Posted on 12/04/2003 8:17:30 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
One of today's popular myths is that we've become a more "polarized" society. We're said to be divided increasingly by politics (liberals vs. conservatives), social values (traditionalists vs. modernists), religion (fundamentalists vs. everyone else), race and ethnicity. What has actually happened is that our political and media elites have become polarized, and they assume that this is true for everyone else. It isn't.
Anyone who lived through the 1960s, when struggles over Vietnam and civil rights spilled into the streets, must know that we're much less polarized today. It's not a close call. Unlike then, today's polarization exists mainly on the public stage among politicians, TV talking heads, columnists and intellectuals.
Still, the polarization myth persists. Consider a new report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which bulges with public opinion data that show (it says) "rising political polarization and anger." Actually, the data – stretching from the late 1980s until now – don't show that at all.
It's true that over this period political allegiances have shifted slightly. Republicans gained, Democrats lost. As late as 1987, about 35 percent of adults considered themselves Democrats, 26 percent Republicans and 39 percent independents (including those who "don't know"). Now, it's a dead heat: 31 percent Democrats, 30 percent Republicans and 39 percent independents. Gaps on some issues between political parties have predictably widened. If Democrats favoring a stronger military become Republican, party differences on that issue will rise.
But polarization – a visceral loathing of your opponent – increases only if partisans feel more rabidly about their views. Here, little has changed. One standard survey question is whether Democrats and Republicans consider themselves "strong" party members. In the late 1980s, slightly less than half of Republicans considered themselves "strong" Republicans; it's still slightly less than half. Among Democrats, about half are now "strong" and were then, too.
Beyond partisan divisions, Americans share many basic beliefs. After Sept. 11, 2001, patriotism remains high. Most people (two-thirds or more) believe that hard work promotes success. Indeed, many opinions have hardly budged since the late 1980s. Surveys asked whether:
The United States should be "active in world affairs" – 87 percent said yes in 1987, 90 percent now;
"Government should restrict and control people coming into our country" more than it does – 76 percent agreed in 1992, 77 percent now;
"There is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies" – 77 percent said so in both 1987 and 2003.
What's more important is that the changes that have occurred – generally outside politics – signal more, not less, tolerance, as the Pew data show. There seems to be a general shift in attitudes, led by changes among the young. Consider race. In 1987, 48 percent thought it "all right for blacks and whites to date"; now, 77 percent do. Something similar has occurred on homosexuality. By a 51 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans believed in 1987 that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals"; now that's rejected, 62 percent to 33 percent.
Today's polarization mainly divides the broad public from political, intellectual and media elites. Of course, sharp differences define democracy. We've always had them. From Iraq to homosexual marriage, deep disagreements remain. But the venom of today's debates often transcends disagreement. Your opponents – whether liberal or conservative – must not only have bad ideas. Increasingly, they must also be bad people who are dishonest, selfish and venal.
Among politicians, the bitterness reflects less political competition, especially in the House of Representatives. Democrats and Republicans increasingly have safe seats. In 2002, 83 percent of House incumbents won at least 60 percent of the vote; in 1992, only 66 percent of incumbents won with that margin. As a result, members speak more to their parties' "bases." There's less need to appeal to the center. The Founders saw the House as responding quickly to public opinion. But "the barometer is broken," says veteran congressional correspondent Richard E. Cohen of National Journal.
As for media and intellectual elites – commentators, academics, columnists, professional advocates – they're in an attention-grabbing competition. They need to establish themselves as brand names. For many, stridency is a strategy. The right feeds off the left and the left feeds off the right, and although their mutual criticisms constitute legitimate debate, they're also economic commodities. To be regarded by one side as a lunatic is to be regarded by the other as a hero – and that can usually be taken to the bank through more TV appearances, higher lecture fees and fatter book sales. Polarization serves their interests.
All this distorts who we are and poses a latent danger: someday we might become as hopelessly polarized as we're already supposed to be.
