« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Polarisation and the 2008 election
Obama’s aspirational theme is a cornerstone of his campaign: one America. Clinton
believes it’s nonsense: there is only the classic battle between the Republicans
and the Democrats.
There’ve been some fascinating conversations on the
proposition that in fact America
is becoming far more polarised, not unified.
It’s really interesting stuff
and is worth pondering – the most recent conversation I’ve seen is based on a
book by Bill Bishop. “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America
Is Tearing Us Apart”
Rodriguez reviewed it recently in the LA Times (5/26):
`The new American
segregation: As we cloister
ourselves in like-minded enclaves, we're less likely to reach national
consensus.`
“..these days, skeptics and the uncommitted are becoming
few and far between. The number of voters in the middle has become smaller and
smaller, and hence there are fewer people willing to hear what both sides have
to say. In the 1980s, maybe 25% of voters could be persuaded to vote for either
major party. According to one estimate, that number may have dwindled to less
than 10% today. The squeezing out of moderates in the electorate has since led
to the decline in the number of moderates (and by that, I mean members willing
to work with the other party and maybe even vote with it occasionally) in the
House of Representatives, where they held 37% of the seats in the mid-1970s but
only 8% in 2005.”
He cites Bishop, “there's something much more profound and far-reaching going on. Given all the media choices they have, Americans are increasingly segregating into "gated" communications communities, choosing to read and hear only the things that bolster their worldview.…homogeneity breeds more homogeneity. Political minorities in landslide counties tend to vote less and even withdraw from other forms of civic life, while political majorities vote more. In any given lopsided locale, the triumphant majority opinion hardens -- the blues become bluer and the reds redder -- and cross-party communication stops. And when communication stops, each side begins to view the other as more extreme. According to one study, fewer than 25% of Americans have regular discussions with people they disagree with politically. The more educated Americans become, the greater the distance. Americans who hold graduate degrees live the most homogenous political lives….Thus, as Americans separate themselves into ever-narrower communities, our votes are becoming "more of an affirmation of the group than an expression of a civic opinion." As we cloister ourselves in like-minded enclaves, we're finding it harder to reach a national consensus.”
There was a really interesting segment on this on Newshour the other evening featuring Bishop himself, Tumulty and Rob Brownstein
One of the things this conversation highlighted that Rodriguez’ article didn’t was that the Obama campaign argued that the youth vote changed the landscape in Iowafrom that which had pertained in 2004.So… is Clinton more realistic? Does she actually reflect what seems to be going on sociologically? Obama tries to surmount it. McCain, I’d suggest, tries to straddle some sort of ground between the two of them – ie trying to hijack Obama’s bipartisan theme when it suits him and actually proposing policies that are hugely geared to polarisation: the right wing scenario (his tax policies, his foreign policy, complete absence of education policy.)
The Newshour segment was fascinating. Which is the most realistic scenario? Can the youth vote combined with the rest of his Obama’s `base` overpower the `gated-polarised, landslide counties scenario?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/demographic_05-19.html
Comments (18)
Interesting post. Honestly, I don't have an answer. But I do think the question you're asking overlaps in a very interesting way with the questions raised in George Packer's recent New Yorker article, "The Fall of Conservatism" (I believe Josh flagged it on the front page).
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer
Packer argues that the strategy of cultural division that began with Nixon, and carried conservatives for some forty years, is finally played out. As the social upheaval of the Sixties recedes into the past, it's no longer enough for Republicans to campaign, so to speak, against George McGovern -- against black people and condescending, amoral, hedonistic elites. That sort of polarization is losing its power, and conservatives need some new ideas.
The questions you raise in your post might be cogent objections to Packer's thesis. I.e., it's possible that for technological reasons, polarization is more powerful than ever.
If I had to guess, I would say that you're both right. I think the sort of "narrowcasting" Bill Bishop describes is creating hermetically sealed chambers where political passions reverberate and feed on themselves. (Frankly, look at what's happening with Obama blogs and Hillary blogs right now. It's insane.) But it's possible that Packer is also right that one particular kind of polarization -- resentment of the "cultural elite" -- is losing its political power.
Anyway, good question. Ron Perlstein's book Nixonland looks into the Sixties prehistory of cultural division -- he's posting at the cafe this week.
May 26, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I read the first page - saw there were nine - so I'm printng it out to read in bed tonight. :-)
What I have so far from it is Nixon = `two Americas: the quiet, ordinary, patriotic, religious, law-abiding Many, and the noisy, élitist, amoral, disorderly, condescending Few.`
"Resentment of the cultural elite is losing its power"?
Interesting. If that's the case, then how come Hillary & McCain have both seen such an opening to pounce and exploit the idea that Obama is an elitist representing latte liberals?
What I find so ironic is the way in which so many
`Reagan Democrats` hang on the words of such people as Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham Limbaugh etc, when they are so transparently pushing vested interests that are utterly antithetical to people on minimum wage etc; peole with no health care insurance. That one is absolutely bizarre.
Another thing that I find so noticeable is how easily and simplistically Fox et al can trumpet low taxation, government is the root of all evil;
and how little Democratic politicians take that on; all they do is respond that they're only going to tax the rich. I was stunned when Hillary said so assertively in Phliadelphia that you'd have to be earning a quarter of a million dollars a year before she'd raise taxes; Obama then meekly followed suit but set it at 200,000. They don't say there are so many things we have to have that we can't any of us do alone as individuals: but collectively they can be done.
How can the right-wing appeal on low taxation as the goal and hit home every time? Why don't Democrats hammer away at the message that that's completely arse about face? What's needed is to work out what a society has to have and then determine the tax rates needed to pay for those things: bridges that don't collapse, schools that equip kids for this century; a civilised healthcare system?
The whole thing's so bizarre to an outsider. ;-)
May 27, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's bizarre, but not impossible to understand. America is a country built on individualism. States and municipalities fiercely guard their independence.
In a country where "collectivism" or "solidarity" are negative words, taxes are naturally a tricky issue. Many Americans simply don't make the connection between "taxes" and "roads" or "schools". They don't like government, and especially not the federal government. You know that.
Why is the America the only (to my knowledge) Western country with no universal healthcare? It's because implementing universal healthcare requires a sort of tax.
I would also add that the US political system (but this is in no way specific to the US) makes it easy for people who don't care about solving real problems to get elected. It's easy to make promises to voters and not keep them. Especially because solving problems tends to be painful, and voters don't like that. This may be destructive in the long term... but who cares about the long term?
May 27, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes as you point out I do know this, but I get frustrated that Democratic candidates don't reframe the debate in words that don't inflame those prejudices.
How I'd love to see Obama make a keynote speech in the same way that he did in Philadelphia reframing the debate.
May 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. In the U.S., cultural antagonisms can still trump the economic interests of many working-class voters. That's the sort of "polarization" that has kept the Republican party in control of the debate for several decades.
If you pursue this to its roots, there are probably two main sources of cultural polarization in the US. One is race. In many parts of the country, white working-class voters still feel more solidarity with their white bosses than they do with their black fellow-workers.
The other is religion, which gets mixed up with "patriotism" for historical reasons that deserve a separate post. Liberals aren't felt to be sufficiently committed to the moral structure that holds us together as a nation, and specifically a Christian nation.
Packer's suggestion is not that these forms of polarization have vanished, but that they are beginning to lose power. His main evidence is to point to McCain and Obama. McCain, he says, is behaving like a pre-60s Republican (e.g. little real interest in religious themes), and Obama is trying to be a post-60s Democrat. Neither of them is really interested in fighting that old cultural battle.
The thing that gives me most hope, actually, is Obama's ability to invoke a powerful, emotional sense of national community, and harness that to Democratic causes. So often in the past the game has worked like this:
Democratic candidate: "come over here, working people, and I'll give you more money."
Republican candidate: "come over here, working people, and I'll let you belong to a triumphant nation of Christian individualists."
We have to offer a compelling vision of national community, or we're toast.
May 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I went to bed thinking last night that I was forgetting this crucial thing - that Australia & the UK which I'm more rooted in have political cultures that were rooted in the class struggle - both countries only recently really having got away from that. And I do fully acknowledge that America in many ways benefitted from not viewing the world in the same way. And it does seem to me now that you're actually paying a high price for that fact.
"This one will see the beginnings of realignment because of increased participation."
I hope so. It really depends on who wins the debate doesn't it? ie can't remember where but I read an article today which sent chills down my spine. That the GOP isn't planning to regurgitate the standard type of swiftboating. What they're determined to do is portray Obama as extremely liberal based on his record, show his track record as just another slick Chicago machine political operator. Will they succeed? They'll certainly have Fox onside in it. I actually hold Fox hugely responsible for managing Hillary's comeback since Wisconsin. Their attacks on Obama are both subtle and overt - they've given Clinton a relative dream run.
The key question I think is is that increased participation going to be enough and in the right states? Or is it going to be mainly concentrated in states that are already red?
May 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What's needed is to work out what a society has to have and then determine the tax rates needed to pay for those things"
Wow. Almost any working individual with a budget, formal or informal, could tell you that you have it backwards. First you figure out what you have to spend, what you can afford, then you decide what to spend it on.
There is very little from government that society has to have, as opposed to would like to have. Universal healthcare would be nice, but I do not see how this is something that society has to have from government such that whatever the cost government must extract in taxation the means to provide it.
I have asked this question before, but not received an answer: How much is enough? Just what share of the nation's wealth ought the government take from the taxpayers in preference to allowing the taxpayers to individually decide to save or spend?
May 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well since I haven't studied your national accounts in detail, I'm not the one to be able to answer this fully. But from my days of studying political economy, I do remember very well that you spend a disproportionate (yes, value judgment) amount on national defense relative to social infrastructure.
No, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have adequate defense but then the questions becomes what is adequate and I would argue that yours is way out in the stratosphere cf what you need.
For example, you really think it admirable that you should have been spending money on researching nuclear bunker busters at the expense of educating all your kids well?
