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?

Republican efforts to take control of elections are nationwide

Steve Bannon’s poisoned water well

Dispensing poisoned water to the thirsty internet every day

A ProPublica article, Heeding Steve Bannon’s Call, Election Deniers Organize to Seize Control of the GOP — and Reshape America’s Elections, reports on how deep the sentiment in the fascist Republican Party (FRP) is about not allowing an election to ever be stolen again. Once again, the power of dark free speech to con people into blatantly false beliefs and behaviors that flow from them is clear and undeniable. The FRP action is aimed squarely at undermining election integrity and especially not allowing democrats to win elections. ProPublica writes: 

When the insurrection failed, Bannon continued his campaign for his former boss by other means. On his “War Room” podcast, which has tens of millions of downloads, Bannon said President Trump lost because the Republican Party sold him out. “This is your call to action,” Bannon said in February, a few weeks after Trump had pardoned him of federal fraud charges.

The solution, Bannon announced, was to seize control of the GOP from the bottom up. Listeners should flood into the lowest rung of the party structure: the precincts. “It’s going to be a fight, but this is a fight that must be won, we don’t have an option,” Bannon said on his show in May. “We’re going to take this back village by village … precinct by precinct.”  

After Bannon’s endorsement, the “precinct strategy” rocketed across far-right media. Viral posts promoting the plan racked up millions of views on pro-Trump websites, talk radio, fringe social networks and message boards, and programs aligned with the QAnon conspiracy theory.  

The new movement is built entirely around Trump’s insistence that the electoral system failed in 2020 and that Republicans can’t let it happen again. The result is a nationwide groundswell of party activists whose central goal is not merely to win elections but to reshape their machinery.

It is too early to know how important or effective this movement will be. The laws that FRP state legislatures have already passed to both suppress votes and to rig elections in the FRP’s favor will be relevant. ProPublica also looked onto whether there was a similar democratic surge at the precinct level, but found no significant surge. Some or most rank and file Republicans believe the Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen, which would explain why they are increasing their local level presence in elections in some areas.

At present, it is reasonable to draw some conclusions. First, the infrastructure needed to subvert elections and democracy is now being put in place, at least in some states and key areas of the country. Second, the belief among many of the FRP’s rank and file that the 2020 election was stolen is intractable and that false belief will probably not change any time soon, if ever. Third, because of that it is significantly possible, maybe likely, that the 2022 and 2024 elections will be adversely affected, maybe literally flipped for some races, by the FRP for the benefit of the FRP and its elite supporters and to the detriment to democracy and the rule of law.

Steve Bannon is probably right to try to move the deceived and angry rank and file at an increased presence in local elections. The FRP cannot win free and fair elections honestly, so they have to suppress votes and rig elections to win dishonestly. By now, it is clear that the FRP leadership and elites have to keep harping on the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. If they did not, there would be no effective way to move the rank and file who have lost faith in election integrity to act to “protect” elections as they are now. 

Questions: Is this more evidence of a malicious FRP attack on democracy and elections, or is it just democratic politics with little or no anti-democratic intent? If there is no anti-democratic intent in Bannon’s precinct strategy, then (i) exactly what is the point of it, and (ii) exactly what pro-democracy actions are all those deceived and pissed off Republicans planning to take in the next election that were not already taken in the last free and fair election? 

Cause of Death…

 

I’m so glad that Nicolle Wallace posted this segment from her show (Deadline White House) yesterday, this short (2-ish minutes) video with Steve Schmidt.  No one can say it quite like Steve can.

View link here: Schmidt’s remarks begin at about the :50 mark.

From the linked video-

"COVID might be the medical cause of their deaths, but what they were killed by was:

-Misinformation

-Lies

-Malice and the immorality of political leaders who would risk their [constituents] lives in a big con for the purpose of appeasing a base, a ratings god in the form of Fox News, and the constellation of right-wing sites that would fuel all this insanity in the country.

-[It's] irresponsibility contrary to the public good for selfish [political] purposes."

I think Steve is spot on.  What about you?

Thanks for viewing, posting and recommending.

For profit health care: A glimpse at how corporate deceit really works

This story is told in this 30 minute podcast. A transcript of the interview is also at that link. It is a story about corporate business tactics and attendant "public relations" (company propaganda) that CIGNA, a big health care company, routinely employed to keep profit margins high while maintaining a caring public image. Presumably, CIGNA, and all other for profit health care companies still use these tactics to keep costs as low as possible.

By now, it should be clear to everyone that for-profit health care companies operate with an intractable conflict of interest. Specifically, they make more money when insured people do not get health care services. Therefore, in capitalism like with any other company, CIGNA did its best to deny paying for health care services as best it could. The podcast interviews a former senior public relations executive, Wendell Potter[1], who worked for CIGNA. Once Potter accidentally came to realize what he was involved in helping CIGNA do to its customers, his conscience kicked in and he had to get out. 

According to Potter, everything he did was legal, but often misleading. The corporate deceit he helped instill in people led to some bad health care choices by patients and to some preventable patient deaths. His job was to make CIGNA look caring and honest to the public, while maximizing profit by being uncaring and dishonest. 

