This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
When I was in college, a fair number of my fellow students liked to describe themselves as “socially liberal and economically conservative.” This was the 1990s, when Bill Clinton’s “third way” was thriving, and I was attending a college — Yale — where the student body was predominantly affluent.
When members of the national media — whose incomes also tend to be above average — describe the prototypical centrist voter, this is the same image they often have in mind: socially liberal and economically conservative.
But it’s a big myth.
[Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.]
True, many high-income voters are socially liberal and economically conservative. They aren’t particularly religious and generally agree with the Democratic Party on social issues, like abortion, affirmative action and immigration. On economic issues, though, these affluent voters lean to the center if not the right. They don’t like talk of 70 percent marginal tax rates, and they favor cuts to Medicare and Social Security (which they describe as “entitlement reform”).
Many commentators share these views, and they commit a classic version of the pundit fallacy: They confuse their own beliefs with the country’s. They fool themselves into thinking that “socially liberal and economically conservative” is a good campaign strategy. This is precisely the theory that seems to motivate Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks C.E.O. now planning an independent run for president.
In reality, the American public is closer to being “socially conservative and economically liberal” than the reverse.
On the socially conservative part: More than half of Americans say they pray daily. About 53 percent say abortion should be legal either “only in a few circumstances” or never. Almost 70 percent say illegal immigration is a “very big” or “moderately big” problem. On some of these subjects, the answers can depend on the precise phrasing of poll questions. But you have to twist the data pretty hard to create a portrait of a secular, liberal majority on most social issues.
Economic policy is very different. Large majorities of Americans oppose cuts to Medicare and Social Security and favor expanded Medicaid. They favor higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. They favor a higher minimum wage and more aggressive government action to create jobs. No wonder: Incomes for most Americans have been growing painfully slowly for most of the past four decades.
Schultz is correct that there may be room in American politics for a candidate who doesn’t line up neatly with the two parties. But we already knew that. Just consider the last businessman-turned-candidate who vowed to change politics.
Donald Trump won the Republican nomination despite running well to the left of party orthodoxy on economics. (As president, he’s returned to the conservative orthodoxy.) And he won the Electoral College despite a set of social and cultural views — including racism — that social liberals rightly found odious.
Obviously, I’m not at all happy about Trump’s presidency. But he is much closer to the median voter than Schultz is. Schultz’s version of that voter is a fantasy.
Related: For more evidence on socially conservative and economically liberal Americans, see Jonathan Chait in New York magazine and Michelle Goldberg in The Times. HuffPost’s Zach Carter writes that “Schultz hails from an aging, elite enclave in which the conventional wisdom of the 1990s remains the foundation of all political truth.”
Jeff Greenfield, writing in Politico, points out that a Schultz candidacy relies on a second myth as well: that of true political independence among voters. In fact, most voters are partisans, whether they'd admit it or not.
Even if Schultz isn’t a serious candidate to win the presidency, he could affect the outcome. The likelihood that he would do so was the subject of much debate on Monday.
Nate Silver argued that a Schultz candidacy was likely to be irrelevant. “He’s probably about equally likely to draw from either major party candidate,” Silver tweeted.
Others disagreed. The historians Kevin Kruse and Julian Zelizer argued that Schultz’s social liberalism made him unlikely to attract Republican votes — and, thus, more likely to hurt the eventual Democratic candidate. “If Schultz’s goal is breaking free of the polarized politics of the Trump presidency, he should understand that his independent candidacy could wind up prolonging it,” they wrote for CNN.
My take: The chances that Schultz will affect the outcome seem small. But they’re not nothing. And because the stakes — the potential of a second Trump term — are so large, I think it’s irresponsible and self-centered of him to run as an independent. He should run for one of the party’s nominations. “Given the strong pull of partisanship and the realities of the Electoral College system, there is no way an independent can win,” Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who considered an independent run in 2016, said yesterday.
If Schultz does run as an independent, Neera Tanden of the Center for American Progress called for a boycott of Starbucks. Schultz still owns a large stake in the company.
