Wednesday, May 29, 2019

ANS -- More candidates should have Jay Inslee’s problem

Here's a short article (from March) about the merits of Jay Inslee as a candidate for pres.  We'll have to watch him, see if his spark ignites.  

More candidates should have Jay Inslee's problem

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee takes questions from reporters on March 1 during a campaign event at A&R Solar in Seattle. (Ted S. Warren/AP)
Opinion writer
March 5

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) announced that the top issue in his presidential primary race will be climate change. Few Democrats doubt the importance of the issue or Inslee's commitment, but the reaction to his race, ironically, has generally been: What about all the other great things he has done?

In an interview with Inslee Monday night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddowreviewed a litany of his progressive bona fides: votes in Congress for banning automatic weapons, for retaining the estate tax and against the Iraq War; successful implementation as governor of paid family leave, an increased minimum wage, the legalization of marijuana, a moratorium on the death penalty and state net neutrality; support for a state public option; and a leading role in suing the administration over the Muslim ban. "If you run on climate change," she asked Inslee, "what are you most worried that you are leaving out?"

Inslee, who's a more dynamic speaker than one might expect for a wonkish governor, responded with an impassioned argument that climate change is about the economy and national security as well. "What I've demonstrated in my state," he said, "is we can advance a climate action agenda while doing all these other things." But governing is about setting priorities, he says, and if this is not the top priority, it won't get done.


All that said, Inslee isn't shy about touting his record in Washington. His website reminds us he "created thousands of clean energy jobs, dramatically expanded voter rights, protected LGBTQI Americans from discrimination, provided affordable health care to 800,000 more Washingtonians, passed Reproductive Parity for all women, became the first state to stand up to Trump's Muslim ban, and passed historic investments in public schools, teacher pay and infrastructure." All these topics will come up in debates, interviews and town halls.

However, Inslee does have the opportunity both to set himself apart in the crowd candidates (the "green energy guy") and to get his record, far more impressive than virtually all the declared candidates, in front of the voters. The argument goes like this: Climate change deniers and minimizers present a false choice between a robust economy and a sustainable environment. His record shows you can have both plus progressive policies.

In short, he has the best case to make that rather than push a Pollyanna-ish wish list like the Green New Deal, Inslee knows how to build a high-growth, progressive agenda with green energy as its central organizing principle.

We've bemoaned the lack of executive experience and concrete achievements in a field heretofore dominated by progressive senators chasing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for the title of "most easily typecast as loony socialist." That's not Inslee. As a governor with a long track record, he need not pander to voters; he can simply tell them what he's done.

Democrats are looking for the ideal candidate — progressive but not too progressive, experienced but not overexposed, plenty of gravitas but also a happy warrior, and forceful enough to stand up to Trump. If we use the Eric Holder test — someone with capacity, honesty, inclusiveness, vision and experience — Inslee gets high marks. Now we have to see if he can put it all together in a polished campaign and find an early state in which to beat expectations.

ANS -- Late term abortions

One of our readers shared this on Facebook.  I thought it was a beautiful answer to the question of late term abortions.  
don't know where to find it again.  

Daniel Ferguson

Pete Buttigieg with the only acceptable answer RE: "late term abortions:"

Buttigieg: I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line and I trust women to draw the line when it's their own health.

Chris Wallace: So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman, well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy.

Buttigieg: Look, these hypotheticals are usually set up in order to provoke a strong emotional --

Wallace: It's not hypothetical, there are 6,000 women a year who get abortions in the third trimester.

Buttigieg: That's right, representing less than 1 percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, then almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

ANS -- Kamala Harris has a plan to stop states from restricting abortion access

This article outlines a good idea from Kamala Harris -- about how to deal with laws restricting abortion more than Roe v. Wade does -- but I am sending it because it also mentions other ideas from other candidates.  A sort of overview.  
I would say that having all these women running for pres seems to have increased the creativity a lot.  -- some kind of synergistic effect?

Kamala Harris has a plan to stop states from restricting abortion access

She thinks some states should have to ask the Justice Department permission before passing restrictive abortion laws.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) fields questions at the Asian and Latino Coalition at the Iowa Statehouse on February 23, 2019 in Des Moines, Iowa.  Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Kamala Harris has a new plan to limit state-level abortion restrictions, and it's modeled after the Voting Rights Act.