One episode involved CIGNA dragging its feet about deciding to pay for a teenage girl's liver transplant after she developed leukemia. The company did not want to pay for the transplant so it delayed making a decision. The company delayed so long that the girl's liver had deteriorated to the point that the transplant was considered experimental and therefore not covered by the insurance policy. Bad publicity arose from this case, so CIGNA decided to pay for the transplant even though it was no longer covered. The girl died before she could get her new liver.

Other parts of the interview discuss other sleaze tactics that health care insurance companies routinely employ to avoid paying for health care services. Most civilized industrialized countries have had the common sense to take profit out of their mainstream health care systems. The inherent conflict of interest simply cannot be made to go away any other way. 

Ruthless public relations

Unlike those countries, the US is not civilized. We operate with a capitalist for-profit system. Americans are told they get the best health care in the world. We are not told that we do not necessarily get the best health care in the world. We are also not told that we pay more for health care than any other country in the world. And, we are also not told by the American health care insurance industry that tens of millions of Americans either have no insurance coverage or, they have coverage in theory but cannot actually afford to pay for the deductibles from their "cheap," minimal coverage insurance policies to get payment. Many of them rely on free medical services when, where and if they can get it. Thus, even though Americans pay more than any other country with universal health care systems, we still have tens of millions who are not in the system and get little or no care unless they can afford it on their own.

If memory serves, estimates of deaths from lack of health care in the US before Obamacare ranged from ~20,000/year to ~45,000/year. Not sure what it is these days. That's another fact that the health care insurance industry prefers to not talk about. In capitalism, uninsured people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and either get over whatever it is that ails them or drop dead. There's no room in capitalism for any profit-impairing sentiment.

Profit and opacity

This insurance industry loves opacity. For example, people cannot do cost comparisons. Also, when people sign up for Part C of Medicare (Medicare "Advantage" plans -- the advantage is to the insurance companies, not the taxpayers), the insurance industry is brought into the picture and the government moves out. The government pays the companies to handle Medicare and we all know what that means, i.e., the conflict of interest is baaaack! Part of the deal with Part C is that the insurance company negotiated and/or bribed our corrupt federal government into keeping the profits from Part C that the companies make. One estimate is that Part C is worth tens of billions/year, which is why we are constantly bombarded with TV ads trying to coax people out of regular Medicare and into private sector Part C. 

Questions: Would it be better to leave US health care as a mostly for-profit system, or do what other countries with universal health care systems do and socialize it to mostly or completely get rid of the conflict of interest? Is it even politically possible to socialize medicine in the US? Do you like being deceived and lied to about health care, or does that not happen in the US? Is the US health care system corrupt and opaque, or merely just doing what for-profit companies do, e.g., maximizing profits while minimizing transparency?

Footnote: 

1. Potter used to run a cute little website called the Potter Report. It looks to have been abandoned. There he reported on the fun and games of the industry he used to work for. For example, this is part of the last post of March 14, 2019:

Months after advising the Democratic Party to abandon the idea of “Medicare for All,” a former U.S. senator has been hired by a lobbying firm whose clients are leading the fight against changes to the nation’s health care system. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington, D.C.-based law and lobbying firm, announced on Wednesday that former Sen. Joe Donnelly is joining the firm as a partner and will be counseling clients in the health care and financial industries.

In August 2020 at a different site, Potter wrote this:

In my prior life as an insurance executive, it was my job to deceive Americans about their health care. I misled people to protect profits. In fact, one of my major objectives, as a corporate propagandist, was to do my part to “enhance shareholder value.” That work contributed directly to a climate in which fewer people are insured, which has shaped our nation’s struggle against the coronavirus, a condition that we can fight only if everyone is willing and able to get medical treatment. Had spokesmen like me not been paid to obscure important truths about the differences between the U.S. and Canadian health-care systems, tens of thousands of Americans who have died during the pandemic might still be alive.

On a task force for the industry’s biggest trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), we talked about how we might make health-care systems in Canada, France, Britain and even Cuba look just as bad as ours. We enlisted APCO Worldwide, a giant PR firm. Agents there worked with AHIP to put together a binder of laminated talking points for company flacks like me to use in news releases and statements to reporters. 

I spent much of that year as an industry spokesman, my last after 20 years in the business, spreading AHIP’s “information” to journalists and lawmakers to create the impression that our health-care system was far superior to Canada’s, which we wanted people to believe was on the verge of collapse. The campaign worked. Stories began to appear in the press that cast the Canadian system in a negative light. And when Democrats began writing what would become the Affordable Care Act in early 2009, they gave no serious consideration to a publicly financed system like Canada’s. We succeeded so wildly at defining that idea as radical that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), then chair of the Senate Finance Committee, had single-payer supporters ejected from a hearing. 

While it’s true that Canadians sometimes have to wait weeks or months for elective procedures (knee replacements are often cited), the truth is that they do not have to wait at all for the vast majority of medical services. And, contrary to another myth I used to peddle — that Canadian doctors are flocking to the United States — there are more doctors per 1,000 people in Canada than here. Canadians see their doctors an average of 6.8 times a year, compared with just four times a year in this country.  

Then there’s quality of care. By numerous measures, it is better in Canada. Some examples: Canada has far lower rates than the United States of hospitalizations from preventable causes like diabetes (almost twice as common here) and hypertension (more than eight times as common). And even though Canada spends less than half what we do per capita on health care, life expectancy there is 82 years, compared with 78.6 years in the United States.

 

The insurance industry loved Obamacare --

if it didn't there would have been no Obamacare