Tag Archives: voters

Do Voters Know Who They Are REALLY Voting For?

In both the federal election and in Indiana, if the individual heading up the GOP ticket gets the most votes, that individual is highly unlikely to actually serve a full term. That’s because In both cases, the “headliner” is much older than typical candidates for President and Governor, and in the case of Trump, clearly and rapidly plunging into senility and dementia.

A few days ago, Jennifer Rubin noted that reality.

Mainstream news outlets now feature stories about felon and former president Donald Trump’s “strikingly erratic, coarse and often confusing” rambling speeches, “cognitive decline,” and bizarre behavior. This evidence of mental breakdown, coupled with his event cancellations due to reports of “exhaustion” (reports his campaign has denied), give voters every reason to think that Trump could not complete a second term or would be “out of it.” Either way, his vice-presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the most disliked man ever to run for vice president, would be running the show.

In essence, the most unqualified man ever to run for vice president — without a lick of executive public experience, just two years in the Senate, author of not a single piece of significant legislation, lacking any experience with foreign leaders — would be promoted. We would have a real life encounter with Peter’s Principle in the most important job on the planet. And considering the opposition from most of the “adults” from the first term, he might be relying on likely Trump Cabinet officials and advisers such as Kash Patel, Stephen K. Bannon, Richard Grenell, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Rubin points out, Vance is far more ideological than Trump. (Let’s face it, Trump couldn’t spell ideology, let alone embrace one–his only purpose is to be noticed, to be important, and to take vengeance on his enemies.) As she says, he “blows with the wind on everything from a national abortion ban to Social Security.” Vance, on the other hand, is “enmeshed in the fever world of conspiracies,” from the anti-Semitic obsession with George Soros to the “great replacement theory” to election denial. The fact that he can spell and use words properly may make him sound saner than Trump, but his ability to articulate a coherent argument just makes him more dangerous.

MAGA Mike Braun is not as old and senile as Trump, but he’s no spring chicken. More troubling is that during the campaign, he has demonstrated absolutely no ability to rein in his White Christian Nationalist running mate–shown none of the “leadership” ability he says he’d bring to the Governor’s office.

Not only does Micah Beckwith constantly reinforce his looney-tunes faux religiosity, he–like Vance–has zero experience with, or skills required for the job he’s seeking. The Indiana Lieutenant Governor’s primary responsibilities are for agriculture and tourism. Unlike his Democratic opponent, Terry Goodin, who has ample credentials relevant to the job, Beckwith is a loose cannon culture warrior who thinks he talks to God. He’s at odds with the Constitution and rule of law and totally unfit for any public position.

Among his many “policy positions,” Beckwith equates abortion with slavery and wants to erase the already-inadequate exceptions in Indiana’s draconian ban. He has advocated shooting brown people who cross the border. He has called Jennifer McCormick–the clearly superior candidate for Governor–a “Jezebel.” He opposes same-sex marriage and gay people generally. In his one official position, on a library board, he tried to ban books. The list goes on and on.

Even if Braun is able to serve out his term, Beckwith will have a profound impact on his administration–and undoubtedly on tourism. Braun–aka “Mr. Empty Suit”–has demonstrated no ability to muzzle or redirect Beckwith, who will “represent” what it means to be a Hoosier in the eyes of many.

In a world where voters truly understood how government works and were aware of the knowledge and skills required for the positions on their ballots, the impulse to simply vote for one’s tribe might be modified by recognition of the utter unfitness of candidates like Beckwith (and Banks and Rokita). When the choices before them are limited–Americans cannot “scratch” or split their tickets for either Vice-President or Lieutenant Governor–rational voters would consider the likelihood that the secondary candidate will either be calling the shots (in the case of the federal election) or–best case scenario–simply embarrassing the state (in Indiana).

Of course, we don’t live in a world where all voters are even minimally civically-literate…..

Comments

Policies Matter

One of the most unfortunate aspects of our current politics is the way tribalism has obscured policy differences. As we head into the 2024 election, few–if any–voters will base their votes on the candidates’ different policy positions. That’s not a criticism of America’s voters. At the top of the ticket, our choice is between a senile megalomaniac whose sole “policy” (if it can be dignified by the term) is hatred of “the Other” and an opponent whose sanity and competence outweighs other considerations.

This won’t be a Presidential election where thoughtful policy differences drive votes, and that’s frustrating for those of us who are policy nerds.

The situation is somewhat different at the state level, however. America’s states have settled into Red/Blue tribal divisions that may or may not hold. For those of us who follow policy preferences and their outcomes, those Red and Blue states provide a rather striking natural experiment, and Blue state policies have emerged as clearly superior.

For example, The American Prospect recently ran an article comparing Oklahoma–a very Red state–with Blue Connecticut.

