Perspective | A hard 2020 lesson for the midterms: Our politics are calcified - The Washington Post | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Perspective | A hard 2020 lesson for the midterms: Our politics are calcified – The Washington Post

Published

 on


In a few days, Americans will begin voting in the midterm elections. Control of the House and the Senate is up for grabs. Two years ago, Joe Biden and Donald Trump were locked in a similarly close battle for the White House. By that point, 2020 had already been extraordinarily eventful, even by the standards of presidential election years. The pandemic, the economic downturn, the protests following the murder of George Floyd — all appeared to herald political change. The moment seemed like a “plastic hour, ” a time that is ripe for national transformation because “an ossified social order suddenly turns pliable,” as George Packer wrote in the Atlantic then.

Instead, Biden’s victory was narrow. The Democrats won slim majorities in the House and Senate. The Republican Party didn’t consider the election to be a repudiation and has yet to reject Trump as an election loser.

The plastic hour hasn’t come, and we seem no closer to political realignment today. American electoral politics doesn’t feel malleable. It seems set in stone.

Part of the reason is the well-known and long-standing trend in partisan polarization. Voters and leaders in the two major parties are not only more ideologically distant from each other but also more likely to describe each other in harsh terms. In the fall of 2020, 90 percent of Americans said there were important differences in what the parties stood for — the highest number recorded in almost 70 years of American National Election Study surveys.

But polarization is not the whole story. Something more is happening. Voters are increasingly tied to their political loyalties and values. They have become less likely to change their basic political evaluations or vote for the other party’s candidate. This is not just polarization but calcification. And just as it does in the body, calcification produces rigidity in our politics — even when dramatic events suggest the potential for big changes.

Calcification derives from more than long-term polarization. It is rooted in very recent divides between the parties on issues tied to racial, ethnic, national and religious identities. A key driver of these differences was Trump, whose hard-line positions on issues such as immigration led Democrats to shift to the left. For example, in the seven years since Trump’s presidential campaign began, there has been more partisan polarization on whether to increase immigration than there was in the prior two decades, according to Gallup polls.

Americans’ political priorities also feed calcification. The issues that Americans consider most important tend to exacerbate their differences, not mitigate them. During the 2020 campaign, the most salient issues to Republicans included opposing Trump’s impeachment, building a border wall and fighting reparations for slavery. Democrats’ priorities included impeaching Trump, opposing Trump’s restrictions on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, and abortion rights.

Is the United States headed for civil war?

By contrast, the issues on which there was more bipartisan consensus were less important to voters. For example, most Democrats and many Republicans are willing to raise taxes on the wealthy. In 2019 Nationscape surveys, 56 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of Republicans wanted to raise taxes on those making at least $250,000, with the rest opposed or unsure. But for both parties, tax policy was less important than abortion and immigration. This also helps explain why Trump could sign a tax bill that actually cut taxes on the wealthy without losing support from these Republicans. Within the GOP, identity politics appeared more important than economic populism.

Paradoxically, a calcified politics co-exists with frequent changes in who controls the government. This is because of the increasing parity in the two parties’ electoral strength. You can see partisan parity in the national electorate: By 2020, the Democratic advantage in party identification was the smallest in 70 years — just four percentage points. Partisan parity is visible in Congress as well, where the parties can expect to compete for control in most elections, producing what the political scientist Frances Lee has called “insecure majorities.” Right now, the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate certainly fit that description.

Calcified politics and partisan parity combine to produce a self-reinforcing cycle. When control of government is always within reach, there is less need for the losing party to adapt and recalibrate. And if it stays on the same path, voters have little reason to revise their political loyalties.

In our research on the 2020 election, we found evidence of calcified politics everywhere. Major events like the coronavirus pandemic and Floyd’s murder did not disrupt partisan alignments. Instead, those events were subsumed into the existing axis of partisan conflict. Trump’s push to reopen the country in April 2020 created partisan divisions on policies such as closing businesses and restricting travel. And after initially sympathetic comments about Floyd, Trump and other Republicans pivoted and attacked the racial-justice protests. Any “racial reckoning” that occurred was largely within the Democratic Party. When Floyd’s killer, Derek Chauvin, was convicted in April 2021, some conservative politicians and pundits attacked the trial, producing a historic gap between Republicans and Democrats in their views of the verdict.

Calcified politics was evident in the election’s outcome as well. To be sure, the changes between 2016 and 2020 were just enough to help Biden win. But those changes were small by historical standards. The average change in Democratic vote share in the states was just two points in absolute value, compared with 3.3 points between 2012 and 2016. At the county level, the average change between 2016 and 2020 was the smallest in consecutive presidential elections in at least 70 years, according to our analysis.

The same thing was true among individual voters. Drawing on surveys of the exact same voters in 2012, 2016 and 2020, we found more movement between 2012 and 2016 than between 2016 and 2020. For example, in 2016, 81 percent of those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 reported voting for Hillary Clinton, 9 percent reported voting for Trump, and the rest reported not voting or voting for another candidate. Those 9 percent were the famous “Obama-Trump voters” who helped propel Trump to a slim electoral college victory. But in 2020, 95 percent of Clinton voters reported voting for Biden, and only 2 percent reported voting for Trump.

