Comments on: Red and Blue America

By: fling93

fling93 — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 02:24:54 +0000

james: With comments on the polarization of America, there is a common mistake. Primarly the fact that only about 1/3 of the country regularly votes…. Its more accurate to say that the voting public has become more polarized. The vast majority don’t care enough to participate. I agree with that. And while I’m sure some of it can be chalked up to apathy, it would seem to me also that moderates would be turned off by having polarized candidates as their only choices.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:04:23 +0000

Er, “excellent series of articles on political self-segregation in the US by the Austin American-Statesman“.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:02:40 +0000

For more on this subject, see the excellent series of articles on the trend of increasing political self-segregation in the US. For my own ease, and because it’s infolicious, I’ll just link to my MetFilter post on this topic, where one can find links to the articles and background material, as well.

By: james

james — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:43:29 +0000

With comments on the polarization of America, there is a common mistake. Primarly the fact that only about 1/3 of the country regularly votes. Take the 2000 Presidental election. Even with the large turnout the country was not evenly divided. Among eligable voters approxmently 1/4 voted Gore, 1/4 voted Bush, and 1/2 could not be bothered to vote. Its more accurate to say that the voting public has become more polarized. The vast majority don’t care enough to participate.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:12:32 +0000

John Isbell wrote:

I can’t speak for other states, but the observable fact of Democrats running to the middle since 1992 at least conflicts dramatically with the assertion that candidates today just focus on the base. Unless that only refers to the GOP.

There really is not any evidence to support this in Kerry unless one believes that coming down wobbly on both sides of an issue constitutes “running to the middle.”

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:04:21 +0000

Now that the Southern Democrats have either died or become Republicans,

Then how do you explain Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, Richard Gephardt, Robert Byrd, and Jimmy Carter who last I checked were both Democrats and among the living?

By: bryan

bryan — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:25:13 +0000

“Attractive from the point of view of elegant social mechanisms, I mean.” Damn, my (ex)girlfriend got really mad when i said that to her. thanks a lot crooked timber!

By: felixrayman

felixrayman — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:57:08 +0000

My main evidence for this comes from a 1996 paper by Paul DiMaggio, Bethany Bryson and John Evans called “Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized?” Got a study that was conducted, oh, I don’t know, maybe AFTER Bush, the Great Uniter was elected? I mean we all know that things were better in the 90s and we all know why, so come back and post some more when you find some recent data.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:54:56 +0000

The point, Ophelia, is about being oppositionally minded. Polarization is a different sort of thing than diversity of opinion.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:01:03 +0000

I never really quite understand what’s meant by ‘moderate’ ‘extreme’ ‘polarized’ anyway. I mean – as opposed to what? Is everybody supposed to think more or less the same thing? If so, why? Why would we all have roughly the same opinions feelings and attitudes about everything?

By: Ben Hyde

Ben Hyde — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:34:20 +0000

This work is good – real data: http://voteview.uh.edu/polartalk/polartalk.htm Speaks to the polarization of the congress (absolutely), the public (much less so), as well as some discussion of what might be causal (weath distribution, immigration?).

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:56:32 +0000

Regarding Patrick’s point: Yes, a lot of this comes directly and intentionally from bastards like Murdoch and Scaife and industry lobbies, but the fact remains that the environment exists in which it is possible and game-theoretically advantageous for them to do so, and it’s worth thinking about the deeper reasons why that is.

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:52:42 +0000

Is the polarization on moral/religious issues really all that unusual? It’s unusual when you compare the US to Western European democracies, but these countries today are themselves unusual in that hardcore cultural conservatism is relatively weak there, compared to most of the world. I’ve seen American attitudes described as occupying a position somewhere between the developing world and western Europe. The other thing to note is that Americans actually mostly manage to get along pretty well in their daily lives. They can have passionate arguments at the dinner table over polarizing moral issues, but by and large I don’t get into fistfights with my Republican co-workers. The level of vitriol is often exaggerated.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:20:07 +0000

I can tell you that the Kerry campaign on the ground in Indiana is targeting independents and Naderites as much as the base. I can’t speak for other states, but the observable fact of Democrats running to the middle since 1992 at least conflicts dramatically with the assertion that candidates today just focus on the base. Unless that only refers to the GOP.

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:02:37 +0000

I think Kieran is quite right to characterize this notion as “attractive.” It’s attractive because it spreads the blame around in a comfortably even-handed fashion and avoids having to contemplate the much less attractive idea that all this anger and discord is being stirred up by particular people and organizations in order to obtain particular advantages. It’s much nicer to live in a world in which we can tut-tut at the inevitable follies of human nature than it is to live in a world in which particular powerful entities are working hard to gain permanent advantage over us.