The science of naming, describing, and classifying.
How do you understand and interpret the American electorate?
How do you understand and interpret the American electorate?
A survey I posted last November sorted people into nine sub-groups, based on answers people submitted in a Pew organization survey. "Establishment liberal" and "Faith and Flag Right" are examples of their categories.
Here is how Pew says the public sorts itself:
I learned my readers skew about 70-30% Democratic. My blog post describing the results from my readers is here. To go directly to the Pew survey itself, go here. Those two links will give readers a thorough description of each category.
The survey and classifications elicited complaints from readers saying the categories were wrong.
This week "Susan" sent me her own interpretation of the American electorate. It is simpler than the Pew one. It made intuitive sense to me. Its broader brush meant it aggregated the fine-point categories that drew complaints from readers about the Pew survey. At election time, people usually make a binary choice of the most acceptable candidate, so fine distinctions get ignored. And maybe the fine point between "Democratic Mainstay" and "Establishment Liberals" was phony. If you were "Clean for Gene" in 1968, and still vote Democratic, you are are a single category, regardless of your opinion today on charter schools. Maybe simpler is better and more accurate.
Susan recently retired after 38 years as an elementary school teacher in Portland. She is a Baby Boomer, a type-2 Democrat in her own classification system, and a former member of the OEA union. She asks to be anonymous because she never wanted to disclose her politics in her work, lest it create frictions with parents. She still doesn't.
I invite other readers to send me their own taxonomy of the American electorate.
Susan's taxonomy:
1. The New Left. These are mostly younger, well-educated, good with social media.(e.g. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.) They have read Ibram X. Kendi, the anti-racism author. They automatically end their emails with their pronouns. They change their social media photos constantly to show their support of Ukraine, of Colin Kaepernick, of BLM. I agree with their causes but not their self-righteousness.2. The Old Left. These are mostly Baby Boomers, including some former hippies, plus middle class, pro-union, pro-environment, pro-civil rights people (e.g. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio) Some are well-educated; some are blue collar. They love Martin Luther King. Being gay is fine with them. They’ll use the correct pronoun but only to make people happy, because they are puzzled by all this fuss.
3. The Old Right. These are mostly Baby Boomers again, but these are people whose issues and focus are to be against deficits, against Communists, and for a smaller government. They are mostly pre-Newt Gingrich Republicans who admire Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, and John McCain (currently, e.g. Mitt Romney, Bill Kristol, David Brooks.) Some of them might even support abortion in some cases. They liked the NRA until the NRA went crazy. Some are Christian, but not the fundamentalist nut-job sort. They have actual issues they would like to work on in Congress, but the New Right stops them. They would work on bipartisan bills, but the new Republicans would crucify them for it, and they submit to that pressure.4. The New Right: These are mostly younger people, with some exceptions. Some are well-educated, Ivy League elites, but they pretend not to be (e.g. Tom Cotton, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley.) They NEVER compromise. They worship guns. They support Israel, mostly for the campaign contributions from AIPAC and the signal it sends to Christian groups who believe in the Rapture and the End Times, which have been imminent since 30 CE. They really don’t have issues. They are just against things—except private schools, guns, and ending all abortions. Those they like.5. ????????? This is the questioning, drifting, lost group of public intellectuals, and their fans. This group includes Jordan Peterson, Liel Leibovitz, Bari Weiss, Bill Maher. This group has a wide range of ages. They are very highly educated and mostly elite academics or writers. They are very angry with the elitist Democrats for cancel culture and woke culture. Some were Democrats and left the party. They mostly write brilliant essays about how destructive wokeness is, and rarely speak of any other issues. As far as I can tell they are Group 3 Republicans now, but the Group 4 and 6 Republicans are so embarrassing that Group 5 won’t admit it.
6. MAGAs, (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Ben Shapiro, Tomi Lahren, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar, Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbott etc) These are Looney Tunes people all trying to out-Trump each other. Again, they have no real issues or solutions—they just do symbolic posturing for their voting base. They advocate slogans and thoughtless bumper-strip ideals, e.g. don't-say-gay, arrest parents of transgendered children, put cameras on teachers, "Build the Wall," "Stop the Steal." Q Anon is an even crazier subset of MAGAs. A lot of rank-and-file Republicans thrill to this group and send them money. Group 3 and 4 are afraid of them.
13 comments:
What we are seeing now is a pretty stark divide.
On one side, we have people who believe the U.S. needs more anti-gay and anti-woke laws. the pandemic was a scam, the election was stolen, climate change is a hoax or exaggerated, Muslims are terrorists, non-white immigrants are a threat, the answer to gun violence is more guns, etc.
On the other side, we have those who believe in facts.
It's only in the latter group that divisions become more nuanced, because at least they share a common reality.
I’m mainly a Group 5, with some 2 and 3 mixed in, possibly because 2 + 3 = 5.
Grouping creates an obvious divide. Look behind the lines. What are the reinforcers and where might the majority be found? The reinforcers target compartmentalized news and opinion messages, bandwagon effects and cultural touch points to hold fast their group.
Economic status and inequity are dividers/intensifier of the divide we see. The political operatives use and amplify unique qualities but few allow their candidates to stand up and present their bonafides to ALL the voters.
