In 1920, for the first time, women nationwide could vote in a presidential election. In 2020, for the first time, a woman was elected on a presidential ticket.

Nothing has altered the personal lives of Americans over that century as deeply as the ascendance of women. A recent book by three sociologists provides intimate views of how great events upset patriarchal family arrangements and laid the groundwork for twenty-first century women’s empowerment.

Woman Car

1937 (Photographer: Ray Lomax)

Researchers usually identify social change by comparing snapshots at different periods, contrasting, for example, Americans’ parenting practices in the 2020s to their parenting practices in the 1920s. Rarely can we follow average people over the course of their lives to see how they encountered, handled, and were shaped by events. Such “longitudinal” studies are hard to do; a project has to survive over several decades and several changes in researchers. We have but few (though the British film documentaries in the “Up” series provide a taste of the method).

A 2021 book, Living on the Edge: An American Generation’s Journey Through the Twentieth Century, by Richard Settersten, Jr., Glen Elder, Jr., and Lisa Pearce, reports the journeys of about a hundred families living in Berkeley, California, from the early to the late part of the last century. “Berkeley?!,” you burst out. But Berkeley was not always the “People’s Republic of”; for much of the twentieth century it was a more conventional city of manufacturing as well as of a university and it housed many first- and second-generation immigrants. (U.C. researchers also started a roughly parallel study of Oakland families at around the same time. I’ll have occasion to mention findings from one of its reports, John Clausen’s American Lives, too.)

Settersten, Elder, and Pearce describe changes in several dimensions of their subjects’ lives, such as social class, job opportunities, and new styles of parenting, but none is more striking than the expansion of women’s self-sufficiency and the shrinkage of men’s.

Continue Reading »

There is much discussion these days about the hammer of government regulation that may come down on internet companies–Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft. It’s already happening in Europe. One observer commented that 

Woman with fridge

Georgia farm woman with electric refrigerator, 1930s — http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01761

“Around the world, governments are moving simultaneously to limit the power of tech companies with an urgency and breadth that no single industry had experienced before.”

But many new industries in the past have experienced a rush of regulation–at just about this point in their development. What starts out as a novelty begins to spread, gets cheaper, spreads more, becomes an important practical tool for many if not most people, and finally becomes a necessity of modern life, a public utility (“a firm providing essential services to the public”) calling forth government intervention.

Two kinds of intervention in particular: One is to subsidize, require, or even directly provide universal access to a technology that started out as a luxury for the few. The other is to regulate the provision of that technology so as to reduce its cost, maintain minimal standards, and avoid negative externalities–accidents, extortionist pricing, pollution, unsightly equipment, and so on.

The tech past may be the tech prologue here.

Continue Reading »

Baseball is back! Well, sort of. The Toronto Blue Jays may still be banned from playing in Toronto. At least initially, fan attendance (outside of Arlington, Texas) will be limited to no more than one-third of ballpark capacity. Some players will end up on the can’t-play list because of exposure to Covid. And Covid concerns postponed today’s opening game in Washington.


“Fans” in the stands, 2020

But, a day with some baseball is always better than a day without. This year, unlike 2020, will have a 162-game schedule. Real fans–not just cutouts (see pic)–will be there. (We have our Opening Day tix to Oracle Park.) It’s 6 months or more of fandom ecstasy and agony (usually more of the latter).

The anxiety is that major-league baseball’s future, even after Covid, is precarious.

Continue Reading »

A few months ago, I sketched preliminary explanations of last November’s election; those conclusions still hold up well. This post addresses how well–or, poorly–the election polling did, why, and with what implications for using polls as a voice of popular opinion.Truman-Dewey

Putting the major polls together, their miss in last year’s presidential election was, on average, 4 percentage points, mainly because they underestimated the Trump vote; they also underestimated the Republican down-ballot votes by about the same margin. (Fivethirtyeight.com’s final averages of polls gave Biden an 8.4-point lead; he ended up winning by 4.4 points.) As presidential elections forecasting in recent decades go, this error was roughly average.

However, the 2020 polling stirred considerable and appropriate consternation; Politico declared the morning after that “the polling industry is a wreck and should be blown up.” The reasons for consternation include these:

* Although the polls got the electoral college winner right this time, the 2020 error was actually larger than the 2016 error, which was only 1.8 percentage points (Clinton was predicted to win the popular vote by 3.9 points, but won it by 2.1 points).

* This deterioration in accuracy occurred despite major efforts by polling organizations to fix the apparent 2016 problems and notable improvement in the 2018 off-year elections. The average 2018 error in forecasting party shares of the congressional vote was exactly zero. FiveThirtyEight.com declared that the “Polls are Alright.”

* In particular states (e.g., Wisconsin, Florida) the 2020 presidential polling error was much larger than the national 4 points.

* Many projections for down-ballot races, such as the Senate race in Maine, performed a lot worse than the presidential ones.

* The polls’ errors leaned in the same direction as in 2016, underestimating the Republican vote yet again.

Post mortems on the election now have some analysts and some political action groups (e.g., Swing Left) looking to rely less on polling going forward and more on “fundamentals” such as how a district voted in prior elections.

What happened?

Continue Reading »

The Political Census

Just two days before the end of Trump’s reign, his appointed Director of the Census Bureau resigned following Bureau professionals’ resistance to his efforts to issue premature numbers in the waning hours of the administration. This was just the latest battle in the political warfare that enveloped the 2020 Census.

