Increasing Political Partisanship: [Insert Party Name] Is a Threat to Our Nation's Well-Being

Pew Research just published an absolutely wonderful--and frightening--report about the growing levels of political polarization in America and how that's affecting not just our politics, but our everyday lives. It is based on a survey of 10,000 Americans.

The report shows that there's been a steady decline over the past twenty years of the political center: Americans who consistently share both liberal and conservative positions on issues. Instead, there's been a steady drift to the edges, with more and more Americans holding consistently liberal or consistently conservative positions.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-04.png)

That change has resulted in a situation now where there is virtually no ideological overlap between Democrats and Republicans. To put that in perspective, twenty years ago 23% of all Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat and 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today those numbers are just 4% and 5% respectively.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-05.png)

This growing political siloization has lead to each party having an increasingly negative view of the other party.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-2-02.png)

More disturbing, that negative view goes well beyond simple dislike. A substantial chunk of both parties view the other as not simply being bad, but literally being a threat to the well-being of the country.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-02.png)

This political polarization is also shaping where people live and what they feel is important in their communities. Liberals prefer to live in cities and conservatives prefer to live in more rural settings.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-3-03.png)

And while both groups agree that being near their extended families, good schools, and access to the outdoors is desirable for their community, there are also significant areas of difference.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-3-04.png)

Things like the arts and being surrounded by people from mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds are very important components of a community for liberals, while conservatives heavily discount those things and would much prefer to surround themselves with people who practiced the same religion.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-3-05.png)

These survey results are buttressed by what's happening in the real world. An excellent example of this is the series of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel articles, Dividing Lines, that detailed the increasingly partisan split between metro Milwaukee and the surrounding counties.

The Pew report provides some very interesting breakdowns of the growing partisan divide on key issues, but perhaps the most depressing chart is this one:

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-5-05.png)

It's depressing because it shows that ideologues from both sides of the political spectrum will continue to have an outsized--and likely increasing--impact on politics. On both sides, people who really hate the other side are nearly twice as like to always vote as someone in the middle. That means it's simply more effective for political campaigns to whip up the most liberal or the most conservative members than it is to reach out to the those in the middle even though the middle still represents most Americans.

I read that and agree it was a good piece, but I would also state that it is important to note the evolution of the positions themselves.

Whereas Democrats have gotten consistently more liberal on social issues like marriage equality, equal pay, and marijuana legalization, they have actually also gotten considerably more conservative on fiscal issues like taxation and entitlements. It is just that Republicans have gotten so much more reactionary on the issue of regressive taxation that the boundaries of political discourse are way beyond even the lunatic imaginings of political theorists of the 1980's.

I think the internet and mass communication has allowed us to create conclaves that reinforce our beliefs which allows us to get more extreme. It's the whole thing: I believe in diversity! All my friends are just like me!

Ulairi wrote:

I think the internet and mass communication has allowed us to create conclaves that reinforce our beliefs which allows us to get more extreme. It's the whole thing: I believe in diversity! All my friends are just like me!

Agree - but what's interesting to me is that Internet Reality seems to be directly affecting meatspace, as people physically move to either urban or rural areas, depending in their political leanings. (Or, conversely, as people change their ideologies depending on where they live).

It's a compelling story, and one that bleeds right into the theory of Urban Archipelagos.

This is just depressing.

Ulairi wrote:

I think the internet and mass communication has allowed us to create conclaves that reinforce our beliefs which allows us to get more extreme.

Pew is compiling several related reports. One is due out in September that will "examine how political polarization is linked to people’s information environments: Their news sources, social media habits and interpersonal communication networks." That should be an interesting read.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with viewing conservative positions as a threat to the nation's well being, because, IMO, they are. I also suspect that some of the consolidation on the liberal end is a direct reaction to the toxicity of conservative talking points, and I'm glad it's happened.

The only sad bit in that article, IMO, was the voting aspect...and I think that will sort itself out in time, because I think the number of people who hold conservative beliefs, in general, is diminishing, especially with regards to social & religious beliefs. If conservatives are more likely to hold extreme beliefs in the future, but don't have the numbers to impact the polls, then they can (and will) be ignored.

