BY MARTIN KICH
The following two charts, which were included in an article from Brookings but taken from the sources indicated below them, suggest how closely the much-reported, mixed perceptions of higher education are connected to our hyper-partisan politics.
The first chart compares the voting patterns in the 2016 presidential election and in the 2018 mid-term election, breaking down voters by gender and level of education.
The second chart focuses on poling about the voting preferences of non-college white voters, by gender, ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
On the plus side, the hyper-partisanship, measured by gender and level of education, appears to be declining somewhat among these voters. But a sign of a healthy republic would be something closer to a 60-40 split among even those demographic groups with the most predictable voting patterns. Although movements for meaningful change almost always originate at the political margins, where the greatest energy typically is, meaningful legislative change requires a consensus, an acceptance across the political center.
We have been approaching a point where the political center, or at least the possibility of political consensus, has seemed to disappear. Certainly, our two major political parties, and especially the GOP, have become increasingly dominated by ideological extremists. Most commentators have attributed this shift to gerrymandering, which has made primary elections more meaningful than general elections. But, as we are seeing in many states, gerrymandering eventually becomes a self-defeating proposition because the party’s positions eventually do not represent any sort of meaningful consensus. The first sign of this eventuality is the inability to win statewide elections.
In the late 1960s, the Johnson’s Great Society was seen as the last resurgence of the liberal politics that began with F.D.R.’s New Deal. The 1970s amounted to a denouement. The ascendance of the political and cultural reaction to that liberalism was marked by Reagan’s election in 1980. That cycle seems to be reaching its endpoint in the Trump administration, regardless of whether or not he is re-elected to a second term in 2020.
One of the effects of the corporatization and commodification of higher education has been the development of itinerant administrators who move from institution to institution. Just as in the corporate world, the days of home-grown managers who work themselves up through the ranks and in the process become fully knowledgeable of and invested in the institutional culture are long gone. Thus, short-term planning and results have become the primary focus, and longer-term planning has been largely reduced to a talking point, a reflexive nod to long-eroded institutional culture and priorities.
But as we are approaching what seems a point of major political flexion, short-term planning that assumes a political and cultural continuum is likely to be based on assumptions that will not pan out—and may even be proven very wrong. Leadership requires real vision, the one commodity that the commodification of higher education has more often than not failed to produce.
While I agree with the author that “We have been approaching a point where the political center, or at least the possibility of political consensus, has seemed to disappear” I don’t believe that the Elephant Party is primarily responsible or particularly extreme in its positions — as compared to the recent changes in the Donkey Party.
On the larger issue and the statistics, I have heard these factoids before — and the implication is almost always that non-college educated voters are just plain stupid and unable to vote their own interests. That segment probably includes a good percentage of minorities, poor, and classic working-class people who may not have had access to college but are, of course, entitled to vote. (I’m not saying that this author is implying anything negative about those “deplorables” except that they are not voting in the way that he would have them choose.)
Also, while I am just as opposed to the corporatization of academia as the author, I am not certain how that noxious development has affected voting patterns in the larger population. Am I missing something?
Pingback: Corporatization, Commodification, and Hyper-Politicization | Ohio Politics
Pingback: Corporatization, Commodification, and Hyper-Politicization « By the Numbers
Any chance you could get the stats on these questions for non-white voters? I keep waiting for massive apologies from Trump voters, and no one is offering. White males (across the boards) look terrible here–is it because they are white, or because they are male, or both? The divide with educated white women is so utterly painful. We seem to be the outliers, and is that because of feminism (now in its 4th wave by last count)? This is not a good place for smart girls.
Jane:I don’t know if you’ve read my post above or not, but the assumption that non-college-educated folks are not “smart” in their voting choices (or in overall inteligence) is the usual liberal taken-for-granted view of the the working class and rural populations that may have caused them to vote AGAINST Hillary (“deplorables”) Clinton and convinced many that Barak Obama did not understand them (when he described them as “clinging to their guns and Bibles”).
Even IF they’re un- or under-educated, these citizens have a right to vote, no? –unless you want to bring back the literacy tests that were required of black voters in the Jim Crow era and give them to white people before they could cast a ballot.
Like it or not, most people vote their own individual interest, as they perceive it on Election Day. But to ASSUME that “White males (across the boards) look terrible here” because they don’t vote like you or the other ” smart girls” do is somewhat condescending, even if cloaked in a good sense of humor. 🙂
Well, Frank, I am used to being called condescending, although I didn’t intend it. I was trying to understand the stats and also to figure out why there haven’t been apologies. For me, “uneducated” does not equate to “not smart” in the least. I know too many PhDs who are superficial, and too many “non-college” people whose gifts are greater than mine. I do think you are right, though, that there are many who vote on the basis of “individual interest” only, and that is the spirit of American narcissism, no matter what your educational background is.
Jane, I don’t have similar charts readily available on voters of color, but I did find this in my files on African American voters in 2018:
The key takeaway of this poll is clear: mid-term 2018 wins across the country were dependent on voters of color, particularly Black voters.
90% of Black voters supported Democratic House candidates, compared to just 53% of all voters; 45% of white voters; 73% of Latinos; and 72% of Asian voters.
This election was a referendum on President Trump. Black voters see the President and the current GOP as divisive, racist, and a step back for the nation.
85% of Black women and 81% of Black men have felt disrespected by Donald Trump.
Only 8% of Black voters believe Trump has a positive impact on Blacks, and 29% believe he has a negative impact.
89% of Black women, 83% of Black men, and 50% of white voters believe Trump’s statements and policies will cause a major setback for racial progress
91% of Black women, 86% of Black men, and 50% of white voters believe Trump and the GOP are using toxic rhetoric to divide the nation.
https://advancementproject.org/news/new-polling-voting-behavior-and-the-impact-of-the-black-vote-in-2018-mid-term-elections/
Very helpful, Marty. So perhaps the big story here is that if Black voters are allowed to vote and DO vote, our national nightmare may start to ease. The numbers on white males are still discouraging to me, even among the “college educated.” Although most of your stats on Black voters do not indicate gender, a couple of them indicate a gap, smaller than with White voters, between men and women. It is possible that I am spotlighting gender wars, still an issue, although the racial divide is much more obvious.
Your point about short-term planning and the lack of vision by itinerant administrators, related to voting trends since Reagan, is subtle. Can you say more about that in a later post? I think you are on to something very important. And I so hope you are right!