The 2020 Election Demographics – What Do They Tell Us?

 The Pew Charitable Trust post-election survey for 2020 yields some very interesting results.  The survey is done with validated voters and is probably the closest thing to an accurate portrayal of the election that one can find.  The link is here:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/

The first and probably most dramatic, if not surprising, finding is the difference between white and non-white voters.  White voters favored Trump 55 – 43 (2% voted for a 3^rd party candidate), while black, Hispanic and Asian voters favored Biden by 92-8, 59-38 and 72-28 respectively.  One expects the black vote to be so one-sided, but I was surprised (and gratified) at how strong the Asian vote for Biden was.  

 

The second noticeable characteristic of the vote is the gender gap.  Men voted for Trump 50-48 versus the female vote of 55-44 for Biden.  

 

A third set of noticeable gaps is between generations.  Millennials and GenZ’ers favored Biden by 20 points, 58-38, while Gen X’ers still favored Biden, but only by 51-48.  Baby Boomers and Silent Generation went for Trump 51-48 and 58-42 respectively.  The strong preference for democratic candidates by youthful voters could be problematic for Republicans in the future, but it is also possible that the gap could be at least partly be caused by the typical evolution of political affiliation from more liberal to more conservative with age.

 

The urban/suburban/rural demographic is no surprise, but still impressive.  Urban voters went for Biden 66-33, suburban for Biden 54-43, and rural for Trump 65-33.  This clearly depicts a major schism in American society.  What that schism represents in terms of cultural, economic and political ideology has been explored in depth but is still a bit elusive.

 

Somewhat related to this geographic split is the religion angle.  White evangelicals, who account for 19% of all voters, made up 34% of Trump’s support, voting 84-15 for Trump.  But what amazes me is that white non-evangelical protestants and Catholics favored Trump by a significant margin, 57-43.  This is a stunning statistic, as I cannot imagine a less Christ-like candidate than Donald Trump.  This speaks volumes about Christianity in America.  Unaffiliated voters preferred Biden by a whopping 71-26.  

 

The final, and for me, most interesting demographic is the level of education.  Voters with postgraduate education favored Biden by a large margin, 67-32.  College grads favored Biden 56-42, still a very significant margin.  Voters with some college education were almost a toss-up, preferring Trump 50-49, and high school grads (or less) voted strongly for Trump 56-41.  These numbers indicate a profoundly different political stance at higher levels of education.  The right will characterize this as liberal elitism and hypocrisy, while the left will portray it as a sign of enlightenment that comes with more education.  In any event, this disparity is troubling, and does not bode well for political stability.

 

The US voting population is clearly divided into very distinct and hostile camps.  Whether this partisanship will fade over the coming years or become even more divisive and dangerous remains to be seen.  America has always had sharp and noisy differences between its political parties and different demographic groups.  Will the current stress find relief as (and if) the pandemic retreats and the economy stabilizes?  

 

There are numerous pitfalls ahead as we face uncertain effects of climate change, income inequality and cultural issues, not to mention foreign affairs challenges with Russia and China.  Will these contribute to the political rancor or will they tend to unite us and cause us to be more accommodating toward one another?  Only time will tell.

 

 

America's Rise - A Tale of Innovation, Zeal and Exploitation

There are no simple stories in human history.  We do ourselves a disservice when we tell only the noble part of our story.  If we are to learn from history, then we must understand both the impressive efforts of our ancestors as well as their mistakes.

 America’s rise from a fledgling colony of religious zealots and opportunists to the most powerful empire in the history of the world is both inspirational and tragic.  It is not unique in this regard.  The evolution of humankind is awe-inspiring.  The fact that we have managed to create a relatively cooperative civilization out of what could have been an unceasing quagmire of tribal warfare and chaos is a testament to our common humanity.  But the death and suffering along the way are somber footnotes to our progress.  

 

In this time of increasing partisanship in our country and sharp divisions over the way we tell our own story, it is important for us to be able to acknowledge both our astonishing achievements as well as understand that those achievements were partially enabled and certainly accelerated by the original sins of this country – displacement of native peoples and African slavery.

 

The political evolution of the USA from a colony of the British Empire to the first incarnation of a republic with freedom from hereditary aristocracy is a spectacular feat of which every American can be proud.   The industriousness of the people who came to this land, and the entrepreneurial spirit of innovation that emerged are stunning.  The integration of refugees and risk-takers from lands across the globe powered a growing economy that ultimately outstripped every other nation.

 

Visitors to the United States wrote repeatedly of the incredible energy and ambition of Americans.  The open landscape and relatively fluid economic and political culture unleashed human potential energy that had been stymied and anaesthetized in the solidified social and economic fabric of Europe.  

 

There is no doubt that the political ingenuity of our founding fathers contributed greatly to the creative energy that characterized American life.  But there was another factor that added gasoline to the fire of American endeavor:  land!

 

As late as 1890, 80% of the land in Great Britain was owned by 7000 noble families.  Land ownership was by far the most significant form of wealth.  There was no ‘new’ land to be had, and most farmers were tenant farmers on land owned by the aristocracy or landed gentry.  Even the members of those groups were somewhat frustrated as primogeniture dictated that younger men in wealthy families were unable to acquire their own property.

 

The dream of owning land, or for those of more substantial means, of speculating in land, was the biggest motivation to come to the new world.  Land was an obsession for the colonists.  Even our most esteemed founding fathers (George Washington and Ben Franklin for example) were half-crazed with the thought of acquiring massive property holdings.  This had always been the measure of wealth in English society, and the fact that it could be attained without hereditary credentials made it the most seductive drug one could ever imagine.