What I would challenge to answer is why it is that so many other advanced industrial nations manage to give their populations basic health cover, why the US is falling so badly behind in education cf other OPEC countries, why you have bridges falling down, when you're nominally the wealthiest country in the world?
May 27, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the federal level the overwhelming majority of spending is non-discresionary entitlement transfer spending - Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, farm subsidies, etc. These are transfers from one pocket, the taxpayer's pocket (and via debt their children ...) to the the recipient's pockets. The government gets nothing from this in the form of infrastructure or core governmental responsibilities met, but the electorate gets what a working majority deems a social good. Most infrastructure and such was originally intended to be state and local government, but the Federal tax take supresses the ability to state's to tax, and thus such expenditures are given short shrift.
Yes, the US spends a larger amount on defense. This is in large part because the rest of the democratic industrialized west hides under a US military umbrella. When there is a crisis in the world needful of a military response, the world calls on the US for the most part, because the rest of the world is not up to the job.
Australia and the UK stand out as partial exceptions to this generalization, and are deserving of our highest respect.
May 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would submit that Republicans vs. Democrats are Clinton vs. Obama writ large. The policy differences are not that large, which means that a lot of bullshit rhetoric is needed to make them seem radically different.
Because there is no really major issue (slavery, civil rights, draft), everything comes down to opinions and personalities, everything needs to be blown way out of proportion, and it's impossible to convince anyone that they're wrong. Call it the paradox of a stable democracy.
Of course that doesn't make any of this good and I much prefer Obama's approach to Clinton's.
May 27, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to confess that I've read this four times and am feeling really dense because I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. ;-)
Are you arguing that there's little difference between the GOP and the Dems? Very little more difference than that between Clinton & Obama?
If you are, then I think you're misreading the impact McCain's going to try to have. (The interesting thing is that if he wins, how is he going to get anything through when the GOP's going down everywhere in Congress?
But he really is different. His policies give new meaning to mean: he intends to slash taxes, he will have to slash spending massively because he'll want to cut the deficit and he intends to keep on with the war spending.
One of his friends had an essay recently published in the WSJ: I'd suggest McCain would agree with all of it & Coburn is part of trying to turn the GOP around.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184690228421415.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
But back to the original premise: I'm wondering what it means for the general...
May 27, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
[OK, so I'm making this up as I go along, but indulge me]
You're not dense; that really is what I am saying. Maybe not saying very clearly though.
You just need to adjust your perspective, zoom out a bit.
What's McCain really going to do? Is he going to re-establish slavery or take away women's voting rights? Is Obama going to nationalize industry or fold US military bases around the world? No, of course not.
This isn't 1808 or even 1968. America is a very stable country, with stability built right into the system. Neither party is actually going to make any radical changes.
Switching the party in power every once in a while is necessary because power corrupts. But what if political parties have outlived their usefulness? They will still fight because that's all they can do...
Again, look at Obama vs. Clinton. No one can say that there are major policy differences between them. But looking at the fight, you'd never guess that. It's a fight to the (political) death, because if the ideas aren't different, fighting is all that remains.
May 27, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot depends on how far you zoom out. Obama and Clinton really are pretty close in policy terms. But I think you have to zoom out pretty durn far to make McCain/Obama look like a small difference.
It's true that domestic policy doesn't turn on a dime. That sort of stuff changes slowly.
But a president can rapidly make a pretty big difference in foreign policy. And McCain and Obama have really, really different approaches to foreign policy. Iraq is just the beginning of it. McCain's general instinct is to solve problems through military power; Obama's general instinct is to solve problems through international cooperation.
May 27, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Replace "Obama" with "Clinton". Is it still so far-fetched?
Maybe Obama really is the odd one, the change candidate.
May 27, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, I hope he is!
May 27, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This response really made me smile - reminds me of a friend in Seattle who will never vote for either Democrat or Republican because he seems them as both corrupt and the differences as marginal.
I have to admit that now that McCain's the candidate, go to his website and actually read his policies, especially economic, and I think he is going to be a radical departure.
With regard to Clinton & Obama, yes I think where all this polarisation has come from is identity politics, not policy substance.
May 27, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post. What I find astounding is that if I'd ever heard Hillary Clinton over the last 7+ years as a Senator this incensed against republicans and fight this hard against them, I would have had more respect for her. As it is, her record is disturbingly comfortable with caving to Republicans.
That being said, I think the answer to your post is "yes". The polarization we have seen has come from elections where 50% of the electorate votes, if that. Worse in off-year elections. So Congress and the presidential races are not indicative of what people are really feeling. Of course, they should show the hell up and vote -- of course they should. But it's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. But I do believe that we will see a realignment because of Obama's candidacy and subsequent nomination. We will see more people vote than before. We are as good as our most recent election. This one will see the beginnings of realignment because of increased participation. It is this participation that is driving Hillary insane because it does not track with CW.
May 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But is this participation going to happen where we need it to? Or is it going to be largley concentrated in already safe red states?
That's why I think it sucha pity that McCain wrapped up his nomination so quickly. In the later primaries we really haven't seen what the republcian turn out was relative to Democrat - as we did in the earlier ones.
May 27, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment