Political party affiliation based on educational differences

In a puzzling article, How Educational Differences Are Widening America’s Political Rift, the New York Times reports that people with a four year college degree have moved into the Democratic Party in large numbers, while a roughly equal number of people without college degrees have moved to the Republican Party. Several assertions in the article do not seem to make much sense, maybe unless one believes that there is a massive disconnect in perceptions of reality and self-interest between the two groups.

The article asserts that it is not universities and colleges that have converted students to be liberal. Instead, they come to post high school education already liberal. The article also asserts that the liberal values of this group has pushed the Democratic Party (DP) to the left, which inherently alienates some people. That tends to move them into the Republican Party (RP). The strange thing is that some of the alienating liberal values benefit all people, including Republicans. The NYT writes:

College graduates attribute racial inequality, crime and poverty to complex structural and systemic problems, while voters without a degree tend to focus on individualist and parochial explanations. It is easier for college graduates, with their higher levels of affluence, to vote on their values, not simply on economic self-interest. They are likelier to have high levels of social trust and to be open to new experiences. They are less likely to believe in God.

As college graduates increased their share of the electorate, they gradually began to force the Democrats to accommodate their interests and values. They punched above their electoral weight, since they make up a disproportionate number of the journalists, politicians, activists and poll respondents who most directly influence the political process.

At the same time, the party’s old industrial working-class base was in decline, as were the unions and machine bosses who once had the power to connect the party’s politicians to its rank and file. The party had little choice but to broaden its appeal, and it adopted the views of college-educated voters on nearly every issue, slowly if fitfully alienating its old working-class base.

The reasons for white working-class alienation with the Democrats have shifted from decade to decade. At times, nearly every major issue area — race, religion, war, environmentalism, guns, trade, immigration, sexuality, crime, social welfare programs — has been a source of Democratic woes.

What the Democratic Party’s positions on these very different issues have had in common is that they reflected the views of college-educated liberals, even when in conflict with the apparent interests of working-class voters — and that they alienated some number of white voters without a degree. Environmentalists demanded regulations on the coal industry; coal miners bolted from the Democrats. Suburban voters supported an assault gun ban; gun owners shifted to the Republicans. Business interests supported free trade agreements; old manufacturing towns broke for Mr. Trump.

Either I misunderstand it, or there are some significant contradictions and/or incomplete analysis and context. Other than possibly liberal policy on the environment, trade and immigration, of the 10 major issues listed, it isn't clear that any of them are significantly damaging to the interests of most average people. For example, some data indicates that illegal immigration can hold local wages down, so that is a real but limited effect. Some other data indicates that major trade deals tend to lead to mixed results with some job losses in one area and some gains in others. But one can argue that (i) regarding these issues, government has failed to protect adversely affected people, while at the same time, (ii) the RP is the main obstacle to protecting them. Thus, by moving to the RP, some people damage their own interests. 

Regarding old manufacturing towns and jobs, the RP has not been able to significantly change the economic forces that cause economic distress in areas in economic decline. RP opposition to domestic spending for social welfare programs is also arguably damaging to the interests of adversely affected people. On every major issue, the RP has built a false reality over the decades that leads a lot of people to support them, while they have not delivered much of serious substance on issues like jobs and wages.

The article refers to some liberal policy preferences as in apparent conflict with working class voter interests. That is baffling. What seriously meaningful interests would be burdened if the liberal policies went into effect? In the case of an assault gun ban, those guns would be banned. Although that is a tangible impact, what effect on an affected person’s life would that amount to? As far as I know, there has never been many or any situations where someone needed an assault rifle for self-defense. Hand guns work just fine and so do regular hunting rifles.

Similarly, in the case of a right to same-sex marriage, religious people screamed that they would be persecuted, silenced and forced to perform same-sex marriages. That is standard RP propaganda built on lies. In commerce, how much of a burden on a person’s religious freedom is it to bake a cake  and decorate it for a same-sex couple? Just about none. Nonetheless, the RP propaganda is that it is a horrible religious freedom burden, socialist tyranny and other hyperbolic nonsense. 

All in all, the disconnect between reality and people fleeing the bad DP and flocking to the good RP looks to be built mostly on vaporware, or dark free speech, maybe about 80% illusion and ~20% reality. 

The DP is not perfect here. It is the case that the DP has walked away from many average people in some plausible ways. But one has to look at what the alternative RP has to offer. What does the RP offer that is different and better? A lot of promises, but whatever they do does not trickle down much. They are laser focused on establishing a Christian theocratic world view for government, society and commerce. The RP wants everyone to carry concealed weapons. The RP wants to deregulate businesses, deny climate change, and get rid of abortions, secular public schools and elections. How the hell is any of that that going to solve the real world problems of average people in distress? It might be good for gun companies, church operations and the rise of fascism, but that does not help distressed people or the climate.

Questions: It is reasonable to level any criticism at all on people who flee from the DP based on RP propaganda and lies, or are the two parties too much alike for such criticism to hold much water? Is there a lot of false reality and propaganda in the reasons people move from the DP to the RP, or vice versa? How alienating are proposed DP policies and rhetoric compared to proposed RP policies and rhetoric? If the RP is the party of big capitalists and the DP the party of little capitalists, does America need a socialist or some other kind of party to be the party of the workers and/or the middle and lower classes?