Do Democrats now have the corner on optimism?

A new Pew survey finds that supporters of Hillary Clinton are markedly more optimistic about the present – and future – than those of Donald Trump.

Neal Menschel/File
Democratic National Convention attendee Priscilla Chavez reacts in the Wells Fargo Center on July 25, 2016 in Philadelphia, Penn. A new Pew study reports that more supporters of Hillary Clinton than supporters of Donald Trump say that life has gotten better over the past 50 years "for people like them."

In this year's presidential elections, the Democratic and Republican candidates are offering up radically different policy agendas. And as a new Pew Center survey of their supporters shows, they are appealing to equally contrasting notions of the nation’s current state, and where it is likely to go. 

Eighty-one percent of registered voters who support Republican nominee Donald Trump say that compared to 50 years ago, life has gotten worse for "people like them in America" – however respondents chose to define it. Sixty-eight percent of them believe that the future of the next generation of Americans will be worse.

By contrast, supporters of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton tend to be sunny in their estimation of the nation's path, with 59 percent saying life for people like them has gotten better over that same time span, compared to 19 percent who believed it had gotten worse and 18 percent who saw minimal change. They may be a bit more apprehensive about the future, however: 38 percent said they thought life would be better for the next generation, while 28 percent said it would be the same and 30 percent saw it getting worse.

These dueling ideas about the country's course have found expression in the nominees' campaigns – though as the Pew Center notes, little has changed in voters' responses since March, which could mean the nominees have done relatively little to shape public opinion on these matters since then.

At the Republican National Convention in July, Mr. Trump conjured a nation that had "endured domestic disaster…[and] lived through one international humiliation after another," positing himself as its only hope for stability, according to a transcript of his speech from The Washington Post.

At the Democrats' convention, meanwhile, optimism was the theme.

"We don't fear the future; we shape, embrace it, as one people, as one people, stronger together than we are on our own," President Obama told attendees.

Mrs. Clinton offered a cheery if bland corrective to Mr. Trump's pessimism, saying it was "up to us" to assuage the country's "fraying," and channeling Franklin D. Roosevelt's assurance that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," according to The New York Times.

The difference in how supporters of the two candidates feel seems to correlate partly to their opinions on immigration and terrorism. Some two-thirds of Trump supporters say the two issues are "very big" problems in the United States. Just 17 percent of Clinton supporters say the same of immigration, and 36 percent of terrorism.

Another factor behind the contrast could be the economies of the regions where they tend to live. In urban areas, where the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis has often been more robust – and where populations tend to be more Democratic – people are more likely to say that the economy is getting better, a Gallup survey found last September.

"Small-town and rural America are decidedly dour about the direction of the nation's economy, while large urban and dense suburban places tilt positive or, at worst, just slightly negative," the polling firm wrote at the time. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.