No one seems happy about politics these days. A new survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life, which I lead, found that less than half the American public felt optimistic about the country’s future. But there is a fairly stark divide among Americans on this question, with white Americans expressing far more pessimism about our country’s direction than members of other racial groups.
White evangelicals were the most pessimistic group we surveyed, but I found in follow-up analysis for FiveThirtyEight that there was a notable racial divide among Democrats as well.<a class="espn-footnote-link" data-footnote-id="1" href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-white-liberals-so-pessimistic-about-politics/#fn-1" data-footnote-content="
Includes Democratic leaners. Black and white racial demographics includes only respondents who identified as non-Hispanic Black and white, respectively.
“>1 More than 6 in 10 Black Democrats (68 percent), and 62 percent of Hispanic Democrats said they were somewhat or very optimistic about the country’s future but white Democrats were much more divided — roughly as many said they felt optimistic (53 percent) as pessimistic (47 percent) about where the United States is headed.
Despite feeling somewhat more optimistic overall than Republicans about where the country is headed, Democrats — particularly those who are white and college educated — expressed far higher levels of politically based anxiety than Republicans. What’s odd about this development, though, is that over the past several decades American society has moved to the left.
A greater share of Americans identify as liberals today than at any point in the past 30 years or so, according to polling from Gallup, even if they are still significantly outnumbered by self-identified moderates and conservatives. On political issues from marijuana legalization to LGBTQ rights, the youngest generation of Americans consistently expresses more liberal positions than the ones preceding it. In fact, in an analysis of 50 years of trend data from the General Social Survey,<a class="espn-footnote-link" data-footnote-id="2" href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-white-liberals-so-pessimistic-about-politics/#fn-2" data-footnote-content="
A long-running interview survey conducted regularly by the National Opinion Research Center.
“>2 sociologist Michael Hout found that the U.S. has primarily moved in a liberal direction. On more than half of the variables included in his analysis, Hout found public opinion moving in a liberal direction, while only 11 percent of measures showed attitudes becoming more conservative, a roughly five to one liberal advantage.
With many once-liberal positions being adopted into the mainstream, such as same-sex marriage, one might expect a feeling of hopefulness among left-leaning voters. So, why is the feeling of doom and gloom so pervasive among many white liberals?
One possible explanation may lie in how white liberals prioritize politics over other types of activities. Certainly, when it comes to religious participation — an activity strongly associated with stronger social connections and feelings of personal satisfaction — liberals have experienced a precipitous decline over the past few decades. According to Gallup data, only 35 percent of liberals belonged to a church or religious congregation in 2020, down from 56 percent in 1998.
Research by my colleague Ryan Streeter also finds that the most politically active among us are less engaged in civic and social activities. This group of people leans farther left than the general population. Streeter argues that for some on the left, politics has replaced religious activities and participation in local community efforts. “When our tribal needs are not met in familial and communal association, our ideological associations play a larger role in our lives — and nowhere is ideological community stronger than in politics,” he wrote. But political activism that doesn’t require interacting with others in person and building relationships does not offer the same social return on investment as other types of activism.
Another possible reason white liberals express political pessimism might have to do with their media diet. Compared to other Americans, white liberals spend much more time consuming political news. Interest in politics surged among left-leaning voters after former President Donald Trump’s election in 2016. And a study by the Pew Research Center found that the most liberal Americans, a group that is predominantly white, became much more attentive to politics in the wake of Trump’s victory — 67 percent report spending more time following politics.
Dan Hopkins, a political scientist and University of Pennsylvania and FiveThirtyEight contributor, has argued that the nationalization of politics has occurred because the media increasingly focuses on national debates. And more than other Democratic-leaning voters, white liberals’ news consumption is strongly skewed toward national politics. Almost four in 10 white liberals report that they follow news about national politics very closely, while only 20 percent say they follow local news as often.
One unfortunate side effect of the hyperfocus on national news is that white liberals sometimes embrace policies that are out-of-step with the communities the policies most affect. For instance, Black and Hispanic Democrats are more supportive of increasing spending on local policing than white Democrats are. In a recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life, 71 percent of white liberals said they support cutting funding from police departments and shifting it to social services instead. But Black Americans were more divided. Slightly more than half (53 percent) supported this policy, but 44 percent didn’t. This is not to say that Black and Hispanic Americans don’t think there are problems in how the police treat Black and brown people (they do), but their feelings on the issue are complex, and they often support an expanded police presence in their own neighborhoods.
