Peter Coy links today to a new paper that tries to untangle why educated voters identify so strongly as Democrats. This hasn't always been the case, and the paper's authors are able to identify the changing trend going back a very long way thanks to a massive database of polling that starts during World War II:
In 1940 a person with a college degree was 8% less likely to identify as a Democrat than a Republican. By 1960 this had increased to about 14%.
Then things started to turn around. By the early aughts the two parties were even, and today voters with a college degree are 14% more likely to identify as Democrats than Republicans.
In other words, the increasing identification of educated voters with the Democratic Party is nothing new. It goes all the way back to 1960 and then really picks up steam at the inflection point of 1976.
Why? The authors believe it's because Democrats started supporting free-market economics, which appeals to educated voters more than it does to less educated voters. To make up for this, Democrats started supporting ever bigger welfare outlays in order to lighten the inequality produced by free-market economics. But it turns out this also appeals more to educated voters than to the less educated.
I'm not sure I buy this, but it's a topic for another day.
The authors don't address the steadily evolving disaster of conservatism as a factor?
Let me supplement cld: the uptrend is very strong from Reagan's terms onward. Over that period the gop grew more overtly southern-based, racist, and anti-intellectual, and since Gingrich has made open opposition to governance its particular brand. Could there possibly be some kind of relationship at work here? Just maybe?
You basically stated how my world evolved. I was raised as a Republican to the core. But, watching what happened in this country after Reagan took the WH changed my perception of the two parties. It has gotten worse since, and to try to keep up Republicans are now lying and cheating in plain view of the entire world.
I think being well educated and having a desire to keep up with what is real and not propaganda is a combination that Republicans can't fight.
How is the inflection point in the late 70s when the minimum of the curve was circa 1960?
He means the change in rate, not the actual definition of inflection point. Pretty obvious by looking at the chart. He’s clearly not a mathematician.
Prior to the GI Bill, college was reserved to the well-to-do. Since then it's become increasingly universal due to the expansion of community colleges and public universities. The Republicans went in the other direction by pandering to evangelical Christians who tend to be hostile to higher education, especially godless science.
Moral Majority
'Free markets' is almost always a red flag for someone who is putting their thumb on the scale and trying to deceive the reader/ listener.
It's such an obvious red flag that you've got to wonder if the writer is deliberately insulting your intelligence.
I'm not sure I buy this
Me neither. Also, political sorting by education attainment is a near universal trend in high income democracies. I think it goes beyond trade (for one thing, the trend was well under way when Republicans were widely perceived as the more pro free trade party).
The Civil Rights Movement followed by Reagan's anti-government stance means that educated people don't support the Republicans anymore.
Agree with that. Two factors at work, I think: civil rights, where the leadership of the white Protestant establishment ended up supporting it; and the Cold War--a significant portion of the establishment disdained the hardliners.
Both positions seemed to have the moral high ground. In the New Deal days virtue was on the side of unions, of public power, and government benefits.It's significant liberals weren't able to undo Taft-Hartley, but Truman was able to integrate the armed forces.
The southern versions of all of the mainstream proetestant churches all adamantly opposed civil rights. (The argument that Christianity required support for slavery was the sole cause of the schism of southern protestant denominations.)
As is known to everyone other than actual Republicans (we're the party of Lincoln!) about every single Dixiecrat flipped to the Republican party after the 1960's civil rights bills passed.
Also the racism. I went to Tulane in the 60's. Back then the idea that college professors would be Democrats would have seemed ludicrous. Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. Educated people recognized that this was responsible for the crushing poverty and the quasi-fascist one party states of the south.
Fast forward through the southern strategy, the Reagan administration, Trump, and the full embrace of Racism, Oligarchy, and Theocracy (R.O.T. ) in today's Republican party. What educated person who cares about anything but their own wealth and power could vote for this party?
Don't forget Nixon.
I read the abstract at the link and their entire argument seems to be that a Democratic shift from protectionism to transfers is responsible for more donations from high-education donors. It seems to completely ignore social policies, or the fact that even the things they claim the "less-educated" prefer (strong unions and higher minimum wage) are supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
I don't think "protectionism" is a driving factor for anyone but a few PhDs out there.
What are you talking about? Do you just not understand what “protectionism” means?
Democrats used to be in lockstep with unions who wanted their ability to manufacture goods to be protected by high tariffs etc. Then the Dems circa Bill Clinton went all in on “free trade agreements” which as you know took a huge dump on the US’ ability to manufacture anything. This finished killing off unions and changed a lot of working class former union member dem voters into GOP.
Simple stuff.
We know with certainty that one thing happened. In the 60's through 80's the Republican party switched to support of White Supremacy, causing a lot of lower-income non-college racists to switch from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South. This does not necessarily tell the whole story, because the fraction of people getting a college degree has increased, for example. If one graph tells the story, it is not the one that Kevin shows - you need to look at actual numbers of college vs non-college and in income percentiles.
The "liberal" media frequently go to great lengths to obscure the role of racism in American politics. Many supposedly objective academics do also. If you do a study which does not include pinning down racial attitudes then you get the wrong answer. If you ask people why they vote for Republican politicians - including those from Goldwater through Trump - these days they are not going to say it's because of racism, they are going to give what amount to excuses, for example that Democrats are too "elitist". The explanation given in the paper seems far too complex. The reason that 47 million voted for Trump was certainly not because Democrats support free-market economics more than Republicans. There is no doubt whatsoever about the main reason that millions of lower-income people switched parties - it's the racism. Religiosity has always been supported by Republicans.
WordPress also needs up and down votes. (One upvote for you!)
Actually a lot of good comments here.
1976 is the inflection point because that is when Reagan's handlers reacted to his primary loss by adopting the exact same rhetoric that Trump's handlers are using today. The difference is that Reagan's people adapted to the communications technology of the time by completely separating the "loud" message from the "quiet" message. Today's Republican Party no longer can, or needs to, do that; but it was the quiet message that won for them in 1980.
Of course educated people reacted against it: they know when they are being threatened for their lives.
Back in the day when ABC, CBS, and NBC dominated the airwaves, news was curated to a degree unheard of today, and further, with much more attention to detail. This tended to obscure just how few people were actually capable of critical reading. Where do most people acquire this and related skills? Got it in one: college.
I currently work in retail in a pretty much working class/lower middle class neighborhood. I’m pretty sure that at least 40% of people who come into the store are illiterate. Watching them try to read the most simple of signs and it’s taking them minutes is absolutely wild.
So mocking Republicans is officially essentially equivalent to mocking the poorly educated, ie the weaker and less fortunate.
Hmm, let's see how long it takes for that to generate an internal paradox...
The willfully ignorant and stupid are always able to be mocked with zero negative feelings.
"at the inflection point of 1976."
I'd love to hear how they came up with that instead of 1980.
I don't buy it. I spy the fell hand of Richard Nixon. And Ronald Reagan.
The real answer is that 1965 was the year that Strom Thurmond switched from the democrats to the republicans and the inflexion point marks the begining of the permanent success of Nixon's southern strategy i.e. the switch of the klan from the democrats to republicans. The klan is most strongly associated with social conservatives and social conservatives switched from being democrats to republican with the klan. Social conservatives hate evolution, science and all of higher education.