Left, right, and elite

 Ross Douthat writes "the political right has plenty of popular support but considerably less influence inside the managerial systems through which elected officials actually exercise their power," while progressivism has  "an extraordinary advantage in the meritocratic institutions, private as well as public, that actually staff and shape the power structure."  As a result, "activists and elites effect dramatic change outside the democratic process and then try to survive or sidestep backlash from the voters."  He offers several examples, including "a new regime of euthanasia in Canada."  

Back in 1947, the Gallup Poll asked, "when a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his family request it?"  This question was asked again in 1950 and has been included in the General Social Survey since 1977.  The percent who say that doctors should be allowed to end the patient's life:

Support passed 50% in the 1970s, and has been over 60% since the 1980s, but assisted death is allowed in only eleven states plus Washington, DC.  Oregon was the first to legalize it, by a referendum--it wasn't until 2013 that it was enacted through a state legislature.

I don't have as much data for Canada, but in 2000 Gallup Canada asked "When a person has an incurable disease that is immediately life-threatening and causes that person to experience great suffering, do you, or do you not think that competent doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life through mercy killing, if the patient has made a formal request in writing?"  and 72% said yes.  It also asked about a disease that "is not immediately life-threatening but causes that person to experience great suffering" and 54% said yes.  This was 15 years before laws allowing that were passed.

So assisted dying is not something that was imposed by elites on an unwilling public.  In fact, the question is why political elites have been reluctant to do something that has strong support among the public.  Political forces are probably part of the answer--opponents are more likely to participate in organized religion, so they are better organized and more committed than supporters.  On the other hand, more educated people are more likely to support assisted dying, and political elites have more education than the general public.  So it seems that there is something that keeps them from following the usual inclinations of their class.  One thing that separates political elites from educated people in general is that they think about legislation for a living, and I suspect that they were concerned about the possibility of a "slippery slope" (which has happened to some extent in Canada):  it's hard to write rules that draw a clear line saying exactly when it will be allowed, so they are reluctant to change the status quo.  

The general point is that Douthat, like many other people, implicitly uses a broad definition of elite--"institutions that staff and shape the power structures."  But the people who make and interpret the laws are a much smaller group, and they may have a distinct outlook that doesn't fit into the standard left/right spectrum.  I've had a few posts on this topic, and I'll return to it soon (probably in my next post).

[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]