Under Harris's proposal, states whose abortion-related laws have recently been struck down by courts for violating Roe v. Wade would have to obtain federal approval from the Justice Department before they're able to implement any new abortion laws.

It's similar to a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which required states that had implemented discriminatory voting practices in the past to get Justice Department clearance to enforce additional laws. As a result of this requirement, the department blocked 86 election-related updates that could have disenfranchised people of color between 1998 and 2013, according to Harris's campaign.

The California senator and 2020 contender is set to unveil this proposal during an MSNBC town hall on Tuesday night, a move that comes in the wake of multiple states passing severe restrictions to reproductive rights, including a near-total ban on abortion in Alabama.

Harris's plan would have to be enacted by Congress — likely a tough sell if the Senate remains Republican-controlled — but if approved, it would empower the Justice Department to use the same Voting Rights Act approach on laws related to reproductive rights. Right now, if a state passes a law on abortion rights that contradicts Roe, for example, it faces court challenges aimed at preventing it from going into effect, but the burden is on activists to mount these cases. Harris's plan would preempt such challenges by forcing states to justify to the Justice Department why the laws aren't violating constitutional precedent in the first place.

This aspect of the plan is a game-changer, says Laurie Rubiner, a former vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood. "What is different about this is that she's really going on the offense," she told Vox. "The onus would be on the states and the anti-choice legislators who are passing these laws." Under Harris's plan, laws like Alabama's near-total abortion ban would not be enforceable without Justice Department approval.

Just like the agency has been able to block laws that likely would have restricted voting rights, it would be able to do the same on laws aimed at restricting abortion rights.

What Harris's plan would do

Harris's plan, much like the Voting Rights Act originally did, would establish a list of states that aren't able to impose abortion-related laws without Justice Department approval.

Any state that's demonstrated a pattern of violating Roe in the past 25 years would be on this list. A congressional formula would decide which reproductive health laws counted as violations based on court settlements or decisions that found a state's law directly contradicts the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision, which established a woman's constitutional right to abortion.

In states like South Carolina, Iowa, Georgia, and Mississippi, federal judges have already ruled that laws approved by state legislatures contradict Roe. Such decisions would land these states on a "preclearance" list.

States that are on this list would not be able to legally enforce any abortion laws until they get approval from the Justice Department. As a result, the department would be able to bar state laws from ultimately going into effect if they do not match up with the precedent set by Roe and additional policies detailed by the Women's Health Protection Act, which targets regulations like mandatory waiting periods that make it tougher for women to obtain abortions.

This clearance requirement was a highly effective pillar of the Voting Rights Act — until part of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 in the Shelby County v. Holder case. In that decision, the Court called on Congress to craft an updated version of the law that would use a formula based on more recent historical data to identify the states that have engaged in discriminatory practices.

Harris's campaign argues that her plan on reproductive rights actually addresses the concerns that were raised in that 2013 decision, since the states that are designated for Justice Department clearance would be determined by actions they've taken in the past 25 years.

If this policy were to become law, it could have a major impact on states' abilities to enforce rules that limit abortion after a certain timeframe, like the "fetal heartbeat" bills in Georgia, Ohio, and Kentucky, which ban abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy — before many people know they're pregnant. As Harris's campaign notes, states have passed more than a thousand abortion restrictions since 1995.

Much like efforts to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that seeks to codify Roe as law, however, this proposal faces some serious headwinds. It's set to have an uphill battle in Congress, especially under divided government. Even if Democrats keep the House and retake the Senate, they would need 60 votes in the upper chamber to push such legislation through.

Additionally, it's possible that the plan could encounter court challenges from anti-abortion rights advocates arguing that such a law infringes on states' rights — though Rubiner notes that she believes Harris's idea passes "constitutional muster."

Harris's plan highlights the role the federal government could play on this issue

So far, the abortion rights fight is one that's played out primarily in the courts. Harris's proposal offers another indication of what the federal government could do to protect abortion rights outside the judiciary.

Other candidates have also rolled out policies focused on curbing efforts in the states: Sen. Elizabeth Warren's plan includes backing for the Women's Health Protection Act, which bars state laws that target abortion providers, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's would create a new stream of funding that ensures access to reproductive health centers in every state. Sen. Cory Booker has said he intends to establish an Office of Reproductive Freedom dedicated to developing policies on this issue.

