A "jaw-dropping" contrast has opened up between the worldviews of everyday Americans and the "Ivy League elites" who exert tremendous influence over U.S. politics and public policy.
That's the finding of a survey released Friday by pollster Scott Rasmussen conducted on behalf of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
"It's almost like two different countries," said Committee to Unleash Prosperity economist Stephen Moore on a conference call with reporters Tuesday, "in terms of the perceptions that the general public has and the views of elites."
The survey compares the policy views of America's top elites — those who earn over $150,000 annually and may have post-graduate degrees from Ivy League universities — to the voting electorate at large.
The political chasm is "way beyond what I expected," Pollster Rasmussen agreed.
The survey exposed drastic differences in America's body politic:
- Almost three-quarters, 72%, of elites — and 81% of elites who graduated from top universities — support a ban on gasoline-powered automobiles to help fight climate change. That compares to just 24% of the general electorate.
- More than half, 53%, of elites — and 68% of elite Ivy League graduates — support a general ban on air conditioning to reduce carbon emissions. Only 13% of voters think that's a smart idea.
- A full 70% of Ivy League elites support a ban on "nonessential" air travel. That compares to 22% of regular voters.
When the survey asked everyday American voters whether the United States is subject to too much government control or "too much freedom," some 57% said there's too much government control. Only 16% said Americans have too much freedom.
Compare that to the views of Ivy League-educated elites: 55% say there's just too much freedom in America.
The survey found those influential elites voted for President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump by more than a 3-to-1 margin.
Moore described the disparity of worldviews "unhealthy." "I think we want to be united — and I'm not so sure we are right now," he said.
He also suggested both sides of the political aisle should adjust their appeal to voters.
Elite Democrats, he suggested, would do well to avoid appearing sorely out of touch with mainstream America.
He also indicated Trump has opportunities to win over voters, if he can tweak his messaging.
"Trump's problem is the suburban women who may agree with some of his policies don't like some of his antics and the name calling. I don't like that much either, and I consider myself a friend.
"So the question is whether Trump can widen his appeal, because he certainly has a lot of working-class Americans behind him. I'd like to see that happen. I think in 2016 a lot of these skeptical suburban women at the end of the day kind of held their noses and voted for Trump. And in 2020, they didn't."