In Oklahoma, nearly a quarter of children live in food-insecure households, one of the highest rates in the country. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT, its annual compilation of child well-being data, ranked Oklahoma 46th in the nation overall—as well as 49th in education and 45th in health.

Yet Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt rejected the roughly $48 million of funding for the 2024 Summer EBT program and announced in August the state would also not participate in the program next summer. Oklahoma was one of 13 Republican-led states that declined this year’s summer grocery benefit. “Oklahomans don’t look to the government for answers, we look to our communities,” a spokesperson for the governor said in a statement regarding the decision to decline the funding, which they referred to as a “handout.”

Halfway across the country, KIDS COUNT ranked Connecticut 8th overall, 3rd in education, and 11th in health. But the state, which also participated in Summer EBT this year, faces a hunger problem as well—more than 15 percent of children live in food-insecure households. In fact, Connecticut was one of the first states in the country to pilot its own program in 2011.

The article noted numerous other differences attributable to policy choices. Life expectancy in the two states had been roughly equal in 1959; today, folks in Connecticut live 4 years longer on average than those in Oklahoma. Oklahoma–with Wild West gun laws similar to those in Indiana– had the 13th-worst rate of gun violence in the U.S., while Connecticut had the 45th-worst rate.

Research shows that, as political parties nationalized, state governments followed the governing party’s ideology. Differences in outcomes followed.

State government, after all, plunges into the day-to-day minutiae of our lives through decisions about health, education, social services, criminal justice, and more. For example, families in some states get money to keep their kids fed during the summer; in other states, they don’t. 

The lengthy article illustrates the multiple ways in which these ideologically-driven policy differences affect both individual citizens and economic performance in the state. It’s well worth a read. 

Another article–this one from the American Prospect—focuses on educational vouchers, a policy choice I frequently discuss. The article warns that Red state expansion of universal school vouchers is likely to have profound impact on the lives of young people.

As states race to pay for families to send their kids to private schools, blowing up state budgets in the process, the schools attended by the vast majority of kids will be left with far fewer resources, blunting their prospects. By design, funds are being shifted away from students in poor and rural areas and into the pockets of affluent parents, entrenching inequality in the process.

Among the other detriments of these programs is an almost-total lack of oversight. In Arizona, for example, parents are allowed to direct education funds, not just to the school of their choice, but to anything they might call “education.”

As Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction Tom Horne, a loud proponent of vouchers, admitted in an interview, the state’s emphatically hands-off approach means that there’s nothing to prevent parents from using public dollars to teach their kids that the Earth is flat. Indeed, state law prohibits any kind of public oversight over the burgeoning nonpublic sector of private schools, homeschooling, and microschools, which are for-profit ventures in which small groups of students learn online while being monitored by a guide.

If, as economists insist, economic development depends upon the existence of a well-educated workforce, vouchers don’t just shortchange the children in sub-par private schools. They eventually impoverish the state.

Policies matter.

Comments

How Today’s Media Fails Us

As I have frequently noted, at the very root of America’s–and the world’s–current dysfunctions are the failures of today’s information environment.

How we behave–as friends, as parents, as voters, as humans–ultimately depends upon our understanding of the world we inhabit. And that understanding, that view of what constitutes reality, is a product of the information we access and trust. In the United States–the society with which I am most familiar–the human family confronts two massive informational challenges: bias (both intentional and not) and fragmentation.

Unfortunately, there is little we can do about the Internet’s fragmentation of media sources, which allows citizens to occupy distinctly different realities. When the voting public accesses “alternative facts,” the incoherence of public opinion is understandable.

The failures of traditional media sources are especially troubling, both because they add to the incoherence and because they are the result of mistaken notions of journalism’s most important function–which is to provide an accurate description of the subject matter, irrespective of who or what that accuracy benefits.

Jennifer Rubin is one of the pundits who has been clear-eyed about the persistence of a journalistic worldview that prevents otherwise reputable news sources from avoiding a distorted equivalency.

After missing the significance of the MAGA movement in 2016, innumerable mainstream outlets spent thousands of hours, gallons of ink and billions of pixels trying to understand “the Trump voter.” How had democracy failed them? What did the rest of us miss about these Americans? The journey to Rust Belt diners became a cliché amid the newfound fascination with aggrieved White working-class Americans. But the theory that such voters were economic casualties of globalization turned out to be false. Surveys and analyses generally found that racial resentment and cultural panic, not economic distress, fueled their affinity for a would-be strongman.

Unfortunately, patronizing excuses (e.g., “they feel disrespected”) for their cultlike attachment to a figure increasingly divorced from reality largely took the place of exacting reporting on the right-wing cult that swallowed a large part of the Republican Party. In an effort to maintain false equivalence and normalize Trump, many media outlets seemed to ignore that the much of the GOP left the universe of democratic (small-d) politics and was no longer a traditional democratic (again, small-d) party with an agenda, a governing philosophy, a set of beliefs. The result: Trump was normalized and a false equivalence between the parties was created.