A major question that's emerged as states approve aggressive restrictions on abortion rights is what role the president and Congress could play in protecting them. Appointing judges that would defend Roe is one clear option, something that Gillibrand committed to early on and is now backed by pretty much every 2020 Democrat. Many candidates have also said they support repealing the Hyde amendment, which prevents individuals from using Medicaid to cover abortion costs, and codifying Roe as law.

In unveiling her recent proposal, Harris argues that codifying Roe is not enough. In addition to doing that, she says, there needs to be a check placed on states before they're able to enforce any laws that go up against established precedent.

"You do really shift the burden to these states and say enough is enough," Rubiner says of Harris's plan.

ANS -- Republicans attend rally to carve out new Christian state: ‘It’s either going to be bloodshed or Liberty State’

This is a shocking story of some people who want to carve out a 51st state and are threatening violence if they don't get it.  The meeting about it is near Spokane, wa, where we will be for a week next month for GA.  Something about threatening violence in order to get a Christian state seems off to me, but I think I know a different Jesus than they do.... : -) 

Republicans attend rally to carve out new Christian state: 'It's either going to be bloodshed or Liberty State'

By  - May 24, 2019

The far-right gathered in Spokane Valley to push for the creation of Liberty State, a 51st US state that is intended to be something of a wildlife sanctuary for Christian conservatives, the Spokesman-Reviewreported Friday.

"The Liberty State Gala drew about 200 people to the CenterPlace Regional Event Center in Spokane Valley. Supporters of the new Christian conservative state – which would span parts of Washington and Oregon as well as Idaho, Montana and Wyoming – raised money by auctioning pies and other desserts," the newspaper reported.

One of the speakers was notorious far-right Republican state Rep. Matt Shea. Shea published a "biblical war" manifesto last fall.

In April, Shea was caught conspiring to far-right extremists to commit acts of violence against liberal activists. In response, Shea quoted an anti-Semitic website to lash out at the journalist who exposed him.

Shea was not the only elected official to attend the Liberty State rally.

"The lineup of speakers included Shea, a Spokane Valley Republican who has championed the Liberty State movement; Spokane City Councilman Mike Fagan; Spokane City Council candidate Tim Benn; and Loren Culp, the police chief in Republic, Washington, who made national headlines when he pledged not to enforce a controversial gun control initiative that voters passed in November," the Spokesman-Review noted. "County Prosecutor Larry Haskell, former Treasurer Rob Chase and gun activist Anthony Bosworth also were in attendance, as were Barry and Anne Byrd, who lead the Marble Community Fellowship in northern Stevens County."

Shea's legislative assistant, Rene' Holaday, warned of violence if people did not go along with the idea of the new state.

"It's either going to be bloodshed or Liberty State," Holaday said ominously.

Monday, May 27, 2019

ANS -- The Far Right Takeover of America is Almost Complete

Here's a fairly extreme article.  I think he's correct.  What do you think? (He says we have been successfully taken over by the extreme Right, the fascist authoritarians.)

The Far Right Takeover of America is Almost Complete

What Happens When Fanatical Extremists Capture All of a Country's Institutions?

I read recently that America was added to the list of countries most dangerous in the world for journalists. That comes hot on the heels of America being among the ten worst places to be a woman, the worst place in the rich world to be a mother or a child or a retiree, and many, many more places on dismal lists of worsts. Why is that?

When I look at America, here's what I see. A country where the extreme, fanatical right wing takeover of its institutions — all of them — is almost complete. From laws to courts, representation to presidency, norms to rules, from press to public sphere — America is now controlled almost entirely and exclusively by the most fanatical kind of right wingers the rich world hasn't seen for decades, probably since Nazi Germany. Yes, I mean that. Let me make my case — and you can judge for yourself whether my words carry any weight.

(And let me say at the outset — I emphatically don't say any of that to mean the reductive left versus right frame of American cable news and pop culture. "All conservatives are bad, man!!" Not at all. I have many conservative leanings, from my belief in virtue to the value of history to the need for meaning, found primarily in morality. I don't think conservatism's bad — I think it's gone completely haywire, and it's conserving all the wrong things, instead of any of the right ones. Hence, I don't think every conservative is a fanatic or extremist — and so what I do think is that decent and sane people on both left and right should be deeply worried about what's happening in America today.)