Mormech wrote:

The only sad bit in that article, IMO, was the voting aspect...and I think that will sort itself out in time, because I think the number of people who hold conservative beliefs, in general, is diminishing, especially with regards to social & religious beliefs. If conservatives are more likely to hold extreme beliefs in the future, but don't have the numbers to impact the polls, then they can (and will) be ignored.

Unfortunately there are extremely real political consequences of the most ideologically pure ends of the political spectrum being the most active voters.

Remember last year's government shutdown? That was expression of how both political extremes view compromise. Or, more specifically, how they increasingly only see deals where they get virtually everything they want as compromise and everything else as caving in.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/PP-2014-06-12-polarization-4-01.png)

While those in the political middle have an entirely reasonable "compromise is 50/50" view of thing, the more ideological don't.

Only about a third (34%) of consistent liberals think of the ideal point as halfway between Obama and the Republicans. Instead, most (62%) think that any deal between the two sides should be closer to Obama’s position than the GOP’s position. And not by just a little bit: On average, consistent liberals say Obama should get two-thirds of what he wants, meeting congressional Republicans only one-third of the way. And 16% of consistent liberals think Obama should obtain 90% or more of what he wants in these deals.

Those on the right also are reluctant to see their side give ground. On average, consistent conservatives say that ideally, congressional Republicans should get 66% of what they want, while Obama should get just 34% of what he wants. Nearly a quarter (22%) of consistent conservatives think that Republicans should get 90% or more of what they seek.

I'm not sure the country can stand decades of this attitude.

Mormech wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a problem with viewing conservative positions as a threat to the nation's well being, because, IMO, they are.

It's not just you. That's what the report is about - showing that conservatives feel the same way about you.

It's almost like people get angry when you try to force them to live their lives your way.

This article (and, consequently, any discussion about it) really seems to ride the "everything is equal" fallacy pretty hard.

While the polarization itself is a serious problem that leads to the actual governing of the country grinding to a halt, it's not as if all alternatives from all sides on all issues are of equal worth. You can say "well X party is wrong about Y" because you're just a blind ideologue, and you can also say it because you're informed of real and objective facts. "X party is wrong about Y" is not, itself, an inherently wrong-headed statement. One of the problems of polarization is the growing attitude that any form of opposition in any case is always of equal worth to the idea/thought being opposed.

It's almost like people get angry when you try to force them to live their lives your way.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess Leia

Bloo Driver wrote:

This article (and, consequently, any discussion about it) really seems to ride the "everything is equal" fallacy pretty hard.

While the polarization itself is a serious problem that leads to the actual governing of the country grinding to a halt, it's not as if all alternatives from all sides on all issues are of equal worth. You can say "well X party is wrong about Y" because you're just a blind ideologue, and you can also say it because you're informed of real and objective facts. "X party is wrong about Y" is not, itself, an inherently wrong-headed statement. One of the problems of polarization is the growing attitude that any form of opposition in any case is always of equal worth to the idea/thought being opposed.

Yeah, I was suddenly thinking of Ted Oliver's segment on Climate Change a few weeks back. If that section on who should get what came up, for the good of the ENTIRE PLANET, Democrats should probably get almost all of what they want... but because it's a "debate", it's considered equally valid to not care about the planet more than 50 years out and denying 97% of scientists' consensus is considered a position rather than what it is: Wrong.

OG do you actually believe that considering the other party a threat is "disturbing"?

Along the lines of what Bloo and Paleo said, I look at that one chart, and it's weird to say we're becoming more partisan. From 2004 to 2011 *everyone's* opinion of Republicans was becoming less favorable. In 2011, both sets of Liberals and Mostly Conservative started to view the Republicans more favorably, while Mixed and Consistently Conservative views continue to get less favorable. In 2011 everyone but Consistently Liberal had increases in unfavorable views of Democrats, especially the Conservative unfavorable views of Demoracts which really took off--right at the time that trend turned around for the Republicans.

