Via Kevin Drum comes this comment from political scientist Hans Noel, quoted in the Washington Post:
“Most people say they are ‘moderate,’ but in fact the country is polarized around strong conservative and liberal positions.” [Noel said, and the article continues] … As it becomes more difficult to reach across the party line, campaigns are devoting more energy to firing up their hard-core supporters. For voters in the middle, this election may aggravate their feeling that politics no longer speaks to them, that it has become a dialogue of the deaf, a rant of uncompromising extremes.
Noel is pushing the attractive idea that polarization feeds on and reinforces itself. (Attractive from the point of view of elegant social mechanisms, I mean.) And Kevin can’t see a way to break the cycle. Red and Blue America is the latest version of the Culture Wars thesis. However, while it’s clear that the chattering classes — at least their representatives in the media — have become more polarized over time, I’m not sure I believe that everyone else has.
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?” (JSTOR link, institutional subscription required).1 They used a long time-series of General Social Survey opinion data and measured how skewed the distribution of public opinion on a wide range of questions was, and whether that changed over time. Respondents to opinion questions are generally given a statement and asked to choose a place on a five- or sometimes seven-point scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” If polarization was happening, you would see more and more people at the extreme ends of the scales and fewer in the middle. But DiMaggio et al found that, with the exception of questions about abortion, the distribution of opinion had not become more skewed. Across a wide range of issues, there were about as many people in the middle in the early 1990s as there had been in the early 1970s. I don’t know of sample-based research that rebuts this finding. At the same time, as an an update by John Evans demonstrates, more recent data suggests that such polarization as does exist is being driven by the political system: “it seems clear that members of the public who are involved in politics are becoming polarized on moral issues.”
1 Full disclosure: Paul was my Ph.D advisor and John and Bethany are friends of mine.
US party politics has been underpolarized until recently, compared to other countries, primarily because of the residual effects of the Civil War. The existence of the Southern Democrats facilitated the survival of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans in the US as a whole.
This in turn produced a non-partisan norm in which it was assumed to be desirable that individual members of Congress should act individually rather than as members of a party.
Now that the Southern Democrats have either died or become Republicans, US party politics is becoming polarized in the same way as in other countries, with Republicans and Democrats voting on party lines most of the time, and abandoning the norms of civility that go with a system of logrolling and bargaining.
American commentators (who naturally ignore any evidence from outside the US) tend to see this as a strange and disturbing development, rather than a reversion to global norms.
Very interesting. I think it’s obviously got to do with the elections, those with an electoral interest always have to push the idea that opinions are becoming more polarised, and they will do anything to feed that impression because they want people to become polarised rather than undecided.
They also want polls to “prove” that and newspapers to go on and on about it, so that they can attract more financial contributions.
The polarization now happening in the united states seems different to that in other democracies. That came from political programs that were intended to further interests of one class or the other. The importance of those divisions has lessened, so most democracies now have a rivalry between parties that are slightly more or slightly less progressive, but generally reformist and moderate. Westminster theatre notwithstanding, unless they smell blood they usually behave civilly to one another behind the scenes.
In the United States, however, there is a polarisation on moral issues that is not reflected anywhere else. The single strongest indicator of voting intentions is church attendance. Consider the following: Abortion ? Not a serious political issue outside the USA. Gay marriage ? Handled one way or another by nearly all Western European countries, with no real opposition. Teaching evolution in schools ? You’d be laughed at for even bringing it up.
I suppose you could argue that this merely polarization on different issues, but structurally similar to what happened in Europe last century. It might be, but I have a nasty feeling that it isn’t. The old division was about how much state intervention in the economy was advisable: that is a question that is open to compromise and empirical evidence. This split is on moral questions that aren’t.
We mirror the divisions within Muslim nations. We also fire up divisions within Muslim nations. Our whining about the violence we are causing is driving us all into WWIII. This is beyond stupid.
I’m not sure that the lack of change in the proportion of people who strongly agree/disagree proves a lack of increase in polarization. If there’s an increase in the range of possible (thinkable) opinion on a subject, then people who had been extreme can become moderate without changing their opinions. This effect might counterbalance the effect of increasing polarization.
I don’t know how you’d measure such change, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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?
The point, Ophelia, is about being oppositionally minded. Polarization is a different sort of thing than diversity of opinion.
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.
“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!
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?
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.”
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.
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.
Er, “excellent series of articles on political self-segregation in the US by the Austin American-Statesman”.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review