The Corner of Mis and Trust

One of the side effects of increasing political polarization in the United States, and the erosion of social trust that has come with it, is a greater unwillingness to see other people charitably. (And given how often I can be uncharitable, I feel odd typing that.) For example:

The Washington Post published an editorial last month noting that political polarization is increasing along gender lines, with young ("Generation Z") women starting to lean more liberal, and young men starting to lean more conservative. Since assortative mating is also starting to take politics into account, the Post's editorial board was concerned that this could lead to a reduction in marriage rates.

Cue teapot tempest. According to Salon, "It's a good thing most women don't want to date Trump voters," portraying a "no Trump voters" requirement as "the bare minimum." A writer for Medium questions the Post's intentions, asking: "First of all, doesn’t it seem like maybe we’re talking about something else here? Like how worried we are, as a nation, about protecting and cultivating the proliferation of white families and white babies, perhaps?" An author for Lawyers Guns Money accuses the Post of "Malicious false equivalency" and "Refusal to acknowledge right wing violence."

The Daily Kos also had some slings and arrows for the Post's editorial board, taking issue with the following:

As a whole, men are increasingly struggling with, or suffering from, higher unemployment, lower rates of educational attainment, more drug addiction and deaths of despair, and generally less purpose and direction in their lives.

Not so fast, said the Kos author, noting: "Higher unemployment? Really? It’s 3.9%. 'Lower rates of educational attainment?' Nope. Those rates are higher than ever, for both men and women," and then proceeding to flog the editorial board for not blaming the problem on things that liberal America stereotypically cares about, like "stagnant wage growth, out of control housing, and health care costs" and "the male ego and a wounded sense of their assumed primacy in our society."

But here's the thing. I understood, when I read the section quoted from the Washington Post, that they weren't speaking in absolute terms over time, but about men relative to women. Because according to The Education Data Initiative, while "Male and female educational attainment rates both increased between 2010 and 2022," it's also the case that "There is a greater percentage of women who obtain each educational tier compared to men from high school to master’s degree." And that for the current crop of 18 to 24-year olds, while men are more likely to have a high school diploma, they're also more likely to have not attained one. And women convincingly own the post-secondary degree statistics. And this is nothing new.

Likewise, the Department of Labor notes that the unemployment rate for men is higher than it is for women. Again, this isn't something that popped up out of the blue in late November, when open season on the Post was declared.

This isn't to say that the editorial was above reproach. It's paywalled, so I haven't read all of it myself, but the coverage of it pointed out valid limitations in the sample they were using, and like many such things, the employment data is too generalized to be of real use.

Of course, there's nothing unusual going on here. People are seeking to validate, and then amplify, the beliefs of their audiences. Because that's how one attracts, and retains, said audiences. And unlike myself, a number of the people that I've taken note of here write for money; they're charging for subscriptions, selling advertising on their pages or both. And that requires an audience who is willing (or at least perceived to be willing) to share disposable income. I write because I want to write, and Alphabet doesn't charge me anything to host my blog. It takes time, but no money on my part, so I lack a profit motive.

As polarization grows (which it can't do forever) and the camps define themselves more and more by their opposition to the other, we can expect to see more of this sort of thing. And that's partially because the country is at a point where being uncharitable is seen as the correct thing to do. I'm somewhat Left-leaning overall, but not particularly partisan because I don't believe that there are a number of people in the political and media spheres who are engaged in deliberate wrongdoing. I might not agree with what they're up to, but I would still submit that they're actively engaged in doing what they think will make the world a better place. It may turn out to be a road to nothing but sorrow and pain, but it's genuinely paved with good intentions.

P.S.: It's also worth noting that the American Enterprise Institute noted that attitudes towards Donald Trump was becoming a deciding factor in who people would or would not date some three years ago... The Washington Post isn't the first to see something here.