Americans are less politically polarized than you'd think watching TV.
More to the point, we're far less polarized than our political leaders.
I've quoted Keith Poole and others to the effect that Congress has not been so polarized since the Civil War. No wonder so many of us think the political landscape is fracturing into islands of "us" and "them."
Two-thirds of the public thinks we are sharply divided into red and blue states of mind.
But a new study of national elections over the last 40 years shows pretty convincingly that Americans are actually not very far apart on issues ranging from government-provided healthcare to defense spending and women's equality.
What gives?
Real polarization is pretty much confined to the political elites -- the relatively small number of people who are most committed to their political party and more likely to be politically active. Exaggerating differences turns out to be a powerful tool in getting out the vote, or -- these days -- the nomination.
So that's what they do, and the media, liking nothing more than a good fight, not only cover it, but encourage and enable it.
Even the estimable Bob Schieffer couldn't resist putting words in Newt Gingrich's mouth on "Face the Nation." He asked Gingrich if he thought Mitt Romney was "too dishonest to be president."
Gingrich was too smart to repeat the words, but launched into his standard complaint that "(Romney) came into the debate prepared to say things that are false. I will let you decide whether that is clever or whether that is really bad."
Schieffer wasn't too shy to ask his next guest if she agreed with Gingrich's "serious charge" that Romney is "too dishonest to be president." (Transcript here.)
And do it goes. One talking head's question becomes a political cadidate's "serious charge."
Votes, ratings -- chasing either at all costs is what threatens to drive us apart.
Polarization anyone?
Comments