The Roots of Polarization

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Cick here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

Digested First Pages:

Richard Farson
It is a special pleasure for me to introduce my longtime friend, colleague and co-author, Ralph Keyes (pronounced kize) as the leader of our new conference, "The Roots of Polarization." More than just about anyone I know, Ralph fits the term prescient. His writing (thirteen books) is always out front of everyone else. From his earliest work, such as We, the Lonely People in which he documents the erosion of community, and his extremely popular Is There Life After High School? (a serious study that was nevertheless made into a terrific Broadway musical, which I had the pleasure of attending) in which he recognizes the developmental importance of late adolescence, a fresh viewpoint that has since been documented by research, to his most recent book, The Post Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life, he has not only been ahead of the pack, but continually confronting the crucial issues of our time.

The crucial issue he deals with in this conference is the fact that the US is dangerously polarized in many ways, politics particularly. And when the US is in danger, so are other nations. Depending on whom Bush nominates to the Supreme Court, we will probably see the fissures opening wider in weeks to come. We need to understand the causes of this polarization, and that's what Ralph will be exploring in this conference--the social forces that promote polarization, inner urges that lead us to separate clearly from them, and the technological developments that facilitate polarization. So welcome, Ralph.

Ralph Keyes
In another era and a vastly different political climate, Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana ate breakfast daily with Republican Senator George Aiken of Vermont. In today’s polarized climate such collegiality would be unthinkable. It's hard to imagine Republican Senator Bill Frist dining even occasionally with Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, let alone daily.

Polarization is one of the most corrosive ills infecting our political process. This is often noted. What we see too little of is consideration of why we've become so polarized. That is what I would like to consider in this conference.

The sources of our increasingly divided polity are complex and diverse. The most obvious source is increased rigidity on both ends of the political spectrum. Former Tennessee Senator and Republican National Chairman Bill Brock say our system has come to resemble a barbell in which all the weight is at either end. Pragmatic pols give way to single-issue ideologues. Polarizers such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Karl Rove, James Carville, Newt Gingrich, and Howard Dean set the tone of contemporary political dialogue, particularly since George Bush and Karl Rove enjoyed so much success by catering to their "base," it's become commonplace to conclude that accommodating one’s most fervent followers pays off better than courting nonbelievers. And that may be so. In the most recent presidential election tickets were split at only half the rate they were as recently as three decades ago.

But the rise of polarized politics reflects broader trends. The trend to media segmentation that began with specialized magazines, cable television channels, and targeted radio stations shows has been put in overdrive on the Internet where we can instantly congregate with like-minded people in ever-more narrow online communities of interest. Our increasingly sophisticated ability to collect and analyze data makes it more possible than ever to locate and cling to "our kind." This highlights the role that technology plays in polarizing American politics. Polarization is one more unintended consequence of technological progress.

It's no coincidence that highly successful polarizers such as Karl Rove and Richard Viguerie come from the world of direct mail where computers have made it possible to identify receptive individuals, fine-tune messages that appeal to their most fervent convictions, and mail targeted appeals to them en masse. In a similar fashion, computers have made it possible for both parties, but Republicans especially, to re-draw legislative districts in such a way that there are fewer and fewer swing seats at the state or national level. There is no longer any limit to the precision with which such districts can be designed to gather like-minded voters in one place. Highly sophisticated software programs such as Caliper’s Maptitude for Redistricting can be purchased to accomplish this goal. Such tools can be used segment voters not just by where they live but by their age, marital and family status, income, purchasing patterns, educational level, religious affiliation (if any), ethnicity, reading habits, and voting habits, among other things. This can literally be done block by block, and household by household.

Based on esthetics alone, the subsequent shape of an increasing number of Congressional districts would make Salvador Dali gasp with admiration. The practical result is that nearly every Congressional seat has become a "safe" seat. As recently as 1992, 156 House races were considered competitive. During last year's election that number dropped to 43. In nearly 90 percent of all Congressional elections the outcome is a virtual lock. Candidates in such elections do best when they appeal to the faithful, not to a broad range of voters. Bipartisanship is the victim.

This issue is often considered in terms of its injustice vis-à-vis out-of-favor political parties, but very little in terms of the injury it inflicts on voters of every stripe. The design of congressional districts suits the needs of officeholders far better than those who elect them. Politicians' tails wag the electorate's dogs. The fix is simple: take redistricting out of the hands of elected officials. Among the few genuinely contested Congressional seats are those in Iowa where redistricting has been handed over to an independent commission.

A separate but related issue is the primary system which, far from being more "democratic," favors ideologues on both sides who appeal to a minority of highly committed voters, but who then have trouble appealing to ones in the middle during general elections. Again, the rights of the majority give way to those of an ideological minority. Say what you will about "smoke-filled rooms," the convention system did a better job than primaries do when it comes to balancing conflicting interests and selecting candidates with broad appeal.

Political polarization is part of a broader social cleavage along lines of income, taste, and values. In the last election George Bush repeatedly warned voters that John Kerry didn't "share their values." Value-sharing has become a very important social guideline across the entire political spectrum. At Antioch College, my alma mater, students, faculty, and administrators alike are recruited on the basis that they "share our values." The result is a highly charged progressive-alternative atmosphere with little room for genuine debate, let alone empathy for unapproved points of view. This atmosphere characterizes many another campus. That's one reason why the rise of education—thought to be a broadening, civilizing influence—has actually made for increasingly bitter political fissures. The better educated the voter, the less likely he or she is to split a ticket. Republicans and Democrats with college degrees are more rigidly ideological than counterparts who didn’t go beyond high school.

Even high school—the best opportunity most Americans have to be among a cross-section of other Americans—is less and less diverse. The rise of magnet and charter schools enhances this trend. Military service, another occasion when drafted men were among other men from many walks of life, has given way to a professional military which involves a small fraction of self-selected, relatively homogenous soldiers.

As a result, more and more Americans grow up in settings where they have fewer and fewer opportunities to get to know those unlike themselves. Developers trumpet "lifestyle communities" in which diversity gives way to common interests, outlooks, and values. As a whole, American society is increasingly segmented on such lines. Next year California voters will decide whether Santa Barbara County should be divided into two counties primarily on the basis of lifestyle differences.

The question I've seldom seen considered, and hope we can address, is why so many Americans feel such a strong need to associate primarily if not exclusively with "their own kind." What inner needs are being met here? My own hunch is that as ties of ethnicity and geography weaken we look for other ways to bond. Many of those who are hungry for a sense of community find it in special interest groups. These groups continually come in conflict. The greater the conflict, the more unbreachable becomes the gulf between them. Richard Viguerie says it is far easier to organize voters on the basis of what they're against than what they are for. This in turn reinforces both the sense of belonging and the tendency to polarize.

With so many different streams converging in an increasing number of rivers dividing us, how could we be other than polarized?

Participant
Excellent way to start a discussion on such an important issue. I shall have to think it over a bit before I contribute. I shall definitely read Is There A Life After High School?

Participant
Ralph, you always hit the nail on the head or split the rail clean. Bush-Rove sure hacked out Red state evangelical tickets like nobody before but there's a deeper tide toward a richer pluralism, best reported in Diana Eck's "New Religious America". While it shakes up the fundamentalists among Christians as well as Islamics it makes us more of a melting pot than ever, with mainstream Hindus, Buddhists, creating the kind of diversity that makes religious freedom essential to all. Eck's world, if we're lucky, will triumph over Rove's schemes of hate.

Participant
Either the NY Times or the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal in the last 2-3 weeks had an op-ed piece with a graph showing polarization in Congress since 1955. The authors' conclusion was it had to do with voting rules. Because incumbents are so favored, the primary has become more important than it used to be, and hence more extreme candidates become selected-for.

I am a big believer in structures controlling outcomes.

Participant
"The media made us do it," like all mantras, is both an over generalization and overly simplistic. Still and all, it's right more often than most mantras. And besides, it's my mantra.

And I don't mean the splintering of the audience into the demographics of comfort (though I share your judgment about that one as well). I'm referring to "local news" programs that are national feeds, commercials, weather, sports, fires and fender-benders, and the lost child and celebrity trial of the week—any story of any kind with a local tie seldom runs over 15-20 seconds. Documentaries, or Sunday morning local discussion programs, are now virtually nonexistent.

These local public policy issues, challenges, problems and possibilities, were a part of the non-partisan glue that bound thoughtful local citizens together—labor union members with the Chamber of Commerce crowd, all religious groups, environmentalists and developers.

As with much humor, what makes the following funny is how close to truth it is: A community's good government group ran a poll. "What's the worst problem in our community, ignorance or apathy?" and found the majority answered, "I don't know and I don't care."

The other element is the combination of (1) the relaxation of the rules that used to limit media ownership, coupled with (2) the repeal of most of the FCC's standards for the responsible broadcasting thought a prerequisite for license renewal. This included the Fairness Doctrine which required both that stations (a) must deal with "controversial issues of public importance," and (b) when doing so, present a range of views on the issue (not "equal time," not all views, not any individual spokesperson). This is a deadly combination: great power and no restraints.

Shouting matches on television, and entertaining, sarcastic hate-mongers on radio draw audiences. Negative campaigning works. Divisiveness builds your "base."

In 1926 (during the "Radio Act" debate) a prescient Texas Congressman, Luther Johnson, spoke to the dangers of media concentration in the ownership of these new-fangled broadcasting stations. He said, "when such a weapon [media power] is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them."

How right he was. "Woe be to us" indeed.

One of the consequences is at least one of the causes of today's polarization. The other consequences are even more serious.

Ralph Keyes
Great to be off and running so soon and so well.

The op-ed piece Michael refers to is in the June 23rd New York Times, and is quite revealing. In this piece Norman Ornstein cited data showing that in 1955 33% of members of Congress were "centrists" (based on analysis of their voting record), but that half a century later this figure had fallen to 8%. Ornstein attributed this dramatic shift to the emergence of constant campaigning, the rise of partisan media, and, most of all, to changes in the way House seats are redistricted. The resulting expansion in the number of "safe" seats puts increased emphasis on primary elections, which favor more strident candidates. Some House members elected on this basis move up to the Senate where they ratchet up the shrillness of debate, and widen the gulf between members of this more collegial body.

On June 24th Jack Valenti had an op-ed piece in the Times depicting the cordial, give-and-take relationship President Lyndon Johnson had with Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen. Can one imagine a similar relationship between President George W. Bush and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid?

I'm looking forward to your contribution, Saiful. And thanks for calling our attention to the religious dimension of this topic, George, one I'm sure you're most familiar with, certainly more than I am. Nick's rightly calling our attention to the negative impact, or impacts, of ownership concentration in the media is a welcome reminder of the many policy proposals we might want to make toward the end of this conference that might alleviate the corrosive impact of polarization.

Participant
Ralph, your quote, which I am copying below, stands out for me as critical in this discussion you are leading.

"The question I've seldom seen considered, and hope we can address, is why so many Americans feel such a strong need to associate primarily if not exclusively with "their own kind." What inner needs are being met here? My own hunch is that as ties of ethnicity and geography weaken we look for other ways to bond."

I accept as valid the many reasons in your opening 1; 1 for exclusive associations. But I believe this applies more to those with first-hand interest in either government jobs or the impact of government policies their professional jobs. While this is a large number, I am guessing that it is not a large part of those eligible to vote. My guess is that the major reason for such solid and wide-spread polarization is a wide difference in ethics and traditional democratic goals than ever before in my long life as a voter. Added to this is a new and growing bond with Bush and the Religious Right.

I am inserting this not as an "argument" with your far more balanced experience and knowledge, but as an attempt to describe my own (and I suspect many others) attempt to orient ourselves in these troublesome times. Your criticism of what I have written will be more interesting than what I have written.

Participant
Two thoughts occur. In social psychology we know that opposites do not attract. People will generally choose to be with their own kind. So overcoming polarization runs into a quite natural phenomenon, even though it would probably be healthier if we would spend more time with people different from ourselves.

The other is that the pols represented by Republicans and Democrats are not just disagreements, but reflect deep antipathy, not so much on issues but on style. James Traub wrote a piece in the NY Times Magazine last year, I think, making the point that the parties have a different temperament.

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Click here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

top