For anyone interested in a more positive take on Schultz than mine, try David Frum in The Atlantic.
If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
六合第121期资料【他】【原】【是】【地】【球】【仙】【门】【御】【兽】【宗】【的】【一】【代】【仙】【尊】，【因】【为】【猥】【亵】【宗】【主】【坐】【骑】【被】【打】【入】【思】【过】【崖】【闭】【关】【五】【百】【年】，【五】【百】【年】【后】【破】【关】【而】【出】【还】【没】【来】【得】【及】【喊】【上】【一】【声】“【我】【胡】【汉】【三】【又】【回】【来】【了】！”【却】【发】【现】【地】【球】【仙】【道】【飘】【零】，【自】【己】【竟】【成】【了】【世】【上】【最】【后】【一】【个】【仙】【尊】？ 【寂】【寞】【空】【虚】【之】【前】，【他】【率】【先】【嗅】【到】【了】【一】【丝】【危】【机】—— 【直】【觉】【告】【诉】【他】【必】【须】【尽】【快】【离】【开】【地】【球】【这】【个】【是】【非】【之】【地】，【于】【是】【他】【藏】【匿】【自】
“【好】【好】，【请】【坐】”【三】【人】【复】【坐】【下】。 “【这】【是】【上】【好】【衡】【山】【茶】，【要】【放】【些】【枣】【和】【薄】【荷】【才】【好】”【桌】【子】【中】【间】【放】【着】【一】【把】【精】【美】【的】【青】【瓷】【杏】【花】【茶】【注】，【一】【把】【杏】【花】【勺】，【两】【边】【一】【个】【小】【釉】【碗】【里】【放】【着】【薄】【荷】【叶】【没】。【一】【个】【放】【着】【红】【枣】，【谢】【花】【卿】【给】【尚】【清】【雪】【倒】【了】【一】【杯】【茶】，【拿】【了】【小】【勺】【往】【她】【茶】【盏】【里】【放】【了】【两】【颗】【红】【枣】，【一】【小】【抹】【薄】【荷】【叶】【沫】。 “【很】【好】【喝】..
“【该】【出】【发】【了】。” 【宇】【智】【波】【晴】【的】【脸】【颊】【红】【的】【好】【像】【一】【只】【红】【苹】【果】，【平】【日】【里】【大】【方】【不】【拘】【小】【节】【的】【女】【孩】【很】【少】【有】【如】【此】【羞】【红】【脸】【颊】【的】【时】【刻】。 【宇】【智】【波】【辰】【轻】【轻】【握】【住】【了】【妻】【子】【的】【小】【手】【说】【道】。 “【嗯】。” 【宇】【智】【波】【晴】【轻】【轻】【点】【了】【点】【头】，【声】【音】【有】【一】【些】【细】【微】，【低】【着】【头】，【脸】【上】【满】【是】【红】【晕】。 “【恭】【喜】【你】【们】【了】。” 【卡】【卡】【西】【抱】【着】【肩】【膀】，【声】【音】【平】【静】，【与】【周】【围】【的】
【做】【了】【些】【小】【修】【改】，【但】【还】【有】【好】【些】【的】【双】【引】【号】【反】【了】【的】【格】【式】【规】【范】【问】【题】，【估】【计】【还】【有】【些】【错】【别】【字】，【如】【果】【完】【结】【后】【还】【可】【以】【做】【修】【改】，【那】【便】【一】【点】【点】【地】【改】——【若】【是】【编】【辑】【器】【里】【有】【双】【引】【号】【自】【动】【规】【范】【的】【功】【能】【机】【制】【就】【好】【了】【啊】！ 【开】【新】【书】【了】。《【瓦】【房】【之】【上】》，【欢】【迎】【大】【家】【有】【闲】【去】【看】，【希】【望】【能】【带】【着】【大】【家】【进】【入】【另】【一】【个】【现】【实】【生】【活】【轨】【道】，【体】【验】【新】【的】【爱】【的】【力】【量】。 