Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America

I bought this some months ago but just started and finished it this week, Culture War? The Myth of Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina with Samuel J. Adams and Jeremy C. Pope. Political science is not a field that I have a high interest in but this one seemed promising. And it delivered.

I read the second edition but apparently there is now a third edition. The blurb describes the argument well,

Is the nation really polarized on these hot-button moral, religious, and cultural issues? Should we believe the media pundits and politicians who tell us that Americans are deeply divided?

No, says Morris Fiorina. At a time when the rift between the “red” and “blue” states can seem deeper than ever, Fiorina debunks the assumption that Americans are deeply split over national issues. He presents quite a contrary picture — that most Americans stand in the middle of the political landscape and are in general agreement even on those issues thought to be most divisive.

Poking holes in the concept of a “culture war,” Fiorina explains that the majority of Americans are both moderate and tolerant, and that their greatest concerns are leadership and security, not moral values. Supporting his position with election data and a variety of public surveys, Fiorina concludes that the view of a divided America is simply false and that by recognizing our common ground, we have a basis for creating a more unified and moderate approach to government and politics in the near future.

A new epilogue relates the 2008 campaign and election to the general argument of the book, looking at the people and issues affecting the road to the White House in 2008, and speculating on what lies ahead for (un)polarized America.

Lot's of fascinating data and clever interpretations.

In sum, what we call the political class in America definitely is polarized and probably has become more so in recent decades. But as the quotation that leads off this book asserts, it is a mistake to assume that what is true of a fraction of Americans who are politically active also holds true for the great preponderance of us. In general, normal Americans are busy earning their livings and raising their families. They are not very well-informed about politics and public affairs, do not care a great deal about politics, do not hold many of their views very strongly, and are not ideological. In contrast, members of the political class are well-informed, care a great deal, have strong views, and are ideological. Moreover, and importantly, they have more extreme views than normal people.

[snip]

The problem is that people who care deeply also tend to have extreme views on the issues they care deeply about.

Fiorina argues that the myth of a polarized populace (as opposed to polarized political elite), arises and is sustained based on four factors.

We too easily confuse closely divided with deeply divided. Example - 100 close friends decided to go out Friday night. 51 suggest a taco place, 49 suggest a hamburger joint. They are closely divided. But nobody really cares which place they go as long as they go together. They are not deeply divided.

Political activists are not representative of the body politic. The division on particular policy issues between politicians is much more extreme than the division between citizens on those particular issues.

The media need conflict to sell stories. If it bleeds, it leads. It is in their institutional interest to see conflict whether or not there actually is conflict.

We confuse positions with choices. If the two parties propose two extreme candidates, the electorate, despite being bunched in the middle on policy issues, has to choose between those extremes. The fact that they have to make a choice between two extremes says nothing about their own moderate positions.