I think there's more to it than just 'partisanship' considering what a mess all of those trends suggest. Sounds like a complex...brew.

Winston Churchill wrote:

I refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.

I'd be curious to see what absolute numbers are, since the conservative numbers tend to be tied to declining demographics..

Tanglebones wrote:

I'd be curious to see what absolute numbers are, since the conservative numbers tend to be tied to declining demographics..

The fantasy that Republicans are going to die out is highly amusing. There will always be a loyal opposition.

I wish partisans could separate out the old fashioned hot button issues from policy differences. Everything is now a hot button issue where the slightest bit of compromise is misconstrued as complete capitulation to the forces of evil.

But we get the government that we deserve and scorched earth politics rule the day.

Tanglebones wrote:

I'd be curious to see what absolute numbers are, since the conservative numbers tend to be tied to declining demographics..

The numbers seem about equal to me... It fits with the relative sizes of the parties being roughly equal, I think. (Has that changed yet?)

NormanTheIntern wrote:

OG do you actually believe that considering the other party a threat is "disturbing"?

I'm not going to lie, Norman. If I would take the 10 question ideological survey Pew asked, I'm pretty damned sure that I would end up in the "consistently liberal" category.

But, yes, I consider it disturbing that both ends of the spectrum increasingly view the other as a threat to the country as disturbing because the natural end to that trend is Civil War II: Electoral Boogaloo.

Bloo Driver wrote:

While the polarization itself is a serious problem that leads to the actual governing of the country grinding to a halt, it's not as if all alternatives from all sides on all issues are of equal worth. You can say "well X party is wrong about Y" because you're just a blind ideologue, and you can also say it because you're informed of real and objective facts. "X party is wrong about Y" is not, itself, an inherently wrong-headed statement. One of the problems of polarization is the growing attitude that any form of opposition in any case is always of equal worth to the idea/thought being opposed.

You're still not getting it. From your perspective, their alternatives are unworthy. From their perspective, your alternatives are unworthy. You aren't going to change their minds, just like they aren't going to change yours. "Objective facts" are bandied around like candy on all sides, because in the end "objective" means whatever you believe in. That's how people work. It's not going to change. And, actually, it's not that bad of a problem.

Until you try to make them do what you want.

That's why things are getting more polarized. The more the two sides try to use the government to make people do what they want, the worse it is going to get. People get tired of being pushed around and bullied. They get angry. They start to see less nuance and more absolute. And OG is exactly right about where that eventually leads. You can look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Venezuela for a real-time demonstration.

Aetius wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

While the polarization itself is a serious problem that leads to the actual governing of the country grinding to a halt, it's not as if all alternatives from all sides on all issues are of equal worth. You can say "well X party is wrong about Y" because you're just a blind ideologue, and you can also say it because you're informed of real and objective facts. "X party is wrong about Y" is not, itself, an inherently wrong-headed statement. One of the problems of polarization is the growing attitude that any form of opposition in any case is always of equal worth to the idea/thought being opposed.

You're still not getting it. From your perspective, their alternatives are unworthy. From their perspective, your alternatives are unworthy. You aren't going to change their minds, just like they aren't going to change yours. "Objective facts" are bandied around like candy on all sides, because in the end "objective" means whatever you believe in. That's how people work. It's not going to change. And, actually, it's not that bad of a problem.

Until you try to make them do what you want.

That's why things are getting more polarized. The more the two sides try to use the government to make people do what they want, the worse it is going to get. People get tired of being pushed around and bullied. They get angry. They start to see less nuance and more absolute. And OG is exactly right about where that eventually leads. You can look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Venezuela for a real-time demonstration.

No, I'm really getting it. It's a very basic principle. None of the above contradicts what I said (unless you are saying the "from your perspective" directly at me and not in a broad case point).

