Inequality and Politics

Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality. The effects of inequality reach many corners of American life.

Dan Merica and Matthew Choi at WP:

One data point in our colleague Gaya Gupta’s write-up of recent findings by the Census Bureau stuck out to us: While most Americans’ household income remained steady or fell because of inflation last year, the wealthiest 10 percent of households saw their incomes rise.

That simple finding — which could easily be boiled down to the aphorism “the rich get richer, the poor get poorer” — explains so much about our populist politics at this moment, from the left gravitating to a strident anti-rich rhetoric and politicians who authentically understand their economic plight to the right embracing President Donald Trump and his simple political message that the system is rigged against most Americans.

It also explains why the cost of living and prices have been the most determinative issues in our politics in recent elections. That was true in 2024, when voters regularly ranked the economy as their most important issue, and the economy remains top of mind now. A study by the Pew Research Center in December found that only 30 percent of Americans are satisfied with their pay, particularly because it has not kept up with rising prices.

“It is reconstituting the types of political coalitions that can be made and changing what sort of policies and actions those voters want,” said Alyssa Cass, a longtime Democratic operative. “Candidates who are tapping into that are the ones who are succeeding most prominently and beating expectations.”

...

“Trump is the ultimate disrupter. And many people see him at the tip of the spear against the status quo,” said Jesse Hunt, another longtime Republican operative who has worked in committees and on campaigns. “That is really what he has done since he came down the escalator in 2015. And that gives him a deep connection with a lot of people who don’t feel like their concerns were heard or they were cared about.”

Hunt also argued that social media — and the way in which people let their friends and colleagues into their lives now — has exacerbated this divide. Before social media, people may have felt pressure to keep up economically with their immediate friends and neighbors primarily through word of mouth, Hunt noted. But when all people have to do is log on to a platform to see how those people are living, they receive broader, more in-depth insight into whether they are getting ahead or falling behind.

The Economic Value of College

Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality. The effects of inequality reach many corners of American life.

Emily Peck at Axios:

The share of Americans who say college is "very important" plummeted over the past decade, new Gallup polling finds.

Why it matters: College may not live up to the American Dream that it promised in the past, and there are other pathways for success becoming more appealing for Gen Z, but in terms of lifetime earnings, a college degree is actually still incredibly important.

The big picture: There are plenty of reasons for the decline in perceived value among Americans.School is expensive, student loan debt is often onerous and job security for those with degrees has diminished— even more so with the advent of AI. Plus, at the moment new graduates are seeing higher unemployment rates.

There's also growing interest and appeal for young adults in the skilled trades — becoming plumbers, electricians, etc. — especially as AI appears to threaten white collar work.

Between the lines: There's also been loud criticism, particularly from conservatives, over the political leanings of universities, criticized as "elitist" "woke" "leftist," etc.Yet both Democrats and Republicans express far less support for higher education than they did more than a decade ago.

By the numbers: In 2013, 68% of Republicans said a college education was very important; this year that number fell to 20%, per Gallup.There's an even split between Republicans who say it's "not too important" (39%) and those who say it's "fairly important" (39%).Democrats went from 83% who said college was "very important" to 42%. Most, however, describe college as "fairly important."

Where it stands: College grads earn more than twice what high-school graduates make.The median income in a household headed by someone with at least a bachelor's degree was $132,700 last year — that's more than double the $58,410 median income of a household led by a high-school grad, according to Census income data released last week.

And earnings for college-led households have pulled away from the pack — rising more than 6% over the past two decades, compared with a 3% increase for high school graduates.

God Votes?

 Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.

Chip Rotolo at Pew:

What role do Americans think God played in the last two presidential elections? In a May 2025 survey, most U.S. adults say God played no role at all, while about a third say recent election results are part of God’s overall plan but don’t necessarily mean God approved of the winner’s policies. Very few say God chose the winners because of their policies.

 

RFK v. Pasteur

 Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation.The greatest spreader of vaccine misinformation is the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Sara Ashley O’Brien at WSJ:

Why do people get sick? Ask Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America’s highest-ranking public-health official, and he may chalk it up to their terrain.

For centuries, doctors and scientists have agreed that germs are the underlying cause of infectious diseases. Someone coughs on you, you get a cold. Drink raw milk, and you might end up with E. coli or listeria. This widely accepted truth is the basis of pasteurization, vaccines and antibiotics.


But Kennedy has long embraced ideas rooted in theories that run counter to germ theory and help explain his deep mistrust of vaccines and his efforts to remake the U.S. public-health system. Those efforts came to a head last week as the Trump administration fired the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other top officials quit their jobs in the midst of disagreements with Kennedy vaccine policy. On Thursday, Kennedy testified before a heated Senate panel about the administration’s health agenda and the recent staffing shake-ups.

“Secretary Kennedy is committed to building the healthiest generation in American history,” said Andrew G. Nixon, director of communications at the Department of Health and Human Services in a statement. “He is working to end the chronic disease epidemic and restoring trust in public health through transparency, gold-standard science, and evidence-based medicine.”

As chemist Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease was gaining traction in the 1800s, his rival Antoine Béchamp raised an alternative explanation: Disease, he said, was caused by the state of the body, which he referred to as the “terrain.” In his view, a strong inner environment, bolstered by nutritional food and a healthy lifestyle, could fend off illness.

Most doctors and scientists rejected Béchamp’s view, and the science of germ theory, bolstered by a German doctor named Robert Koch who identified bacteria that caused specific diseases like anthrax and tuberculosis, became a foundational piece of modern public health. Today scientists recognize that even healthy people can get sick when a virus infects them. But Béchamp retained a fringe following, one that has spread in the internet era. Kennedy’s critiques of germ theory reflect the persistent support of that sentiment.

Emergency Powers

 Bruce Mehlman:

Many laws give Presidents additional authorities to act in the event of national emergencies such as the 9/11 attacks, the Great Financial Crisis or COVID. There are no formal definitions of what qualifies as an “emergency,” and courts have shown wide latitude to Presidents in making that determination. The Trump Administration has declared more emergencies more often than any of its predecessors, citing nearly a dozen to justify & expedite executive action.

California Poverty

A number of posts have dealt with poverty.

The US Census Bureau explains the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), a more accurate metric than the old measure:

The SPM, first released in 2011 and produced in collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), extends the official poverty measure by accounting for several government programs that are designed to assist low-income families but are not included in official poverty measure calculations. The SPM also accounts for geographic variation in housing expenses when calculating poverty thresholds and includes federal and state taxes, work expenses, and medical expenses.

By this measure, California ties Louisiana for the highest poverty rates among the 50 states: 17.7 percent.

Shadow Docket and ICE

 Ilya Somin at Reason:

Today, the Supreme Court issued a "shadow docket" ruling staying a district court decision that had enjoined ICE from engaging in racial and ethnic profiling in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. The decision was apparently joined by the six conservative justices; the three liberals dissented. As is often the case with "emergency"/shadow docket rulings, there is no majority opinion. Thus, we cannot know for sure what the majority justices' reasoning was. We have only a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But that opinion has deeply problematic elements. Most importantly, it is fundamentally at odds with the principle that government must be "color-blind" and abjure racial discrimination.

The district court found extensive use of racial profiling by ICE in immigration enforcement in the LA area, and issued an injunction barring it. Justice Kavanaugh, however, contends that the profiling is not so bad, and does not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment because, while "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion," it could count as a "relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors."

Last month Erwin Chemerinsky wrote at SCOTUSblog::

The Supreme Court long has had an emergency docket. These are matters where a party comes to the court for an order on an emergency basis without full briefing and oral argument. For example, those facing the death penalty often have gone to the court seeking a last-minute, emergency stay of execution. But as Stephen Vladeck documented in his excellent book, The Shadow Docket, over the past decade there was a notable growth in matters decided by the court on its emergency docket.

Since Professor Vladeck’s book was published in 2023, the emergency docket has taken on even greater significance. In the 2023-24 term, there were 44 matters on the emergency docket. In the 2024-25 term, through June 27 (the last day decisions were released), there were 113 matters on the emergency docket.

In the past two months, the court has issued a number of important rulings on its emergency docket concerning the legality of actions by President Donald Trump. Virtually all have been 6-3 rulings, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

...

Significant rulings without the benefit of full briefing, oral argument, and deliberation among the justices. As a lawyer, I want the opportunity to fully brief my case and to argue it to the court. The procedures in every appellate court are based on the assumption that briefing and argument can matter greatly. Yet, the briefs in cases on the emergency docket are nowhere near as developed as those in cases on the merits, and there is no oral argument. Nor do the justices even meet to discuss these cases before issuing rulings on them. If one believes that briefing, arguing, and deliberating matters are essential to a system of law – and I certainly do – we should be deeply troubled by their absence when the court is issuing major rulings without them.