There was a reason Fox News chose “fair and balanced” as its (highly misleading) slogan: most Americans–including too many students of journalism–have been acculturated to believe that “balance” is fairness, that exhibiting similar respect for all sides of an argument is an essential element of reporting. This has led–as one wag put it–to a reportorial stenography that faithfully reports person A’s assertion that it’s raining and person B’s that it isn’t, when what the reporter ought to be doing is looking out the window to see who’s right.

As Rubin noted,

Even as Trump shows his authoritarian colors and his rants become angrier, more unhinged and more incoherent, his followers still meekly accept inane assertions (e.g., convicted Jan. 6, 2021, rioters are “hostages,” magnets dissolve in water, wind turbines drive whales insane). More of the media should be covering this phenomenon as it would any right-wing authoritarian movement in a foreign country.

The proliferation of propaganda sites facilitating confirmation bias is troubling enough, but as Rubin writes, the problem with disinformation is compounded when mainstream outlets spend “far too little attention on why and how MAGA members cling to demonstrably false beliefs, excuse what should be inexcusable conduct and ignore Trump’s obvious and growing mental illness and decline.

Outlets should routinely consult psychologists and historians to ask the vital questions: How do people abandon rationality? What drives their fury and anxiety? How does an authoritarian figure maintain his hold on followers? How do ideas of racial purity play into it? Media outlets fail news consumers when they do not explain the authoritarian playbook that Trump employs. Americans need media outlets to spell out what is happening….

The race between an ordinary democratic candidate and an unhinged fascist is not a normal American election. At stake is whether a democracy can protect itself from a malicious candidate with narcissistic tendencies or a rational electorate can beat back a dangerous, lawless cult of personality. Unfortunately, too many media outlets have not caught on or, worse, simply feign ignorance to avoid coming down on the side of democracy, rationality and truth.

Humans can only form opinions and base behaviors on the information they rely upon. When that information is unreliable– or simply wrong– “do the right thing” becomes meaningless.

Comments

The Policy Dilemma

Ever since the Internet displaced slick magazines and daily printed newspapers, wise readers have heeded the warning to avoid the comments.  Something about the anonymity of online responses evidently unleashes some truly hateful impulses. Consequently, except for comments on this blog, I tend not to read the opinions posted by readers of various articles and op-ed pieces. But I do read the “Letters to the Editor” published in the printed magazines I still receive, and I recently read one that deserves wider distribution.

It was printed in the New Yorker, and in a few brief sentences, the writer outlined a central conundrum of policymaking in democratic systems. The letter was a response to an article by Sam Knight about the “uneven performance” of Conservative rule in the United Kingdom. The letter-writer wrote:

But Knight overlooked one force that has shaped the country’s trajectory: the extent to which its government has, since the seventies, transformed from a representative democracy, in which major decisions were made solely by elected officials with support from the civil service, to a popular democracy, in which some of the biggest questions are decided by popular vote rather than by Parliament.

This transformation has created a truly irrational system, which takes important questions influenced by many complicated variables and boils them down to simple binary decisions to be made by people who may not be thoroughly informed. Democracy should remain an ultimate value in the U.K., but, if it is to persist, it must produce positive results for its citizens—something the Brexit referendum clearly has not done. Alas, the supporters of referendums lose track of the ultimate justification for a democracy—namely, that our elected representatives know that we, the voters, can throw them out if we think they are managing the country badly. It is simply wrong to equate this truth with an unproven assumption that voters also have the collective wisdom to regularly make wiser choices about complex issues than our representatives do.

Conservatives in the U.S. have historically insisted–correctly–that this country was not intended to be a pure democracy, but a democratic republic. (I’m not sure everyone making that assertion could have explained the difference, but that’s another issue…) The Founders created a system in which we citizens (granted, then only citizens who were property-owning White guys) democratically elected members of the polity to represent us. The idea was that we would vote for thoughtful, educated, hopefully wise individuals, who would have the time, disposition and mental equipment to analyze complicated issues, deliberate with other, equally-thoughtful Representatives, and negotiate a policy thought likely to address that particular problem.

Direct democracy would put such questions to a popular vote, and complicated issues would be decided based upon the “passions of the majority” that so worried the men who crafted our Constitution.

The Founders’ system makes eminent sense–but it only works when two elements of our electoral system work.

First of all, it absolutely depends upon the qualities of the Senators and Representatives we elect. And second, it depends upon the ability of the voting public to oust lawmakers with whose priorities and decisions they disagree– lawmakers who are not doing what their constituents want.

Those two elements currently do not work, and those electoral dysfunctions explain the inability of our federal legislature (and several state legislatures) to function properly–i.e., to govern, rather than posture. Gerrymandering is at the root of both of these failures, and the reason for the vastly increased resort to popular referenda and initiatives.

