David Leonhardt: The Howard Schultz delusion

Most Americans are not socially liberal and economically conservative. View in [Browser]( | Add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( Tuesday, January 29, 2019 [NYTimes.com/David-Leonhardt »]( [Op-Ed Columnist] Op-Ed Columnist 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. 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. Elsewhere … 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. ADVERTISEMENT If you enjoy this newsletter, forward it to friends! They can [sign up for themselves here]( — and they don’t need to be a Times subscriber. The newsletter is published every weekday, with help from my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick. David’s Morning NYT Read [A Better Way to Tax the Rich]( By STEVEN RATTNER Raise the capital gains tax and treat investment earnings like ordinary income. The Full Opinion Report [Elizabeth Warren Does Teddy Roosevelt]( By PAUL KRUGMAN Taxing the superrich is an idea whose time has come — again. [Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President]( By MICHELLE GOLDBERG A bid by an ex-chief of Starbucks would be reckless idiocy. [The Trump Doctrine]( By ROSS DOUTHAT A chaotic administration’s unexpectedly coherent grand strategy. [Kindness Is a Skill]( By DAVID BROOKS Practical tips for fighting a culture of savagery. [The Democratic Promise of Ocasio-Cortez, Warren and Sanders]( By JAMELLE BOUIE Economic power corrupts, and absolute economic power corrupts absolutely. [It’ll Be a While Before Anyone Underestimates Nancy Pelosi Again]( By GAIL COLLINS AND BRET STEPHENS A long while. [No People. No Process. No Policy.]( By ANTONY J. BLINKEN The Trump administration is not prepared for a foreign policy crisis. [Italy’s Strength: Comfort in Disharmony]( By BEPPE SEVERGNINI In a time of confusion and fear across Europe and America, Italians’ emotions also are at fever pitch. But that’s not enough to break their real core: the joys of life itself. [Should Scientists Toy With the Secret to Life?]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD The gene-editing technology Crispr has the power to remake life as we know it. Questions about how to use it concern everyone. [This Man Is Revered Among the Taliban. Can He End the Afghan War?]( By AHMED RASHID Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is expected to join peace talks with the Americans. [Breaking Through Ideological Bubbles in Poland]( By TINA ROSENBERG Polarization is everywhere. But it’s being challenged in Poland by a handful of magazines across the political spectrum. They’ve begun sharing articles, to show readers a variety of viewpoints. [Sudan Overcomes Divisions to Protest Bashir’s Misrule]( By NASREDEEN ABDULBARI Protests in Sudan set off by economic crisis and misrule have forged a tenuous unity among various ethnic and regional groups. [Robert Mugabe’s Long Shadow]( By THE EDITORIAL BOARD The despot of Zimbabwe was ousted in 2017. But much remains of his tyranny and misrule. [Don’t Be a Spoiler, Mr. Schultz]( Two readers urge the former Starbucks C.E.O. not to run as an independent. How am I doing? I’d love your feedback. Please send thoughts and suggestions to [leonhardt@nytimes.com](mailto:leonhardt@nytimes.com?subject=David%20Leonhardt%20Newsletter%20Feedback). ADVERTISEMENT FOLLOW OPINION [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytopinion]( [Pinterest] [Pinterest]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »](  | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's David Leonhardt newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018