Gearing Up for 2012 in Washington state: The First Step

By Todd Myers in Red County

Here’s a short quiz. When answering each question, consider also how the average person in Washington state, especially Western Washington, might answer.

1) Who gives more to charity per capita at all income levels, Republicans or Democrats? In other words, if a Republican and Democrat both make $50,000 a year, who gives more to charity?

2) Who reports they are happier with their lives, Republicans or Democrats?

3) Who acquires more education, Republicans or Democrats?

These aren’t trivial questions. The caricature of Republicans, at least in Western Washington, tends to be that Republicans are selfish, angry and stupid. Is it true? Of course not.

The answers to the questions are: Republicans, Republicans and Republicans (although here it gets murkier).

First, Republicans are more generous. In 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. Conservatives donate more time and give more blood. Republicans give more as a percentage of their incomes. These trends are independent of income – middle-class Republicans give more than middle-class Democrats. Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof lamented this fact in the Seattle Times in 2008, saying he wanted to ” to shame liberals into being more charitable.”

Second, Republicans are happier. The Pew Center has studied this issue for some time and concludes, “This big GOP edge in life’s happiness sweepstakes is not a new phenomenon. Ever since the General Social Survey first asked the question in 1972, Republicans have always been happier than Democrats.”

Third, there is a general correlation between education and support for Republicans. This was clearest in 2004, when John Kerry beat Bush among high school dropouts by a margin of 55-45. But Bush beat Kerry among those with some college (53-47) as well as those with college and post-graduate degrees (51-49).

Republicans also saw the largest improvement among college graduates from the elections in 2006 and those in 2010. While Republicans picked up seven points among those with high school diplomas or less (going from 44-46 to 48-43), they picked up 10 points among those with college degrees or more (going from 43-49 to 48-44).

To be sure, in 2008, Barack Obama won by his largest margins among those with post-graduate degrees. As the data above show, however, those are the very voters who defected in the largest numbers two years later in the midterm elections. They exchanged hope for reality.

This is a little different in Washington state, where those with some college give Republicans the highest percentage of the vote while PhDs vote Democrat in the highest percentage. This goes a bit against the grain of the national trends. Ultimately the best that can be said from Democrats’ point of view is that education does not correlate very well with voting behavior — a statement that contradicts their consistent claim of superior education.

While lefties such as the New York Times’ Tim Egan whined that the Republican surge of 2010 was built on the backs of “know-nothings,” the truth is the opposite: those with the highest education levels moved more sharply to the right than those with less education. (Ironically, Egan writes in his piece lamenting, “no reputable news agency — that is, fact-based, one that corrects its errors quickly — has spread such inaccuracies.” I wonder if his news agency will correct his inaccuracies.)

But while the evidence shows Republicans to be more generous, happier and generally more educated, my guess is that most people in Western Washington have the exact opposite answers on all counts.

Bob Moore and Hans Kaiser of Moore Information explained the impact this can have on Republicans. Analyzing the latest election results, they found,

“When Rossi lost to Christine Gregoire in 2004 Democrats held a four-point advantage in partisan identification among those who voted. In the huge Democratic year of 2008 they held a ten-point advantage in party identification. This year that spread increased to 12 points for Democrats.”

In other words, more people in Washington are calling the Democratic party their home, even in a strong Republican year.

Why? Is it because they disagree with Republicans on the issues? Clearly not. Voters supported conservative positions on the 2010 initiatives by large margins.

It is more likely that voters are choosing party affiliation based in part on with whom they are more comfortable. Who wants to be part of a group they perceive as selfish, angry and dumb? Who wouldn’t want to be with the group that is caring, fun and smart? Economist Bryan Caplan notes that since the cost of joining one party or another is zero, “we should expect people to…believe whatever makes them feel best.” The benefits we get from voting don’t consist solely of promoting good policy. We also get the ability to put a bumper sticker on our car indicating that we are part of a selected and erudite group (and one that is probably more attractive to the opposite sex). This is especially true of those for whom the cost of policy changes is small either because they are not affected or because they are wealthy.

This is an important consideration for Republicans in Washington state leading up to the 2012 campaign. In response to my piece on why Washington’s Republicans underperformed in 2010, some who agreed with me that lack of GOP turnout was not the issue, argued that we need to improve our “messaging.” I don’t think this is correct, at least in the traditional sense.

Usually what people mean when they talk about “messaging” is the discussion of issues and issue priorities. It is precisely what President Obama blamed for his nationwide losses this year. Ironically, Republicans are in a favorable position on the issues. The priorities of independent voters, and even conservative Democrats, are closer those of Republican candidates than of the Democrats who lead the state.

The problem is more difficult. Republicans must demonstrate that the caricature of the party is simply false. Republicans must convey the message that identifying yourself as a Republican means you are joining a group that is fundamentally generous (and generous with our own money, not just others’), thoughtful and based in a happy and optimistic view of the world. The advantage we have is that this also happens to be true. Voters must feel that voting for Republicans is not merely correct, but also comforting and worth bragging about.

This is a difficult challenge. Images are not the stuff of single grand gestures but of consistent and sincere efforts. Ultimately, how Republicans address this caricature will be borne out over time. First, though, we must begin to appreciate how corrosive the standard stereotype has become. Only then can we begin to change it.