Another reason for dispiritedness among white liberals may have to do with the political fights that they engage in. Take the 2020 Senate election in Kentucky. Democratic challenger Amy McGrath raised more than $96 million in her bid to oust then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but in the end, the race was not close — McConnell won by nearly 20 percentage points. Beating McConnell, despite his tepid approval ratings, was always going to be a long shot, yet many liberals became emotionally invested in the race. Perhaps because of the time and energy spent following national politics, a lot of liberal fundraising flows to these high-profile national campaigns that ultimately have a low probability of success.
It’s not difficult to see how deeper investment in more winnable races might ultimately prove more rewarding.This underscores yet another reason why white left-leaning voters may be more pessimistic: How they engage in politics is different from other Americans.
Eitan Hersh, a political scientist at Tufts University, argued in 2020 that college-educated white Americans — a group that has trended leftward in recent years — tend to engage in politics very differently from Black and Hispanic Americans. In his research, Hersh found that “white people reported spending more time reading, talking, and thinking about politics than black people and Latinos did, but black people and Latinos were twice as likely as white respondents to say that at least some of the time they dedicate to politics is spent volunteering in organizations.”
Hersh suggested that white, college-educated, left-leaning voters are much more likely to engage in “political hobbyism” than in building coalitions to address social problems. These efforts often require sustained energy and investments, which for many left-leaning hobbyists is likely a less attractive way of participating in politics, though it may prove more effective in the long run.
Finally, consuming so much political news and information warps our perception of the world. Consider that white liberals are far more likely than other Americans to say that politics says a lot about the type of person someone is. A 2020 survey conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that 75 percent of white liberals believed that a person’s politics defines who they are, higher than the public overall (64 percent).
This phenomenon may also help explain why the same survey found that white liberals (69 percent) were far more likely than white conservatives (33 percent) to say they would be upset if their child married someone whose views of Trump diverged from their own. Left-leaning singles who are looking for a relationship consistently express greater reservations about dating across the political divide as well.
White liberals are also more likely to argue about politics with strangers. In the same 2020 survey, close to half (44 percent) reported having had a political disagreement with someone they did not know well within the previous 12 months; Americans overall were less likely to quarrel about politics with strangers, with 34 percent reporting they had in the same timeframe. The problem with this, though, is that research shows that thinking the worst about our political opponents makes us miserable. A study published in 2019 said, “People who hold harsher views of their political opposites also tend to report that politics has negative impacts on their lives.”
The good news for left-leaning voters is that the higher rates of national media consumption may have been largely driven by interest in news about COVID-19 and Trump. With Trump no longer dominating the media landscape, and COVID-19 case numbers falling, the appetite for national news on the left is likely to change. In fact, a new study by the Knight Foundation shows that Democrats are already paying far less attention to national news today than they were just a few months earlier. Taking an interest in politics is an important part of being an engaged citizen, but for liberals, greater participation in local affairs and organizations may ultimately prove more personally rewarding.
EDMONTON – Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says her government’s $8.6-billion plan to fast-track building new schools will include a pilot project to incentivize private ones.
Smith said the ultimate goal is to create thousands of new spaces for an exploding number of new students at a reduced cost to taxpayers.
“We want to put all of the different school options on the same level playing field,” Smith told a news conference in Calgary Wednesday.
Smith did not offer details about how much private school construction costs might be incentivized, but said she wants to see what independent schools might pitch.
“We’re putting it out there as a pilot to see if there is any interest in partnering on the same basis that we’ll be building the other schools with the different (public) school boards,” she said.
Smith made the announcement a day after she announced the multibillion-dollar school build to address soaring numbers of new students.
By quadrupling the current school construction budget to $8.6 billion, the province aims to offer up 30 new schools each year, adding 50,000 new student spaces within three years.
The government also wants to build or expand five charter school buildings per year, starting in next year’s budget, adding 12,500 spaces within four years.
Currently, non-profit independent schools can get some grants worth about 70 per cent of what students in public schools receive per student from the province.
However, those grants don’t cover major construction costs.
John Jagersma, executive director of the Association of Independent Schools and Colleges of Alberta, said he’s interested in having conversations with the government about incentives.
He said the province has never directly funded major capital costs for their facilities before, and said he doesn’t think the association has ever asked for full capital funding.
He said community or religious groups traditionally cover those costs, but they can help take the pressure off the public or separate systems.
“We think we can do our part,” Jagersma said.
Dennis MacNeil, head of the Public School Boards Association of Alberta, said they welcome the new funding, but said money for private school builds would set a precedent that could ultimately hurt the public system.
“We believe that the first school in any community should be a public school, because only public schools accept all kids that come through their doors and provide programming for them,” he said.
Jason Schilling, president of the Alberta Teachers’ Association, said if public dollars are going to be spent on building private schools, then students in the public system should be able to equitably access those schools.
“No other province spends as much money on private schools as Alberta does, and it’s at the detriment of public schools, where over 90 per cent of students go to school,” he said.
