I have no doubt that women of color, newly-tolerated gay people, and the coastal “intelligentsia” lean left in the same way that military personnel lean right. Still, Sahil Chinoy has a fascinating piece in the Sunday NYT. A lot of what is announced as truth is…puzzling.
One, “the Republican Party has tended toward homogeneity” because it recruits conservative, white, “pro-life” Christians. In contrast, the Democratic Party is “diverse” because it recruits liberal, non-white, a-religious or anti-religious, pro-choice people. So, why is one party “diverse” and the other party is “homogenous”? Is skin color and gender alone what define “diversity”? In fact, both parties are ideologically homogenous.
Two, Chinoy rolls out the common belief that the Civil Rights Act (1964) cost Democrats control of the South. While this may be psychologically comforting to progressive people, there doesn’t seem to be much historical truth to it. Southern whites did what Northern whites did: the moved to the suburbs and, when necessary, put their kids in religious schools not subject to the demands of “Brown v. Board of Education.” Thus, school and housing segregation remained largely intact. Southern whites only began to become Republicans when Democrats embraced the nationalization of divisive social beliefs. These include abortion, gun control, marriage equality, the secular sharia that seek to exclude religion from public life, and opposition to the “right to work” laws that under-pinned recent “Sun Belt” industrialization.
Three, the Democrats used to be the party of the white working class (see above), but now—purportedly–these voters are moving toward the Republicans. Conversely, the Republicans used to be the party of the better-educated, but now these voters are moving toward the Democrats. Except that all low-income voters now lean only slightly (+3 percent) toward the Democrats, while both high-income and middle-income voters lean toward the Republicans (+14 percent for both groups). Also, the “working class” and everyone else aren’t far apart. In
Four, and most fascinating, human relationships matter for party identification. The “never married” lean +28 percent Democrat, and 57 percent of un-married women lean Democratic. Meanwhile “Everyone Else” (i.e. men, married women) leans only +2 percent Democrat. In contrast, white evangelical Christians lean +41 percent Republican.
Arguably, people who have trouble maintaining personal relationships favor an active state, while people who have strong personal relationships feel less need.
 Sahil Chinoy, “”Predicting Your Party,” NYT, 11 August 2019. My remarks touch on only a segment of Chinoy’s observations. The whole article will reward a close reading.
 In short, the NYT defines “diversity” in racial and gender terms, rather than in ideological terms.
 That is, “Every knee must bend.” I agree with most of these policies, but then I’ve lived in Seattle, Boston, Paris, and—now—Philadelphia. I wouldn’t have accepted that a bunch of dumb crackers could impose their views on me and my wife and children. Maybe they don’t think that someone should impose their views on their community?
 Are the opinions of better-educated people more worthy of respect than the opinions of less-educated people? If so, then the Republican Party must have been right and the Democrats wrong for most of the 20th Century. If not, then what difference does it make how different groups vote?
 Marriage ended tragically, or just ugly. I done this. Eventually tried “Match.com.” Bunch of Stepford wives or self-absorbed jerks. Shook out much better for me than for many people. The NYT is all bent out of shape about Twitter, but what if “Match” or “eHarmony” tells us more about the state of the union?
 Go to church on Sunday, turn around in the pews to shake hands with people, go for silver dollar pancakes with the kids afterward, do Bible study some other day. Not for me. Still, you form a community.