Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America

[Beet]

Author: Morris Fiorina

Some claim the media is liberal, others, that it is conservative, but perhaps both can agree that the media has a tendency for exaggeration: the media establishment, like the popular punditry, can create a story and run with it, puffing up a narrative of variable validity until it seems as if the most exciting thing in the world is going on. As long as they have a story to tell, and as long as it is exciting, it often doesn't matter what that story is, or even whether it is true. And so it is with the myth of the polarized America. Released just as the media crescendo of a "polarized" electorate was reaching unprecedented heights in 2004, political scientist Morris Fiorinia's Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America uses public opinion research data to coolly demolish the myths surrounding changes in Americans' attitudes over time.

Using data from the most methodlogically credible and longest-running political survey source in political behavior, the University of Michigan's National Election Studies survey, Fiorina demonstrates that the public's positions on various economic and social issues are no more separated today than they were 30 years ago. This works regardless of one's level of aggregation: "red states" are not more polarized compared to "blue states" and those on the right are not more polarized compared to those on the left. It works even for the most "hot-button" issues: 80% of us believe that abortion should be legal under some conditions even if wrong, while 80% equally feel that there should be some restrictions on abortion. Rather, the electorate's left-right preferences on virtually all issues are single peaked: they tend to cluster towards the middle in a bell-shaped curve, with the majority of people lying in between the perceived positions of the two major political parties.

What, then, explains the new theories of political polarization? Fiorina shows that while the electorate has not become more polarized over the past 30 years, elites have become more polarized. That is, party activists, leaders, spokespersons and officials, as well as interest group leaders, have become increasingly divided on sharp "wedge issues". Parties and members of congress have become more ideologically homogenized. Political reforms designed at opening up the system and encouraging the grassroots has tended to push out the old "men in smoke-filled rooms", dispassionate players of the game of politics. Now, political activism is increasingly dominated by those highly motivated on special interests. This tends to polarize the political elites and officeholders, who must then respond to these interests. The polarization of the elites has given an appearance of mass polarization, but this appearance is only an illusion.

So argues Fiorina. It has been a year since I've read this book so I don't remember all the details. Still, if you believed in the idea of a polarized America, this book presents a formidable challenge.

[Beet]

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?

[Beet]

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?

I guess I'm suggesting that it could be.  Often, larger trends can affect politics as well as commercial segments of society.  Often, the two go hand in hand, though political junkees don't always see the connection.  People change their thought process, and that change applies across the board.  This is a byproduct of the change in overall market targeting capabilities brought about in part by technological advances.

It was just one of those thoughts I threw out there, and I'd be interested to hear what others whose opinions I respect think of it.

I'm guessing this makes little sense, because I don't see the same economic processes that underlie the change. It seems that parties in the 19th century, for example, would have no problem appealing to specialized groups, and often did, in the form of winning over ethnic blocs, or maintaining a "southern" branch plus an "urban" branch, or a "midwestern" branch plus a "new york" branch. The New Deal coalition is quite an amalgamation. Yet Fiorina seems to argue in favor of the rise of special interests as a result of reforms in the opening up of political parties and the political system in general to greater public participation, and as a more recent phenomenon dating from the 70s, which explains the rise in elite polarization.

[Beet]

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.

[Beet]

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.

I think you're reading a little more into this than what I said, though I have never denied letting my partisan views color how I see issues.

What I say applies to both parties, though I of course am more hostile to the special interests that have come to dominate the Democratic party than I am toward some of the special interests that have come to at least heavily influence the Republican party.

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base, even though it could probably be argued that I am not, in many ways, really part of the Republican base, being a northerner who is not part of the religious right.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say the special interests were only influencing the Democrats.

[Beet]

What the heck angus, I was going to type a big reply about how it isn't really that surprising but it was surprising to me last year when I first read it. Also I don't watch the talking heads.

But screw it, eh?