The greater stability between 2016 and 2020 flew in the face of speculation that Biden could somehow win back Obama-Trump voters. In fact, we found that 87 percent of Obama-Trump voters stuck with Trump. And most Romney-Clinton voters stuck with Biden. The swing voters of 2016 became loyal partisans in 2020.

Moreover, the election appeared to intensify the trends underlying calcification. There was continued partisan polarization: People saw Trump as more conservative than he was in 2016 and saw Biden as more liberal than Clinton. Democratic and Republican voters were further apart on a number of issues compared with 2016. And people’s views on key issues were more correlated with how they voted in 2020 than in 2016.

Polarization also helps explain a central puzzle of 2020 that remains relevant today: how Trump managed to increase his vote share among voters of color, especially Latino voters. After the election, there were various boutique explanations for specific groups: Biden was said to have lost votes among Cuban and Venezuelan Americans in Florida because they were concerned that the Democratic Party had become too “socialist”; for Mexican Americans in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, it was because they feared losing oil-industry jobs under a Democratic president who wanted to wean the country from fossil fuels.

But Biden lost votes among many kinds of Latino voters in many parts of the country, as well as among other voters of color. Polarization helps to explain that. We found that, compared with 2016, Trump gained support among conservatives in every major racial group, including Black and Latino voters. For Latinos in particular, these gains exceeded his losses among more liberal voters, leading to a small net change in his favor.

Those changes among Latinos were not enough to reelect Trump. But a shift of even a few percentage points can matter. This is the irony of calcified politics and partisan parity: Big events may produce only small changes, but small changes can have big consequences. Small changes were the difference between a Democratic or Republican president in 2020 and could be the difference between a Democratic or Republican majority in Congress after 2022.

The prospect of quickly regaining congressional majorities meant the GOP did little soul-searching after its loss of the White House. It refused any autopsy of the defeat, unlike after the 2012 election. In states where the party retained power, GOP leaders have pushed an ambitious conservative agenda, especially after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, Trump has persisted as a force within the party, with candidates courting his endorsement and mimicking his beliefs and style. And thus the cycle of partisan parity and calcification has continued.

The aftermath of the 2020 election also revealed an especially pernicious consequence of this cycle: It increases the incentive for people to countenance their own party’s undemocratic behavior in order to win an election. After his loss, Trump and his allies endorsed baseless claims and even illegal means to overturn that election. If Republicans embrace or appease such measures in future elections, then a national transformation will really be upon us — and our democracy will hang in the balance.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

‘Disgraceful:’ N.S. Tory leader slams school’s request that military remove uniform

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says it’s “disgraceful and demeaning” that a Halifax-area school would request that service members not wear military uniforms to its Remembrance Day ceremony.

Houston’s comments were part of a chorus of criticism levelled at the school — Sackville Heights Elementary — whose administration decided to back away from the plan after the outcry.

A November newsletter from the school in Middle Sackville, N.S., invited Armed Forces members to attend its ceremony but asked that all attendees arrive in civilian attire to “maintain a welcoming environment for all.”

Houston, who is currently running for re-election, accused the school’s leaders of “disgracing themselves while demeaning the people who protect our country” in a post on the social media platform X Thursday night.

“If the people behind this decision had a shred of the courage that our veterans have, this cowardly and insulting idea would have been rejected immediately,” Houston’s post read. There were also several calls for resignations within the school’s administration attached to Houston’s post.

In an email to families Thursday night, the school’s principal, Rachael Webster, apologized and welcomed military family members to attend “in the attire that makes them most comfortable.”

“I recognize this request has caused harm and I am deeply sorry,” Webster’s email read, adding later that the school has the “utmost respect for what the uniform represents.”

Webster said the initial request was out of concern for some students who come from countries experiencing conflict and who she said expressed discomfort with images of war, including military uniforms.

Her email said any students who have concerns about seeing Armed Forces members in uniform can be accommodated in a way that makes them feel safe, but she provided no further details in the message.

Webster did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At a news conference Friday, Houston said he’s glad the initial request was reversed but said he is still concerned.

“I can’t actually fathom how a decision like that was made,” Houston told reporters Friday, adding that he grew up moving between military bases around the country while his father was in the Armed Forces.

“My story of growing up in a military family is not unique in our province. The tradition of service is something so many of us share,” he said.

“Saying ‘lest we forget’ is a solemn promise to the fallen. It’s our commitment to those that continue to serve and our commitment that we will pass on our respects to the next generation.”

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill also said he’s happy with the school’s decision to allow uniformed Armed Forces members to attend the ceremony, but he said he didn’t think it was fair to question the intentions of those behind the original decision.

“We need to have them (uniforms) on display at Remembrance Day,” he said. “Not only are we celebrating (veterans) … we’re also commemorating our dead who gave the greatest sacrifice for our country and for the freedoms we have.”

NDP Leader Claudia Chender said that while Remembrance Day is an important occasion to honour veterans and current service members’ sacrifices, she said she hopes Houston wasn’t taking advantage of the decision to “play politics with this solemn occasion for his own political gain.”

“I hope Tim Houston reached out to the principal of the school before making a public statement,” she said in a statement.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Saskatchewan NDP’s Beck holds first caucus meeting after election, outlines plans

Published

 on

 

REGINA – Saskatchewan Opposition NDP Leader Carla Beck says she wants to prove to residents her party is the government in waiting as she heads into the incoming legislative session.

Beck held her first caucus meeting with 27 members, nearly double than what she had before the Oct. 28 election but short of the 31 required to form a majority in the 61-seat legislature.

She says her priorities will be health care and cost-of-living issues.

Beck says people need affordability help right now and will press Premier Scott Moe’s Saskatchewan Party government to cut the gas tax and the provincial sales tax on children’s clothing and some grocery items.

Beck’s NDP is Saskatchewan’s largest Opposition in nearly two decades after sweeping Regina and winning all but one seat in Saskatoon.

The Saskatchewan Party won 34 seats, retaining its hold on all of the rural ridings and smaller cities.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Nova Scotia election: Liberals say province’s immigration levels are too high

Published

 on

 

HALIFAX – Nova Scotia‘s growing population was the subject of debate on Day 12 of the provincial election campaign, with Liberal Leader Zach Churchill arguing immigration levels must be reduced until the province can provide enough housing and health-care services.

Churchill said Thursday a plan by the incumbent Progressive Conservatives to double the province’s population to two million people by the year 2060 is unrealistic and unsustainable.

“That’s a big leap and it’s making life harder for people who live here, (including ) young people looking for a place to live and seniors looking to downsize,” he told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

Anticipating that his call for less immigration might provoke protests from the immigrant community, Churchill was careful to note that he is among the third generation of a family that moved to Nova Scotia from Lebanon.

“I know the value of immigration, the importance of it to our province. We have been built on the backs of an immigrant population. But we just need to do it in a responsible way.”

The Liberal leader said Tim Houston’s Tories, who are seeking a second term in office, have made a mistake by exceeding immigration targets set by the province’s Department of Labour and Immigration. Churchill said a Liberal government would abide by the department’s targets.

In the most recent fiscal year, the government welcomed almost 12,000 immigrants through its nominee program, exceeding the department’s limit by more than 4,000, he said. The numbers aren’t huge, but the increase won’t help ease the province’s shortages in housing and doctors, and the increased strain on its infrastructure, including roads, schools and cellphone networks, Churchill said.

“(The Immigration Department) has done the hard work on this,” he said. “They know where the labour gaps are, and they know what growth is sustainable.”

In response, Houston said his commitment to double the population was a “stretch goal.” And he said the province had long struggled with a declining population before that trend was recently reversed.

“The only immigration that can come into this province at this time is if they are a skilled trade worker or a health-care worker,” Houston said. “The population has grown by two per cent a year, actually quite similar growth to what we experienced under the Liberal government before us.”

Still, Houston said he’s heard Nova Scotians’ concerns about population growth, and he then pivoted to criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for trying to send 6,000 asylum seekers to Nova Scotia, an assertion the federal government has denied.

Churchill said Houston’s claim about asylum seekers was shameful.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” the Liberal leader said. “He is overshooting his own department’s numbers for sustainable population growth and yet he is trying to blame this on asylum seekers … who aren’t even here.”

In September, federal Immigration Minister Marc Miller said there is no plan to send any asylum seekers to the province without compensation or the consent of the premier. He said the 6,000 number was an “aspirational” figure based on models that reflect each province’s population.

In Halifax, NDP Leader Claudia Chender said it’s clear Nova Scotia needs more doctors, nurses and skilled trades people.

“Immigration has been and always will be a part of the Nova Scotia story, but we need to build as we grow,” Chender said. “This is why we have been pushing the Houston government to build more affordable housing.”

Chender was in a Halifax cafe on Thursday when she promised her party would remove the province’s portion of the harmonized sales tax from all grocery, cellphone and internet bills if elected to govern on Nov. 26. The tax would also be removed from the sale and installation of heat pumps.

“Our focus is on helping people to afford their lives,” Chender told reporters. “We know there are certain things that you can’t live without: food, internet and a phone …. So we know this will have the single biggest impact.”

The party estimates the measure would save the average Nova Scotia family about $1,300 a year.

“That’s a lot more than a one or two per cent HST cut,” Chender said, referring to the Progressive Conservative pledge to reduce the tax by one percentage point and the Liberal promise to trim it by two percentage points.

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Houston announced that a Progressive Conservative government would make parking free at all Nova Scotia hospitals and health-care centres. The promise was also made by the Liberals in their election platform released Monday.

“Free parking may not seem like a big deal to some, but … the parking, especially for people working at the facilities, can add up to hundreds of dollars,” the premier told a news conference at his campaign headquarters in Halifax.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.

— With files from Keith Doucette in Halifax

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version