Published

 on


The “diploma divide” is now a defining feature of American politics. You can see it in the network exit poll: Democrat Joe BidenJoe BidenPennsylvania Supreme Court strikes down GOP bid to stop election certification Biden looks to career officials to restore trust, morale in government agencies Biden transition adds new members to coronavirus task force MORE carried college-educated white voters by 35 percentage points; non-college whites were virtually tied. Non-college white men — Trump’s “base” — voted 70 percent for Trump.

As a result, two conflicting patterns now define American politics. The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican. That has been true for nearly 100 years. At the same time, the better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. That trend has been building since 1980.

Students invariably ask, “What happens to people who are wealthy and well educated?” The answer is, they’re “cross-pressured” — pulled in different directions. If they vote their economic interests, they vote Republican. Those who give priority to their typically liberal cultural values vote Democratic. These differences created one of the most conspicuous features of the 2020 campaign: the battle for the suburbs, where a lot of educated, higher income white voters live.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most suburbanites voted for Biden. They appear to have given priority to their liberal values (pro-science, pro-diversity) over their conservative economic interests (low taxes, pro-business). President TrumpDonald John TrumpPennsylvania Supreme Court strikes down GOP bid to stop election certification Biden looks to career officials to restore trust, morale in government agencies Sunday shows preview: US health officials brace for post-holiday COVID-19 surge MORE’s values — apparently racist and openly hostile to science — were deeply offensive to well-educated voters.

One of the most perplexing features of the election was the fact that Trump’s loss did not seem to do much damage to the Republican Party. He wasn’t another Barry Goldwater or Richard Nixon — Republicans whose unpopularity was costly for the GOP. The polls predicted a “blue wave” for Democrats this year. There was no blue wave. The vote to oust President Trump was highly personal, not ideological or partisan. He never achieved majority job approval or favorability from the voters. Even in apparent defeat (apparent to everyone except him), Trump is angling to retain control of the Republican Party.

What drives the diploma divide? In a word, populism.

Populism entails resentment of elites. Left-wing populism targets the wealthy elite. You see it when Bernie SandersBernie SandersClub for Growth to launch ad blitz in Georgia to juice GOP turnout Inequality of student loan debt underscores possible Biden policy shift In defense of incrementalism: A call for radical realism MORE attacks Wall Street and “the one percent.” Right-wing populism targets the educated elite. You see it when conservatives attack experts and high-minded liberals who use “cancel culture” to enforce political correctness.

The fatal flaw of liberals is condescension. Ordinary voters who lack fancy degrees are quick to sniff out condescension when liberals speak disdainfully of people who “cling to guns or religion” or call Trump supporters “deplorables.” One reason why Joe Biden won: He doesn’t have a trace of condescension.

ADVERTISEMENT

Donald Trump is not an ideologue. Many conservative intellectuals don’t trust him because he lacks a coherent philosophy of government. He is not a man of ideas. He’s a man of impulses, which he shares with a lot of unsophisticated Americans.

Governing by impulse is dangerous, but it’s also thrilling to Americans who admire Trump’s defiance of accepted norms. It’s the oldest populist theme in the world — “Up the Establishment!”

Trump’s signature economic achievement — a huge tax cut for the wealthy — was anything but populist. At the same time, however, he embraced protectionist trade policies. Protectionism is regularly denounced by the economic establishment but popular with workers who feel threatened by “globalization.” Moreover, Trump’s indifference to the skyrocketing national debt — now larger than the entire national economy — produced not a peep of protest from “Tea Party Republicans.” Debt doesn’t seem to bother Trump. He has always lived on debt.

Trump never pursued his 2016 campaign promise to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Big public works spending would have won a lot of support from Democrats, who saw jobs. Trump very likely saw big public works the same way Roman emperors did — as a way to showcase your power.

There was also a populist element in Trump’s skeptical approach to the pandemic. Many Americans hate the idea that the government can close down the economy, shut businesses and throw people out of work — even in the name of protecting public health. They see a locked down economy as a bigger threat than the coronavirus. Many Americans consider face masks a symbol of government overreach (“suppression muzzles”).

