According to this article, it’s because the new ‘creative class’ has upended the class structure, left-wing parties that used to represent the working class have been taken over by educated professionals, and the different economic classes have each split politically along cultural lines.
Sadly, it only tends to do such, not guarantee such. I know a fair number of college-educated whites who are 100% racist.
I really populism should be in scare quotes there. It seems to me that other populist parties (in Hungary, for example) actually enact populist policies, in addition to their othering of immigrants, etc. What actual populist policies do the Republicans push for? Their tax law was yet another shift up of wealth, especially for corporations. Their recent turn towards protectionism has done nothing but harm domestic manufacturing. They are against child care help, against broader medical coverage, and so on and so forth.
I think this has to be a part of it – not going to college will force you to come in contact with a much more diverse group than you’re likely used to, and that often changes ones attitudes about others.
Yes, and that is my idea of critical thinking… At least when I went to college in the 1970’s, the basic outline for an A paper required taking a stand while acknowledging that some alternative view or views wasn’t all wrong.
This is most consistent with being center left or center right, or even just plain centrist.
I do wonder how Ted Cruz got all those Princeton A’s.
That depends on the high school, and depends on the college. And, exposure can go either way. You could google “contact theory of intergroup hostility” for discussion.
I hope my quote above isn’t out of context.
It’s not so much a matter of policy as of signaling. DJT did say I love the poorly educated..
Slightly off-topic, but I kind of object to the OP’s using “uneducated” apparently as a synonym for “not college-educated”.
ISTM that “uneducated” is a pejorative term suggesting either a pathologically low level of education, or a persistent inability to derive any intellectual benefit from education. I don’t think having a high school diploma necessarily implies either of those situations.
“Less educated”, okay. “Not college-educated”, fine. But calling somebody “uneducated” just because they didn’t go to college strikes me as more insulting than the OP probably intended.
Right, but that’s what I mean. The Republicans aren’t really populist, they’re “populist” – I think that most actual populist parties actually try to help their base, while also saying and doing the more negative stuff that populist parties are known for.
At a certain point, it becomes a self-accelerating trend, too. The more colleges and universities are perceived as liberal, the less likely conservatives are to want to go there (or send their kids there.) Then it becomes self-perpetuating.
It’s kind of like asking why the urban-rural divide exists. Rural liberals may want to move to the liberal cities.
I didn’t have much of a college experience, (didn’t graduate,) I can’t even believe some of my former High School peers have turned to the dark side.
That was the main observation of the Washington post article that Wesley_Clark linked to.
Since it may be paywalled for some, here is the money quote.
Racial and ethnocentric attitudes were deeply implicated in Donald Trump’s remarkable rise to the White House. Racial resentment, anti-Muslim attitudes, and white identity, were all much stronger predictors of support for Trump in the 2016 primaries than they were for prior Republican nominees.
Donald Trump made racial attitudes more important in the general election, too. I showed earlier that racial resentment, unfavorable opinions of African-Americans and ethnocentrism were significantly stronger predictors of whites’ preferences for Trump or Clinton than they were in hypothetical match-ups between Clinton and Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.
Many of these same racial attitudes are also heavily influenced by education. College-educated whites and whites who live in highly educated areas of the country have long been much more racially tolerant than other white Americans.
It turns out that this relationship between education and racial attitudes explains a very large portion of the education gap in white support for Trump. Indeed, the graphs below show that the negative effects of education on white support for Trump vanishes after accounting for attitudes about both African Americans and immigrants.
I am myself a not-college educated Republican, so I guess I’m part of the problem… er, trend?
Taking OP and applying it to me personally,
-
Why does Max_S prefer the Republican party?
Well personally I register (R) because it gives me access to primaries. Only one Democrat has ever appeared on my ballot and won an election. I vote split ticket in general elections, often at the local level the (D) candidate is a joke, someone who doesn’t campaign at all or possibly someone who filed just to keep the primaries closed. -
What does it say about the Republican party that people who are more educated than Max_S are not Republican?
Nothing? -
How can the Democratic party appeal to Max_S, or would they even want to?
Field better local candidates, actually win some elections when your candidates appear on my ballot, then I will consider registering (D) to vote in your primaries instead of the (R) primaries. Alternatively, open primaries for my state. -
Is it good for democracy that one of the two major parties appeals to the uneducated?
Yes? If a significant number of people aren’t college educated it is a good thing that political figures appeal to them, insofar as having representatives that appeal to constituents is a good thing for democracy. I believe most representatives are college educated themselves, which is sort of the idea behind having representation instead of direct democracy.
~Max
I think the only way this would happen is if the movement is grassroots. Let’s say you and a lot of people like you in your area decide that the Republicans no longer represent you. You could all get together, decide on who represents you all best, and have that person run as a Democrat, with the goal being to slowly pull the Democratic Party in the direction you all prefer and to show the incumbent Republican that they no longer have the confidence of the local population. It’s my understanding that this is how Republicans took over Congress in 1994 after decades of Democratic control.
I generally don’t have a problem with municipal (R) candidates. Those are the ones without serious (D) competition, and the Republicans consistently win 80+% of the vote. My primary vote matters most there, and switching party affiliation means I basically lose the ability to vote for local government.
The local candidates that I have problems with (state reps, U.S. House rep) run against legit Democratic candidates but win with a solid majority. Democrats do try to campaign there, they just fail miserably because this area is deep red. For example my Congressional representative doesn’t even live in the district he represents, and he just doesn’t do town halls or public questions. Ever. He doesn’t bother campaigning. He runs unopposed in the primaries and has a cushy margin in general.
~Max
Is a legislator responsible to the desires of his constituents or to the Constitution?
Is a legislators constituency only those who voted for him?
Both(, if he or she wants to be re-elected. Otherwise just the Constitution).
The constituency is by definition the entire body of voters.
~Max
Only the voting population?
That is my understanding, yes. It’s a synonym to electorate.
~Max
The oath of office does not include voting constituents.
That is correct. But what is your point in bringing up the oath of office?
~Max