 

But of course, this land wasn’t actually new or truly available.  It was used by indigenous peoples, who were initially gracious enough to share it with the colonists.  The sharing arrangement wasn’t what the colonists had in mind, and soon enough the long history of either killing or displacing native Americans began in earnest.

 

The acquisition through conquest of more land than was contained in all of Great Britain, France and Germany was the engine of the colony’s growth in several ways.  First, the land was sold and revenues were collected either by speculators or the government.  These revenues funded much of the eventual investments in transportation, industry and the military.  Second, the land was cultivated and generated tremendous agricultural wealth that could both support a growing population and be exported for additional revenues.  Third, the land attracted new colonists in exponentially growing numbers that propelled the gross national product to ever more dizzying heights.

 

To this juggernaut of land cultivation and population growth must be added the almost incalculable mountain of labor provided by African slaves and their descendants.   In 1790 slaves made up almost 20% of the US population.  Their labor launched the greatest single revenue producer of the first 50 years of the republic – cotton.  On the eve of the civil war, the US produced 75% of the world’s cotton and it was 60% of our export revenues.  Additionally, it fueled and accelerated much of our northern manufacturing growth in textiles.

 

So yes, the USA has benefitted from a very industrious, energetic population of colonists and immigrants unleashed by a form of government and social structure that gave freedom to individual creativity and effort.  The incredible growth of agricultural, industry, technology and small businesses is testament to the ambition and determination of our people.  But let us also concede that this incredible growth and success was in very significant ways catalyzed by the abundance of land and labor that were shamelessly exploited from the outset of our grand experiment.

 

Our sins are no worse than the other empires that grew explosively throughout history.  The British and French were indirectly performing the same feats of empire-building with the same shameless exploitation in their colonies throughout the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  The point of recognizing this is not to wallow in self-hatred or guilt, but rather to acquire a bit of national humility and self-awareness.  If we are to continue to form a more perfect union, then we must not spin fables about our history.  We must carefully analyze the good and the bad, and learn from them.

Russian Diplomacy - The Other Side

There is a lot of tough talk about Russia these days.  With Russian troops massed at the border of Ukraine, it is easy to view Russia in ‘evil empire’ terms.  Opinion pieces lament our ‘weak’ responses to Putin’s aggressive moves over the last couple of decades, from the tepid response to the Crimean invasion to our passivity in the face of its aggressive role in Belarusian politics.

Russia has a lot of problems to be sure.  It is a basically a plutocracy with very limited democratic institutions.  Putin is a dictator.  There is not a free press or a healthy opposition in the political realm.  It is expanding its military energetically, and using its oil and gas resources to exert influence over all of its European neighbors.  Most recently it has sent troops into Kazakhstan to ruthlessly quell riots.

 

But setting aside the somewhat western-centric view of what we wish Russia had become after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is something to be gained by looking at the current situation from their perspective.  Learning from history is something we have failed to do in the past and it has severely damaged our economy and reputation.  Perhaps it would be wise for us to take a step back and understand the history of Russian discontent?

 

Russia, like every other world power during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, sought to expand its empire.  At various times in the last 300 years, Russia controlled vast territories from Eastern Europe to Central and South Asia, including parts of the Middle East.  The British Empire saw the Russian Empire as one of its biggest threats, referring to their efforts to contain Russia as ‘The Great Game’, and this conflict resulted in the Crimean War of 1853-56.  

 

The Soviet Union was simply a new version of this empire, though cloaked in the noble guise of international communism and world revolution.  In essence, the Soviet period is now viewed in Russia as a troubled but logical continuation of Russian influence and control.  

 

But lurking beneath this Russian imperial might and confidence is a deep mistrust and insecurity about its boundaries and vulnerability.  Invasions by France in the Napoleonic era, by western forces during the Russian civil war 1917-1923, and by Germany during the 3^rd Reich created a paranoia in Russian leadership that is still very evident today.  Stalin was so fearful of possible western incursions after WW2 that he created the infamous Iron Curtain of Eastern European countries as a buffer.

 

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia went through a decade of humiliation.  It lost most of its imperial territory and influence, and went through painful spasms of political and economic turmoil.  Rather than work to build a strong new relationship and support a new Russia, the west seemed eager to revel in its cold war triumph and quickly moved to isolate Russia by luring Soviet bloc countries to NATO.

 

Putin, with a mixture of canny political skills, megalomania and tyranny, has succeeded in restoring a great measure of pride and accomplishment to Russia.  He eschews western liberalism and defiantly embraces a conservative brand of authoritarianism and hardball geopolitics.  He ruthlessly suppresses opposition and rewrites history to serve his purposes.

 

But is it surprising that the exodus of Eastern European countries from the former Soviet bloc into the European Union and NATO’s embrace has resulted in aggressive moves from Russia?  What would we do in its place?  Both the Ukraine and Georgia were part of Russia throughout the last two centuries.  Large parts of Poland and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) were also part of the Russian Empire.  Would we not feel similarly threatened under the same circumstances?

 

Russia may be a bully, and its geopolitical aspirations may have a potential for causing new conflict, but it is foolish for us to pretend that its concerns have no basis or that they are entirely unacceptable.  It is tricky at this point to make concessions on any of Russia’s demands without appearing weak or naïve, but it is also foolish to play hardball with so much at stake and the prospect of a possible military escalation.  

Now is not the time to play cowboy politics with blinders that see only black and white.  Would it be a dangerous compromise to recast NATO and even some aspects of the European Union in a way that promotes collaboration with Russia?  True diplomacy is painfully slow and frustrating, but it is the only way to resolve complex problems.