ADVERTISEMENT

A lot of voters liked Trump’s populist values but found his autocratic behavior deeply offensive. He put his political self-interest ahead of the national interest. Moreover, Trump thrived on conflict. Every issue became a battle between “us” (Trump supporters) and “them” (liberals and Democrats). He took a country that was already divided and divided it even more. He was anything but a healing figure.

Trump learned a major lesson from his television career: Conflict gets high ratings. Viewers love to watch a good fight… but they don’t necessarily want to be involved in the fight.

Trump exploited the division of the country for his own benefit, setting “the masses” against the educated elite and leaving the country with a bitter diploma divide. No other president has ever done that. It may have invigorated his party. But it also cost him his job.

Bill Schneider is a professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of ‘Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable (Simon & Schuster).

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Gould calls Poilievre a ‘fraudster’ over his carbon price warning

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Liberal House leader Karina Gould lambasted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a “fraudster” this morning after he said the federal carbon price is going to cause a “nuclear winter.”

Gould was speaking just before the House of Commons is set to reopen following the summer break.

“What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature, and something that only a fraudster would do,” she said from Parliament Hill.

On Sunday Poilievre said increasing the carbon price will cause a “nuclear winter,” painting a dystopian picture of people starving and freezing because they can’t afford food or heat due the carbon price.

He said the Liberals’ obsession with carbon pricing is “an existential threat to our economy and our way of life.”

The carbon price currently adds about 17.6 cents to every litre of gasoline, but that cost is offset by carbon rebates mailed to Canadians every three months. The Parliamentary Budget Office provided analysis that showed eight in 10 households receive more from the rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, though the office also warned that long-term economic effects could harm jobs and wage growth.

Gould accused Poilievre of ignoring the rebates, and refusing to tell Canadians how he would make life more affordable while battling climate change. The Liberals have also accused the Conservatives of dismissing the expertise of more than 200 economists who wrote a letter earlier this year describing the carbon price as the least expensive, most efficient way to lower emissions.

Poilievre is pushing for the other opposition parties to vote the government down and trigger what he calls a “carbon tax election.”

The recent decision by the NDP to break its political pact with the government makes an early election more likely, but there does not seem to be an interest from either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to have it happen immediately.

Poilievre intends to bring a non-confidence motion against the government as early as this week but would likely need both the Bloc and NDP to support it.

Gould said she has no “crystal ball” over when or how often Poilievre might try to bring down the government

“I know that the end of the supply and confidence agreement makes things a bit different, but really all it does is returns us to a normal minority parliament,” she said. “And that means that we will work case-by-case, legislation-by-legislation with whichever party wants to work with us. I have already been in touch with all of the House leaders in the opposition parties and my job now is to make Parliament work for Canadians.”

She also insisted the government has listened to the concerns raised by Canadians, and received the message when the Liberals lost a Toronto byelection in June in seat the party had held since 1997.

“We certainly got the message from Toronto-St. Paul’s and have spent the summer reflecting on what that means and are coming back to Parliament, I think, very clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything that we do moving forward,” she said.

The Liberals are bracing, however, for the possibility of another blow Monday night, in a tight race to hold a Montreal seat in a byelection there. Voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun are casting ballots today to replace former justice minister David Lametti, who was removed from cabinet in 2023 and resigned as an MP in January.

The Conservatives and NDP are also in a tight race in Elmwood-Transcona, a Winnipeg seat that has mostly been held by the NDP over the last several decades.

There are several key bills making their way through the legislative process, including the online harms act and the NDP-endorsed pharmacare bill, which is currently in the Senate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

NDP caving to Poilievre on carbon price, has no idea how to fight climate change: PM

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.

Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.

On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.

Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.

British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Quebec consumer rights bill to regulate how merchants can ask for tips

Published

 on

 

Quebec wants to curb excessive tipping.

Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.

That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.

The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.

And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.

Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending