It's pretty clear that this is a transformative US election year. (The first one since both parties changed the rules to allow genuinely democratic primaries.) In effect the Republican coalition is being reshaped by Donald Trump's presidential run regardless of the outcome of the party primaries (and subsequent general election). Nobody is genuinely surprised that xenophobia and nativism exist in the electorate. But he is also showing that there is a sizable electoral constituency that rejects free trade and open borders and wants a welfare state (at least for citizens) alongside an authoritative leadership style that roots out elite corruption. This is all un-Liberal (both in the classical and in the recent American sense). It also represents the self-interest of many folk that do not benefit from open borders in people and goods and that have instinctive revulsion for the cosmopolitan values associated with it. That's to say, for the first time in a generation, those that do not benefit from the liberalized economy have found a true-vote-getting champion on the US national scene. (That's not an endorsement of Trump or his politics.) Kansas can now feel that it is voting its interest. (Of course, I doubt Trump will be a reliable champion.) And, thereby, America stops being exceptional and starts looking a lot more like recent European politics.* This will outlast Trump the person and will attract other talented politicians.
Even if one thinks -- as I do -- that the moral and economic arguments for open borders in people and trade are overwhelming, there is also a further fact that such Liberal policies generate patterns of outcome with beneficiaries and disadvantaged. Not enough has been done to ensure that the benefits of Liberal policies are fairly shared. (Economists are also to blame for this by refusing to make distribution endogenous in welfare economics.)** In practice the rent-seeking, well connected (finance, pharma, defense, insurance, etc.) are shielded from negative outcomes. For the ugly truth of our time is that those with degrees end up with jobs that are part of the semi-government (not just universities, hospitals, defense industry, security industry, finance, insurance, etc.) or government bureaucracies and agencies.
So I predict that this election will generate a polarized electorate (that is, the two parties) along a degree demarcation: those with advanced education will end up with the Democrats (Cosmopolitan values and open borders, a fondness for the finance industry, and more than happy to dispense favors to white collar insiders) and those without advanced education will likely end up with the Republicans (more socially conservative and against free trade, immigration, traditional welfare state, etc.). Obviously, both parties will have broader coalitions with internal contradictions that involve complex interactions among religion, region, and race. To be sure: degrees track income, too. But in my expectation, the educated poor (often gendered female) will vote with the Democrats and the uneducated wealthy (small-business types often gendered male) will vote with the Republicans.
Given that the group of folk without a bachelor or advanced degree aged 25 and over is still the majority Stateside, we should expect that the party of the relatively uneducated can win elections (see the image borrowed from Wikipedia).
*Unlike Europe which has stagnated and so generated widespread malaise, the US economy has been growing--but inequality does not eliminate resentment!
**Update: it's more complicated. I return to this some other time.
What about Republicans with advanced educations who both understand and truly hate Clinton's and Sanders' policies, but also approve of free trade, have far less extreme views about immigration/etc., and think Trump is crazy?
It sounded like you think they will end up voting with the Dems. What makes you think that their disapproval of Trump's policies will outweigh their disapproval for Clinton's/Sanders'? Perhaps there are too few Republicans like this, and they simply won't affect the outcome?
Posted by: Andrew | 03/04/2016 at 02:58 PM
Over time such Republicans will migrate to Dems (that's already happened in the Northeast and California).
Posted by: Eric Schliesser | 03/04/2016 at 03:05 PM
Eric, one worry with the analysis here is with non-whites. "Hispanics" (some of whom are "white"), Native Americans and Alaskans, and African-Americans all earn college degrees at much lower rates than do "whites". That seems unlikely to change very quickly. (Unfortunately.) But, it also seems very, very unlikely that these groups are going to be switching to the Republican side any time soon. Of course, insofar as the Republican side (or any side) keeps pushing all sorts of _explicit_ racist resentment, this is even more the case, but even if we went back to a more subtle version, I'm not sure I'd see the switch you propose _unless we ignore race_. That, of course, is something that can't be done in relation to US politics, unless you really want to get things wrong.
Posted by: Matt | 03/04/2016 at 08:57 PM
Matt, yes, I agree that race cannot be ignored Stateside (or lots of other places). And, certainly the phenomenon you call attention to will slow/retard/prevent parts of the process I am predicting. But I did note in my post that all this involves "complex interactions among religion, region, and race." Having said that, even Trump is actually trying to attract black voters (despite is very clear racism/xenophobia toward other non-white voters). This may not pay off for him (and certainly he must have alienated Latinos), but I think it is part of more general drift.
Posted by: Eric Schliesser | 03/05/2016 at 09:16 PM
Where does Sanders fit in to your analysis? He certainly draws on a younger, more educated crowd, one that is fairly disenchanted with the Democratic party as is. Does this seem negligible as such voters are likely to stick to the Dems anyway (or not vote at all)?
Posted by: Michael M | 03/06/2016 at 08:11 PM
I expect the better educated of these voters to vote Dems in the future (despite being unhappy with lots of things Dems do).
Posted by: Eric Schliesser | 03/06/2016 at 08:26 PM
I've thought about this "digressions" post off-and-on, since you wrote it.
I've continued wondering what educated Republicans will do, when they can't bring themselves to vote for Trump. You're probably right that some of them will end up voting Dem.
But I also predict, now, that this election will see a substantial increase in votes for the Libertarian candidate. And I predict that they will largely be educated voters. I now predict that the Libertarian candidate will get at least 5% of the national vote. That isn't huge, and the points you make in your post still hold. But it is another alternative, which I suspect people will take.
I'm not going to try to justify this prediction; I doubt I could justify it well. I just wanted to share this thought.
Posted by: Andrew | 05/04/2016 at 03:51 AM