Thanks to partisan redistricting, far too many of the people elected to the House of Representatives (Senate elections are statewide and cannot be gerrymandered) are simply embarrassing–ideologues and outright lunatics performing for the base voters of their artificially-constructed districts. People like Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Green, or Indiana’s version of MTG, Jim Banks, all of whom endangered America’s international interests by holding up and then voting against critical aid to Ukraine, among many other things–are examples of the intellectually and emotionally unfit and unserious “look at me” wrecking-ball caucus.

Gerrymandering also limits voters’ ability to rid ourselves of these impediments to rational governance.

There are other aspects of our electoral system that desperately need revision or elimination: the Electoral College comes immediately to mind. But the elimination of gerrymandering–partisan redistricting–would go a very long way to re-centering the system and encouraging thoughtful, reasonable people on both the Left and Right to run for office.

Comments

A Changing Electorate

You can get whiplash from reading the political news.

One story making the media rounds suggests that–despite the non-emergence of a “Red wave” in the 2022 midterms, Republican turnout was better than Democratic turnout. Hard to read that without despairing of the prospects for 2024, despite the fact that midterm turnout by the party that doesn’t hold the White House is almost always reliably bigger.

But then, I came across this article in the Washington Post. Talk about an upper!

The essay was co-authored by Celinda Lake, a Democratic Party strategist and one of two lead pollsters for Biden’s 2020 campaign, and Mac Heller, a documentary filmmaker. Here’s the part that lifted my spirits:

Every year, about 4 million Americans turn 18 and gain the right to vote. In the eight years between the 2016 and 2024 elections, that’s 32 million new eligible voters.

Also every year, 2½ million older Americans die. So in the same eight years, that’s as many as 20 million fewer older voters.

Which means that between Trump’s election in 2016 and the 2024 election, the number of Gen Z (born in the late 1990s and early 2010s) voters will have advanced by a net 52 million against older people. That’s about 20 percent of the total 2020 eligible electorate of 258 million Americans.

And unlike previous generations, Gen Z votes. Comparing the four federal elections since 2015 (when the first members of Gen Z turned 18) with the preceding nine (1998 to 2014), average turnout by young voters (defined here as voters under 30) in the Trump and post-Trump years has been 25 percent higher than that of older generations at the same age before Trump — 8 percent higher in presidential years and a whopping 46 percent higher in midterms.

Not as impressive–but not insignificant–has been the midterm increase of 7% in voter registration among under-30 voters since Gen Z joined the electorate. The authors report that, In midterm elections, “under-30s have seen a 20 percent increase in their share of the electorate, on average, since Trump and Gen Z entered the game.

Interestingly, reactions to Trump don’t turn out to be a major factor for these voters. Polls suggest that Gen Z voters are motivated by “strong passion” on one or more issues — “a much more policy-driven approach than the more partisan voting behavior of their elders.”

That policy-first approach, combined with the issues they care most about, have led young people in recent years to vote more frequently for Democrats and progressive policies than prior generations did when of similar age — as recent elections in Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin have shown.

Researchers have already demonstrated the fallacy of the long-held belief among political observers that American voters become more conservative as they age. Recent studies show that once political identities are formed, they tend to remain constant. And as the authors of this essay note, “about 48 percent of Gen Z voters identify as a person of color, while the boomers they’re replacing in the electorate are 72 percent White.”

Gen Z voters are on track to be the most educated group in our history, and the majority of college graduates are now female. Because voting participation correlates positively with education, expect women to speak with a bigger voice in our coming elections. Gen Z voters are much more likely to cite gender fluidity as a value, and they list racism among their greatest concerns. Further, they are the least religious generation in our history. No wonder there’s discussion in some parts of the GOP about raising the voting age to 25, and among some Democrats about lowering it to 16!

The fact that younger voters are more likely to be driven by issues rather than partisanship should be very good news for Democrats, since polling demonstrates that Democratic positions align with the policy preferences of a substantial majority of Americans.

But the news isn’t all good. There’s a danger there, too.

The importance of issues, rather than party ID, holds a warning:Both parties should worry about young voters embracing third-party candidates. Past elections show that Gen Z voters shop for candidates longer and respond favorably to new faces and issue-oriented candidates. They like combining their activism with their voting and don’t feel bound by party loyalty. And they can’t remember Ross Perot, Ralph Nader — or even Jill Stein.

GOP support for “No Labels” and RNK, Jr. are evidence that Republicans understand that danger. They know they can’t win a head-to-head campaign between Donald Trump and Biden (or for that matter, between Trump and pretty much any sentient Democrat). Their best hopes for victory lie with the Electoral College and third-party candidates who can peel off votes in selected states that would otherwise go to the Democrats.

Like I said–whiplash.

Comments