Schilling also said the province needs about 5,000 teachers now, but the government announcement didn’t offer a plan to train and hire thousands more over the next few years.
Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi on Tuesday praised the $8.6 billion as a “generational investment” in education, but said private schools have different mandates and the result could be schools not being built where they are needed most.
“Using that money to build public schools is more efficient, it’s smarter, it’s faster, and it will serve students better,” Nenshi said.
Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides’ office declined to answer specific questions about the pilot project Wednesday, saying it’s still under development.
“Options and considerations for making capital more affordable for independent schools are being explored,” a spokesperson said. “Further information on this program will be forthcoming in the near future.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.
OTTAWA – Health Minister Mark Holland urged a committee of senators Wednesday not to tweak the pharmacare bill he carefully negotiated with the NDP earlier this year.
The bill would underpin a potential national, single-payer pharmacare program and allow the health minister to negotiate with provinces and territories to cover some diabetes and contraceptive medications.
It was the result of weeks of political negotiations with the New Democrats, who early this year threatened to pull out of their supply-and-confidence deal with the Liberals unless they could agree on the wording.
“Academics and experts have suggested amendments to this bill to most of us here, I think,” Independent Senator Rosemary Moodie told Holland at a meeting of the Senate’s social affairs committee.
Holland appeared before the committee as it considers the bill. He said he respects the role of the Senate, but that the pharmacare legislation is, in his view, “a little bit different.”
“It was balanced on a pinhead,” he told the committee.
“This is by far — and I’ve been involved in a lot of complex things — the most difficult bit of business I’ve ever been in. Every syllable, every word in this bill was debated and argued over.”
Holland also asked the senators to move quickly to pass the legislation, to avoid lending credence to Conservative critiques that the program is a fantasy.
When asked about the Liberals’ proposed pharmacare program for diabetes and birth control, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has often responded that the program isn’t real. Once the legislation is passed, the minister must negotiate with every provincial government to actually administer the program, which could take many months.
“If we spend a long time wordsmithing and trying to make the legislation perfect, then the criticism that it’s not real starts to feel real for people, because they don’t actually get drugs, they don’t get an improvement in their life,” Holland told the committee.
He told the committee that one of the reasons he signed a preliminary deal with his counterpart in British Columbia was to help answer some of the Senate’s questions about how the program would work in practice.
The memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and B.C. lays out how to province will use funds from the pharmacare bill to expand on its existing public coverage of contraceptives to include hormone replacement therapy to treat menopausal symptoms.
The agreement isn’t binding, and Holland would still need to formalize talks with the province when and if the Senate passes the bill based on any changes the senators decide to make.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.
HALIFAX – Nova Scotia’s NDP are accusing the government of prioritizing landlords over residents who need an affordable place to live, as the opposition party tables a bill aimed at addressing the housing crisis.
NDP Leader Claudia Chender took aim at the Progressive Conservatives Wednesday ahead of introducing two new housing bills, saying the government “seems to be more focused on helping wealthy developers than everyday families.”
The Minister of Service Nova Scotia has said the government’s own housing legislation will “balance” the needs of tenants and landlords by extending the five per cent cap on rent until the end of 2027. But critics have called the cap extension useless because it allows landlords to raise rents past five per cent on fixed-term leases as long as property owners sign with a new renter.
Chender said the rules around fixed-term leases give landlords the “financial incentive to evict,” resulting in more people pushed into homelessness. She also criticized the part of the government bill that will permit landlords to issue eviction notices after three days of unpaid rent instead of 15.
The Tories’ housing bill, she said, represents a “shocking admission from this government that they are more concerned with conversations around landlord profits … than they are about Nova Scotians who are trying to find a home they can afford.”
The premier’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Also included in the government’s new housing legislation are clearer conditions for landlords to end a tenancy, such as criminal behaviour, disturbing fellow tenants, repeated late rental payments and extraordinary damage to a unit. It will also prohibit tenants from subletting units for more than they are paying.
The first NDP bill tabled Wednesday would create a “homelessness task force” to gather data to try to prevent homelessness, and the second would set limits on evictions during the winter and for seniors who meet income eligibility requirements for social housing and have lived in the same home for more than 10 years.
The NDP has previously tabled legislation that would create a $500 tax credit for renters and tie rent control to housing units instead of the individual.
Earlier this week landlords defended the use of the contentious fixed-term leases, saying they need to have the option to raise rent higher than five per cent to maintain their properties and recoup costs. Landlord Yarviv Gadish, who manages three properties in the Halifax area, called the use of fixed-term leases “absolutely essential” in order to keep his apartments presentable and to get a return on his investment.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 18, 2024.