【祝】【福】！六合第121期资料【唐】【姿】【又】【怕】【杨】【晨】【说】【看】【什】【么】【武】【技】【方】【面】【的】【书】【籍】，【又】【补】【充】【说】：“【不】【是】【修】【炼】【方】【面】【的】。【你】【总】【不】【可】【能】【一】【部】【电】【影】【也】【没】【有】【看】【过】【吧】？” “【这】【样】【啊】！”【杨】【晨】【回】【忆】【了】【一】【下】【道】：“【看】【过】【武】【侠】【片】【啥】【的】。” “【噗】【嗤】！”【唐】【姿】【不】【由】【娇】【笑】【了】【起】【来】，【他】【原】【本】【还】【以】【为】【杨】【晨】【会】【故】【作】【高】【深】，【说】【自】【己】【喜】【欢】【看】【文】【艺】【片】【之】【类】，【或】【者】【纪】【录】【片】【什】【么】【的】，【如】【此】【显】【得】【自】【己】【比】【较】【有】
【遣】【去】【黄】【扬】，【钱】【府】【尹】【则】【正】【色】【对】【嵇】【浒】【道】：“【贤】【侄】，【老】【夫】【要】【回】【府】【衙】【了】，【楚】【楚】【尚】【未】【醒】【来】，【待】【会】【你】【务】【必】【留】【下】【用】【过】【晚】【膳】【再】【走】。【老】【夫】【不】【定】【再】【来】，【你】【可】【记】【着】【了】。” 【嵇】【浒】【不】【敢】【违】【逆】，【自】【然】【应】【承】。【不】【过】，【钦】【差】【大】【臣】【突】【兀】【赶】【来】，【话】【说】“【无】【事】【不】【登】【三】【宝】【殿】”【到】【底】【有】【何】【要】【事】【发】【生】【呢】？“【钱】【叔】【叔】，【钦】【差】【大】【臣】【来】【应】【天】【莫】【非】【为】【了】【某】【事】？” 【钱】【府】【尹】【方】【欲】
【虽】【然】【没】【有】【写】【时】【间】，【但】【是】【这】【信】，【是】【一】【封】【诀】【别】【笺】。 【苏】【玉】【大】【致】【猜】【到】，【应】【该】【是】【她】【离】【开】【妖】【界】【的】【时】【候】【出】【现】【的】【这】【封】【信】。 【这】【就】【怪】【了】。【她】【明】【明】【是】【被】【莫】【名】【其】【妙】【扔】【出】【妖】【界】【的】，【甚】【至】【扔】【出】【去】【了】【再】【也】【没】【进】【来】，【怎】【么】【会】【有】【时】【间】【留】【下】【信】【呢】？ 【难】【道】【有】【人】【操】【纵】【了】【她】？【不】【能】【吧】，【她】【还】【不】【至】【于】【这】【么】【弱】，【但】【是】【这】【信】【也】【确】【确】【实】【实】【是】【她】【的】【字】，【也】【难】【怪】【卿】【歌】【会】【相】
【卡】【尔】【文】【等】【人】，【听】【从】【了】【穆】【的】【建】【议】，【为】【了】【充】【分】【发】【挥】【团】【队】【的】【优】【势】，【他】【们】【一】【上】【场】，【就】【采】【取】【了】【跟】【维】【罗】【萨】【其】【一】【样】【的】【抱】【团】【战】【术】。 【而】【之】【前】【的】【事】【实】【已】【经】【证】【明】，【这】【种】【战】【术】，【确】【实】【有】【强】【大】【的】【地】【方】，【却】【也】【不】【是】【没】【有】【缺】【点】【的】。 【刚】【刚】【结】【束】【的】【最】【近】【一】【场】【比】【赛】，【就】【已】【经】【证】【明】【了】【这】【点】。 【观】【众】【们】【和】【两】【位】【主】【持】【人】【普】【遍】【认】【为】，【只】【有】【在】【个】【人】【实】【力】【强】【大】，【团】【体】