Let's start with an obvious example. Until and unless the Mueller Report is released — and I mean in a substantive way, not the heavily redacted version — Americans should consider their judiciary not just badly compromised, but broken. But the judiciary often the last cornerstone of a democracy — because while you can lose many things, as long as there are even somewhat impartial courts to try crimes in, democracy has a chance. And so the capture of the American judiciary by extreme right wing fanatics is something that you should be very worried about, indeed. It suggests that democracy in America is now in profound jeopardy.

But you might have been worried about American democracy for some time now. After all, researchers are — America's democracy is ranked as barely functional, and that's generous, if you ask me. Why? Because the other two branches of government have been captured by the extreme right, too.

The sad story of America's takeover by right wing extremists begins with the legislature. (At least in simple, tactical terms.) Through the 90s, a band of vocal extremists, the Newts and so forth, explicitly began to reject the basic tenets of democracy — representation, compromise, norms of decency, red lines of civility — and instead began something like a carefully, deliberately planned war against democracy.

They employed every tactic well known to those who wish to topple governments. Propaganda flooded American homes — robocalls. Districts were redrawn in ludicrous ways. Dirty money fueled the machine. Candidates were chosen not on the basis of whether they represented peoples' preferences — but whether they represented the machines' owners, which, by this point, were a bizarre cocktail of lunatic capitalists, ideological Ayn Randists, and crackpot pundits. Wham! Soon enough, the legislature had been captured by what many called cheap tricks — but were in fact tactics inimical to democracy, which is the exercise of equals, seeking freedom and truth and justice, in the first place.

That, of course, culminated in the Tea Party's takeover of Congress — but the house of cards had been built for a decade or more by the time that happened. The GOP had been taken over by its extremists — and those extremists used tactics more reminiscent of KGB or CIA campaigns to destabilize banana republics than anything resembling democracy in a rich country. Irony, karma — call it what you will.

And then came the disastrous election of a demagogue. The executive was soon enough occupied by a team of the most fanatical right wingers imaginable — people with genuine white supremacist and Nazi sympathies (not to mention fantasies), the kind that the entire rest of the world reeled in horror and hilarity from.

Now the vicious cycle so familiar in poorer countries kicked in in America. Since the executive and legislature were both controlled by extremists, they could use their power to corrode the last institution of government standing — the judiciary. Hence, soon enough, courts were stacked, culminating in the bizarre scenario surrounding the Mueller Report: it's Schrodinger's Report, which both exists, and doesn't exist. And you can bet that if and when it is released, the public version will be more black marker than text.

Bang! All three branches of American government had fallen to right wing fanatics — in about three decades or so. The pattern, for those who wish to really understand social collapses, matters. First the legislature — easy pickings. Then the executive — harder, but thanks to a little help from friends, eminently doable. Then the judiciary, using the powers of a corroded legislature and executive, to reshape it. It's a pattern all too familiar to those who study democratic decline — we've seen it in, for example, Nazi Germany, African genocide, and Latin American civil war. And now, weirdly, strangely, sadly — in the US of A.

But you can't capture the three branches of government if social institutions are working properly. Institutions such as the press, academia, media, and so on. And yet here too, American institutions failed, and failed catastrophically.

During the election, the press focused on "but her emails!!" — despite warnings of a fascist-authoritarian spiral kicking off from the other side. Never mind — don't be an alarmist! After the election, instead of ruminating over their mistakes and learning anything, the press took an already bad job…and made it absurdly terrible. The New York Times did sympathetic profiles of neighborhood Nazis for a year or so. CNN and MSNBC and so forth have yet to say the words authoritarianism and fascism. And so on.

American media was hopelessly out of its depth. Jake Tapper and Morning Joe and the other privileged elite white dudes of America literally couldn't believe what they were facing…so they didn't. Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes laughed at the idea that America could see anything like genuine authoritarianism, replete with concentration camps…which took just a year or two to build. America's press was perpetually surprised by what was happening right before its eyes, and still is: a fanatical right wing takeover of American institutions, that's almost complete by now.

The press, though, couldn't have gotten away with it, really, if America's thinkers had been seeing things clearly. But they weren't, either. Nobody, really, in America's thinking class saw any of this coming. Nobody, really, connected any of the dots. Maybe a Chomsky — a fringe figure here or there. But in the mainstream, those licensed and applauded by the establishment? The Steve Pinkers and David Brookses of the world? Like the Ezras and Chrises, they'd have laughed a half decade ago if you said something like "hey, do you get that the extreme right is taking over America, institution by institution?"