That being said, on some of these issues, the context or definition of terms has drifted a bit:
The United States should be "active in world affairs" – 87 percent said yes in 1987, 90 percent now;
Take this as an example. Does it mean "Contribute to and support the UN as much as possible"? Or does it mean "Use our military and economic power to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world". Liberals will say "yes" to the first and Conservatives might say "yes" to the second. So, the percentage of "yes" votes tells you very little.
The numbers between 1987 and 2003 may be similar, but what motivates the "yes"? Has there been change in that? I'd say there's polarization within the "yes" block, but you can't see it with these questions.
I am certainly "polarized" from the leftist activists who lie to support their bankrupt, failed agenda and from their propaganda machinery (i.e., the liberal press).
But I do not feel particularly "polarized" from other liberals or Democrats - the non-elitist people who, for whatever reason, support a liberal viewpoint or who vote for a Democrat candidate.
I just don't agree with them for the most part (they probably wouldn't agree with themselves either if they thought it through, but that is another issue).
Yep, we're polarized all right, but most of us don't fit perfectly into a stereotyped pigeonhole of the far left or far right extremes. For instance, someone may be rabidly against gun control but pro-environment, believes in the absolute separation of church and state yet loathes abortion. For the millions of people who don't fit the stereotypes, often they will focus on one key issue that drives their thinking and their vote. Myself, I am polarized on gun control. If a politician threatens my 2nd amendment rights, he's toast. I'm sure my exact opposites are out there in the blue states in great numbers.
Those who would have been conservative democrats in a previous generation are more likely to become republicans. The number of liberal republicans has not dropped as much (still too many RINOs around), but I expect that very few people are republicans just because they grew up in a republican household. Now if we could just convince Black conservatives that the democrat party is not for them...
Your point about the competitiveness of national elections is another good point. I can't help but think that that is in part a reflection of how skilled the political machinery in both major parties has become at focusing their political pitches to the electorate. In 2000, the two sides cut the electoral cake almost exactly in half. Like the PGA commercial says, "These guys are good!"
Good post!
Oh, really? I was there and it's much worse today, imo.
That's interesting. Does confining your friendships to political allies help you maintain a clear focus on ideology and issues?
I don't know, but I hate everybody ;-)
Apparently the loathing increases as one's views become revealed by events as being somewhere between demonstrably wrong and downright dangerous.
The libs began to be bummed out a little by the success of welfare reform,then the whole world watched as their "appease and apologize" foreign policy bore bitter fruit on Sept 1, 2001, and now their insistence that tax cuts would be bad for the economy has been exposed as not only wrong, but extremely disingenuous.
Fear, embarrassment and humiliation combined with inability to accept responsibility usually manifests itself in delusional projection of blame, and hatred apparently helps them to maintain the delusion.
Good try at psychoanalysis. No, it does not help the focus. It is simply a matter of pro-choice. I don't want to do business with or share dinner with those whom I do not respect. Freedom is a great thing. I still have discussions with the opposition, but I choose not to call someone a friend who is still on his kneepads for Clinton. Why spend time with people you don't like?
Well, I'm a few decades out of touch with what it's like to be a student attending college now, but I had heard that Republican ranks are growing on campuses now. Hang in there!!
Well, you really shouldn't spend much time with people if it's uncomfortable. I guess it's just not quite as uncomfortable for me to be with people with whom I don't agree politically. I have friends who are all over the map politically and a great many who don't care about politics at all.
I used to ignore or let some left-wing loon sound off, as it was obvious he was not into reality.
Since then, however, I've found that my flashpoint was greatly reduced. I had an old Enfield training rifle (demilled) for sale at a community swap meet. One bearded old Birkenstock type came up and asked, "So, you're getting out of the killing business?" Without cursing or venom, I jumped all over him and got him to backpedal big time.
I find the same low flashpoint with editors and reporters and now go after the jugular when they spout their liberal propaganda. It feels good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.