Currently we assume division amongst us. Finding it we strengthen our assumptions. What is needed to change perception, unfortunately, is major national event affecting each individual similarly. A common enemy might fill the bill. In a global economy finding such an enemy seems unlikely. Anyone come to mind now?
Sometimes it helps to know what you’re talking about. “Violent jihad is discordant with the values, outlook and attitudes of the vast majority of Muslim Americans, most of whom reject extremism.”
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/17/little-support-for-terrorism-among-muslim-americans/
I’d wager that no greater percentage of so-called Muslims espouse violence than do so-called Christians.
A common enemy might fill the bill. In a global economy finding such an enemy seems unlikely. Anyone come to mind now?
China? Russia? Iran?
I was always taught that it’s dangerous to “pigeon hole” people. While it’s convenient and satisfying to do so, categorizing over simplifies complex individual people. We do live in societies and we are all more dangerous in groups, thus it may be more valid to categorize groups and movements. It’s very easy to identify groups because their goals and beliefs are better defined and more consistent over time. But then I’m personally more connected with nerds and geeks, which as a group cover the political and ideological spectrum. Hokey smokes! We are all different! Maybe we shouldn’t pigeonhole so much after all.
Pete Seda is a Muslim, originally from Iran. He immigrated to the U.S. He lived in Ashland. He had a foundation in southern Oregon to promote peace and understanding. The federal government prosecuted him for supporting terrorism because his foundation accepted money that got earmarked, through a complicated chain of circumstances, for a group of Muslims fighting the Russians in Chechnya. Didn't the U.S. back Russia in the "conflict" in Chechnya? Did propaganda have anything to do with how the American media and the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and the Yeltsin and Putin administrations, characterize the combatants in Chechnya? If we now suddenly decide that the Muslim rebels in Chechnya weren't terrorists when they fought Russia in the 1990s and early aughts, and that they aren't terrorists now, doesn't that reduce the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists? What does it mean to call someone else a "terrorist"? Does calling people "terrorists" help us, as citizens in a republic, to frame responsible public policy or to elect representatives who will frame responsible policy on our behalf?
Whatever the other subcategories on the conservative and Republican side of the aisle may be, and there is obviously some overlap, I think it’s crucial to distinguish between pocketbook conservatives such as Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers, and so-called movement conservatives motivated primarily by religion or other social or cultural issues.
Precision and accuracy, to the extent possible, as ever is integral to interesting endeavors like these political taxonomies. Consistency, too. “Susan” says she supports her New Left’s causes, but today’s race determinists like Ibram X. Kendi, et al, are fundamentally opposed on race and America to MLK Jr. for the Old Left, as was Stokely Carmichael in the day.
Counting e.g. Ben Shapiro alongside the likes of Greene and Boebert is equal parts uninformed and silly. He voted for Trump as a lesser evil, and declared hogwash on the “Steal” immediately. His IQ is theirs put together. He did not need affirmative action to graduate Harvard Law at 23. Quite the opposite—Jews and Asians must overcome a reverse version.
For blue and red folks both, compare/contrast views on China and Russia, especially if China moves on Taiwan. Watch who suddenly urges minding our own business instead of idealizing and arming the noble underdog. Will Xi be called out by name alongside Putin for not only invasion but autocracy and inflation (!) too—plus deadly Covid transmissibility lies?
It’s true that it serves no purpose to pigeonhole or stereotype people. However, it’s worth noting that since 9/11, white supremacists and other far-right extremists have committed almost three times as many attacks on U.S. soil as Islamic terrorists. Oh, and let’s not forget their attempt to overthrow the government. There’s our common enemy, for those with any sense.
Doe, Pete Seda is a very fine man. My wife and I had lots of heart to heart conversations with him , and to a lesser extent, with his wife and friends. Pete loaned Tommi (my wife, at the time director of both art galleries at RCC) all kinds of current and historical art pieces he’d accumulated while living in the Middle East (Persia,I think)
Had he not lived 50 miles from here, or had we not been paycheck to paycheck hippie counter cultural types, I would loved to have become better friends.
Do you happen to know what’s going on with a Pete these days, Doe? I really miss him, and his rescue camel. I especially miss talking with a landscape contractor with the mind of a great philosopher. Terrorist? Bullshit!
The true puppet masters are not part of these categories. Big money is anonymous, it goes with what makes more money. Give to the left, give to the right . Hedge your bets then send in the squad of lobbyists and dark political money. Get your lawyers to write the bills and then give the template to the lazy legislator along with a three martini lunches. The new left are called judgmental because like all young people they are idealistic and won’t eat the lunch with the hundred dollar bill under the plate. The old left gave up their working class roots for haircuts and thick steaks. The old right has been crushed by technology, still can’t figure it out. The new right are captured by their own reflection in the mirror and breathe hate to enhance their rise in the polls. Most people care less about politics and experience the news as background noise.These categories are entertaining like a horoscope.
Muslim charity bundler Pete Seda, these days still busy in international public service in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, campaigning against offensive cartoons, is nothing whatsoever like the shadowy figures who donated to the Canadian trucker movement, got their bank accounts suspended, and who are being investigated for criminal activity accordingly. Correct political affinity is what matters.
Let's not forget Bush's Axis of Evil, among his other hits that have killed hundreds of thousands.
Post a Comment