But what about the people? One of the last institutions to fall to the fanatical extreme right in America was the public sphere itself. When Americans met each other for brews at their local bar, there might have been a little hope for opposites to get along. But by the 2010s, the American public sphere consisted of a few corporations — Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. These corporations weren't just indifferent to right wing fanatics — they promoted them, recommended them, endorsed them, and paid them fortunes. You couldn't spend a day on these websites — which were the American public sphere — without being harassed, bullied, mocked, and shouted at, or, if you were a woman or minority, worse: being threatened with violence.

Nobody quite understood it, but the public sphere itself had been taken over by right wing extremists, who, trolling, policed it for any dissent, any difference, any divergence from their backwards party line, with threats, intimidation, bullying, mob justice. America didn't have a happy, buzzing town square anymore, so much as a square policed by marching wannabe fascists for anything resembling liberalism, feminism, or the hated social justice. But when a public sphere is taken over by fanatics — how can a democracy function?

And so here we are. The far right takeover of America is almost complete. Fanatical extremists of a kind unseen since Nazi Germany have taken over almost every single last American institution, from government to public sphere. It happened like this. The thinkers didn't police the press. The press didn't police the politicians. The politicians didn't police the fanatics amongst them. The people couldn't police anyone, because the fanatics were policing them by now. The blind were leading the blind, in other words. Soon enough, institution by institution, right before everyone's disbelieving eyes, the fanatics had taken over American institutions wholesale.

In the press — where bizarre, idiotic fanatical right wing lines like "we're too broke to afford healthcare for everyone!" (hello, we can literally print infinite money the world will buy) became not just "normalized" — but something like gospel, impossible to refute or even rebut or debate. Even "liberal media" like MSNC and the New York Times tilted so far to the right — never, for example, explaining to Americans just how poor their lives were now — that they were laughed at as absurd in working countries like Sweden, France, Canada.

Among politicians, soon enough, fanaticism grew to become centered, normal, desirable — not so long ago, America had 70% marginal tax rates — and politics became something like a competition for who could be the most idiotic, foolish extremist of them all. Hence, soon enough, places like Kansas and Wisconsin were closing schools and hospitals.

Among thinkers, nobody seemed to mind that society seemed to have lost its mind. Nobody stepped in to say "hey, guys? All our institutions are being taken over by right wing extremists. Hello? We've got to stop this trend before its too late." Instead, they were busy promoting bizarre ideas like "resilience" and "austerity", like greed being good, like abusing your neighbor being the best for everyone, which more or less sealed the extremist deal, legitimizing extremism as a way of thought, of life.

And in the public sphere, if you were brave enough to utter any semblance of decency or truth, look out — you'd be harassed and harried and threatened by an army of trolls, calling you all kinds of names. And meanwhile, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter were all recommending to your friends, family, and colleagues, that they follow extremists of the most fanatical variety.

Bang! Soon enough, it was game over. By 2019 — now — the following institutions had all fallen to the fanatical extreme right. The executive. The judiciary. The legislature. The press. The public sphere. What was left?

Not much, my friends, not much. And that is the point. The extreme right wing takeover of America is almost complete, finito, over and done with. There is very little standing in the way now. By my reckoning, one last barely functioning institution. An election. Will it matter — or will apathy and fear carry the day? You be the judge of that.

April 2019

ANS -- Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds

This is an article about a study showing we were all wrong about Trump voters having economic anxiety, it's more that they have anxiety about losing status-- of straight white males not being firmly on top of the hierarchy anymore.  If this is true, and it does seem to be, then it should change the strategy when it comes to how the Dems would win back the Senate and the presidency in the 2020 election.  Since it is out of the question to tell white males they are going to be back on top, it makes it totally imperative that the rest of society get out and vote.  Maybe an explicitly non-hierarchical statement?  What else?  (I have been thinking about a catchphrase: Make America Fair Again. )  What do you think?


Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds

A Trump supporter at a campaign rally in Sacramento in June 2016. A new study found that many Trump voters were driven by fear of losing their status in society.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
A Trump supporter at a campaign rally in Sacramento in June 2016. A new study found that many Trump voters were driven by fear of losing their status in society.CreditCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
  • April 24, 2018

Ever since Donald J. Trump began his improbable political rise, many pundits have credited his appeal among white, Christian and male voters to "economic anxiety." Hobbled by unemployment and locked out of the recovery, those voters turned out in force to send Mr. Trump, and a message, to Washington.

Or so that narrative goes.

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences questions that explanation, the latest to suggest that Trump voters weren't driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

"It's much more of a symbolic threat that people feel,'' said Diana C. Mutz, the author of the study and a political science and communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she directs the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics. "It's not a threat to their own economic well-being; it's a threat to their group's dominance in our country over all."

The study is not the first to cast doubt on the prevailing economic anxiety theory. Last year, a Public Religion Research Institute survey of more than 3,000 people also found that Mr. Trump's appeal could better be explained by a fear of cultural displacement.


In her study, Dr. Mutz sought to answer two questions: Is there evidence to support the economic anxiety argument, and did the fear of losing social dominance drive some voters to Mr. Trump? To find answers, she analyzed survey data from a nationally representative group of about 1,200 voters polled in 2012 and 2016.

In both years, participants were asked the same wide-ranging set of questions. Party loyalty overwhelmingly explained how most people voted, but Dr. Mutz's statistical analysis focused on those who bucked the trend, switching their support to the Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, in 2016.

Even before conducting her analysis, Dr. Mutz noted two reasons for skepticism of the economic anxiety, or "left behind," theory. First, the economy was improving before the 2016 presidential campaign. Second, while research has suggested that voters are swayed by the economy, there is little evidence that their own financial situation similarly influences their choices at the ballot box.

The analysis offered even more reason for doubt.

Losing a job or income between 2012 and 2016 did not make a person any more likely to support Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found. Neither did the mere perception that one's financial situation had worsened. A person's opinion on how trade affected personal finances had little bearing on political preferences. Neither did unemployment or the density of manufacturing jobs in one's area.


"It wasn't people in those areas that were switching, those folks were already voting Republican," Dr. Mutz said.

For further evidence, Dr. Mutz also analyzed a separate survey, conducted in 2016 by NORC at the University of Chicago, a research institution. It showed that anxieties about retirement, education and medical bills also had little impact on whether a person supported Mr. Trump.

Last year's Public Religion Research Institute report went even further, finding a link, albeit a weak one, between poor white, working-class Americans and support for Hillary Clinton.

While economic anxiety did not explain Mr. Trump's appeal, Dr. Mutz found reason instead to credit those whose thinking changed in ways that reflected a growing sense of racial or global threat.

In 2012, voters perceived little difference between themselves and the candidates on trade. But, by 2016, the voters had moved slightly right, while they perceived Mr. Trump as moving about as far right as Mrs. Clinton had moved left. As a result, the voters, in a defensive crouch, found themselves closer to Mr. Trump.

On the threat posed by China, voters hardly moved between 2012 and 2016, but while they perceived both presidential candidates as being to their left in 2012, they found Mr. Trump as having moved just to their right by 2016, again placing them closer to the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.

In both cases, the findings revealed a fear that American global dominance was in danger, a belief that benefited Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.


"The shift toward an antitrade stance was a particularly effective strategy for capitalizing on a public experiencing status threat due to race as well as globalization," Dr. Mutz wrote in the study.

Her survey also assessed "social dominance orientation," a common psychological measure of a person's belief in hierarchy as necessary and inherent to a society. People who exhibited a growing belief in such group dominance were also more likely to move toward Mr. Trump, Dr. Mutz found, reflecting their hope that the status quo be protected.

"It used to be a pretty good deal to be a white, Christian male in America, but things have changed and I think they do feel threatened," Dr. Mutz said.

The other surveys supported the cultural anxiety explanation, too.

For example, Trump support was linked to a belief that high-status groups, such as whites, Christians or men, faced more discrimination than low-status groups, like minorities, Muslims or women, according to Dr. Mutz's analysis of the NORC study.

What does it matter which kind of anxiety — cultural or economic — explains Mr. Trump's appeal?

If wrong, the prevailing economic theory lends unfounded virtue to his victory, crediting it to the disaffected masses, Dr. Mutz argues. More important, she said, it would teach the wrong lesson to elected officials, who often look to voting patterns in enacting new policy.