Bloo Driver wrote:
Aetius wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

While the polarization itself is a serious problem that leads to the actual governing of the country grinding to a halt, it's not as if all alternatives from all sides on all issues are of equal worth. You can say "well X party is wrong about Y" because you're just a blind ideologue, and you can also say it because you're informed of real and objective facts. "X party is wrong about Y" is not, itself, an inherently wrong-headed statement. One of the problems of polarization is the growing attitude that any form of opposition in any case is always of equal worth to the idea/thought being opposed.

You're still not getting it. From your perspective, their alternatives are unworthy. From their perspective, your alternatives are unworthy. You aren't going to change their minds, just like they aren't going to change yours. "Objective facts" are bandied around like candy on all sides, because in the end "objective" means whatever you believe in. That's how people work. It's not going to change. And, actually, it's not that bad of a problem.

Until you try to make them do what you want.

That's why things are getting more polarized. The more the two sides try to use the government to make people do what they want, the worse it is going to get. People get tired of being pushed around and bullied. They get angry. They start to see less nuance and more absolute. And OG is exactly right about where that eventually leads. You can look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Venezuela for a real-time demonstration.

No, I'm really getting it. It's a very basic principle. None of the above contradicts what I said (unless you are saying the "from your perspective" directly at me and not in a broad case point).

I'm pretty sure he meant both.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I'm pretty sure he meant both.

I hope not, cuz that'd be pretty idiotic.

I don't see how, just keep in mind that the other side doesn't know their ideas are worthless.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I don't see how, just keep in mind that the other side doesn't know their ideas are worthless.

Because this -

You're still not getting it. From your perspective, their alternatives are unworthy. From their perspective, your alternatives are unworthy. You aren't going to change their minds, just like they aren't going to change yours. "Objective facts" are bandied around like candy on all sides, because in the end "objective" means whatever you believe in. That's how people work. It's not going to change. And, actually, it's not that bad of a problem.

Until you try to make them do what you want.

... as a basic statement of tribal political behavior is pretty broadly applicable, generally correct, and doesn't really have anything to do with what I was pointing out.

But as a statement about me specifically, it's wildly ignorant and assumptive.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I don't see how, just keep in mind that the other side doesn't know their ideas are worthless.

Specifically in regards to evolution and climate change, conservatives' ignorance of their worthless ideas matter naught. They're worthless. Implying otherwise is exactly as BlooDriver described.

Gun control, economics, religion: these are more gray areas, especially if you prefer order over freedom.

Oh, okay, I get it. My bad.

jigoku wrote:

especially if you prefer order over freedom.

*involuntary shiver*

Malor wrote:
jigoku wrote:

especially if you prefer order over freedom.

*involuntary shiver*

Looks like you want to check Pew's website in a few weeks.

The second report, coming in a few weeks, is the new Pew Research Center Political Typology. The typology – the sixth such study since 1987 – looks beyond Red vs. Blue divisions to gain a clearer understanding of the dynamic nature of the “center” of the American electorate, and the internal divides on both the left and the right.
NormanTheIntern wrote:

OG do you actually believe that considering the other party a threat is "disturbing"?

Threat is an awfully strong position compared with "I disagree with your policies on these issues but let's work out what we can compromise on or trade" (i.e. the point at which productive politics can happen).

jigoku wrote:

Specifically in regards to evolution and climate change, conservatives' ignorance of their worthless ideas matter naught. They're worthless. Implying otherwise is exactly as BlooDriver described.

Their ideas may be worthless - there are plenty to go around. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the problem of political polarization and conflict. I think this is the most important thing you can ever understand about politics - it doesn't matter at all that you are absolutely, 100% right about whatever it is that you're addressing.

What matters is what you are willing to do to make it happen, and how other people respond to that. If you want to create enemies from people who aren't your enemy now, keep pushing them around. If you want to cause people to dig in their heels on an irrational belief, keep trying to force them to give it up. If you want to make people resort to armed conflict to protect their way of life, use the government to try and take it away from them. If you want to make people extremists, keep bullying them and belittling their beliefs as worthless - even when they are. If you want to make an unbridgeable political divide, keep trying to create "our" society through force, instead of leaving people to peacefully co-exist and create their own.