It’s not as if previous censuses avoided politics–they didn’t, as I discuss below–but 2020 was notable. For one, the Trump administration tried to add a citizenship question for the first time in 70 years, everyone understanding that its purpose was to scare immigrants, both documented and un-, into evading the count. The Supreme Court blocked that tactic. The administration also shortened the time available to complete the census even as inadequate funding and the Covid-19 pandemic made the work much more difficult. These moves would all produce underestimates of the population, especially in heavily Democratic districts and states. For the same purpose, the Trump administration asserted that House seats should be apportioned, for the first time ever, based only on the number of citizens and legal immigrants rather than of the number of “persons” as stipulated in the constitution (Art. I, Sec. 2).

But census politics goes back a long time–indeed, to the Constitutional Convention, where one of the North-South compromises ended up counting slaves as three-fifths of a person in the census, although, of course, without allowing slaves, nor women, nor Indians, nor the poor, even three-fifths of a vote. In late 1890, to take another example, the superintendent of the Census was compelled to write a ferocious defense against attacks on the validity of census, fending off charges about undercounting in New York (with all its immigrants) and overcounting in the South.

A review of recurrent political issues in the census puts this year’s chaos in perspective.

Continue Reading »

It’s been about 50 days since the networks declared Joe Biden the winner of the presidential race. It will be probably a year or two before enough distance and enough research yield a trustworthy analysis of what happened. But it’s not to soon to speculate; everyone is doing it. Some preliminary conclusions and some preliminary lessons are possible.cupofjoe3

One topic of discussion is why the 2020 polls were off. They were modestly off at the presidential level, about 3.5 points, but that’s a greater error than in 2016. And the 2020 polls were off even more in many lower races. I’ll eventually write about polling in part #2 of First Takes. Here I just address the overall results, using the polls as little as possible.

Donald Trump clearly lost, sore loser tantrums notwithstanding. Otherwise, it was about a 50:50 election between the two parties. As his last hurrah (maybe), Trump mobilized enough new and irregular voters from his base to help his party do well but not well enough for him to do well. I’m certain he would have preferred the reverse.

For Democrats, disappointed by the results beyond the White House, one lesson was that they were overconfident about mobilizing “people of color”; another is the danger of cultural overreach by big-city progressives.

Continue Reading »

While we have all been distracted, some researchers have noticed another thing to worry about: Americans these days report having sex less often than Americans did a couple of decades ago. What?! Is this not supposed to be the age of hookups, Tinder swiping, the pornography web, Viagra, and all that? Yet, the drop-off in sexual activity, though modest in size, is real–for teens, for young adults, for middle-aged people. (All this even before Covid.) For some observers, this decline has become the next social problem.

What’s happening–er, not happening?


Continue Reading »

This blog has periodically summarized some of the hundreds of studies analyzing Trump’s 2016 success and of his continuing popularity. This particular post will be, I trust, the almost-final one. (I’ll no doubt be sucked into reading the studies following up on the 2020 election.)  

My last update was about a year ago. The research then basically confirmed even earlier findings that Trump effectively combined a blatant appeal to the cultural anxieties of native-born, white Christians, together with overwhelming Republican party loyalty in this era of polarization and with the Founding Father’s kludge, the electoral college, to eke out a win. New research largely elaborates that explanation. So, after a brief review, I’ll turn to asking what this recent history might say about the forthcoming election. 

Continue Reading »

America is an exceptional country, exceptional not in the sense of excellence, but in the sense of being unusual.


With Covid-19, America is again exceptional, with the worst performance among wealthy nations. Some might quibble with that claim and point to higher death rates in other countries. The real measure of our distinctiveness, however, is what has happened since the pandemic’s initial devastation. From February to April, many other countries acted in the dark even when they acted forcefully. By May, they had learned a lot, had gotten control, and were “flattening the curve.” Not the United States (beyond New York). America’s death rate declined slowly and then rose again, now, in late August, 2020, up to far higher levels than in comparable countries.

The exceptional disaster that is Covid-19 in America is, in part, the exceptional disaster that is Trump in the White House. But even a competent and honest administration would have had a struggle, and a Biden administration, should it take over, will, too.

Continue Reading »

Writers on the Left are brawling yet again over whether people who express–or who had once expressed–an opinion that now appears racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic or the like should suffer severe consequences, including loss of job or career. Cases in point include a man caught yelling racist taunts on a video, a Boeing executive who wrote an essay decades ago opposing women in military, an editor of The New York Times who published a column by a U.S. Senator, and J.K. Rowling’s skepticism about gender transitions.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Evelyn Beatrice Hall:   “… your right to say it.” (1906)

On July 7, 2020 Harper’s Magazine published an open letter signed by many academics, journalists, and noted cultural figures objecting to such “illiberalism,” to a “brand of dogma or coercion” “that tend[s] to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.” Fierce rejoinders followed, including at least one that included the phrase “Ok, Boomer.” (Ageism? Or cohortism?)

Here, I add my two cents in support of the Harper’s letter. Suppressing offensive viewpoints is historically and logically a right-wing tradition. For the Left, however, such suppression is self-negating, even in two “hard cases”–racial differences in IQ scores and Holocaust denial.

Continue Reading »