American polarization

“Published on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

The Myth of American Polarization

After 10 Years Abroad, a Reporter finds we are more United, Culturally and Politically, than the Shouting Suggests

by Eric Weiner

Conventional wisdom tells us that the United States is more polarized than ever. In the sports jargon that passes for political analysis these days, we are supposedly witnessing a knockdown fight that pits conservatives against liberals, gay-bashers against gay- embracers, hawks against doves, Atkins aficionados against low-fat devotees. We are, the pundits proclaim, at war with ourselves.

Or are we?

Having recently returned to the United States after living abroad for 10 years, I see a very different America. I see a nation that agrees on the vast majority of issues while it indulges in a loud — and mostly meaningless — shouting match over the few issues that divide us. If we are in fact polarized, it is only in the way that an AA battery is polarized: two opposite charges but with very little distance separating them.

Take the debate over gay marriage. Both sides are extremely passionate about their views, but they are not as far apart as they appear. For instance, nearly none of those opposed to gay marriage is suggesting that homosexuality be outlawed, as is the case in dozens of nations, including U.S. allies such as India and Morocco.

And when it comes to issues of crime and punishment, we don't hear anyone advocating the caning of those convicted of relatively minor offenses, as is the case in Singapore. Conversely, we don't hear many people advocating "open prisons," where inmates essentially guard themselves, as they do in Denmark.

In other words, what Americans are not talking about is at least as significant as what we are talking about.

Likewise, President Bush and the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, present themselves as two men who are worlds apart, but they have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are Yale graduates who come from privileged backgrounds — prep schools, summer homes, East Coast roots. Neither candidate would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither supports universal healthcare.

That is, of course, the way politics works. Candidates don't talk about their shared positions; they need to highlight their differences. Meanwhile, the media magnify those differences because it makes a better story. The result is the illusion of a polarized nation. After all, with the proper lens and the right light, any decent photographer can make a tiny stream look like the Mississippi.

The question is: Why does the American public so readily embrace this myth of polarization? Partly, I think, because it makes us feel good, reinforcing the sense that we are engaged in a feisty debate about issues that really matter. If we disagree so loudly, the logic goes, then surely democracy must be alive and well.

The advent of talk radio (to date mostly right wing, but that is about to change), along with cable TV shout-a-thons and high-octane websites, has fueled the myth of polarization. Extremists on both ends of the political spectrum now have an outlet for their rantings and ravings that simply did not exist a decade ago. The current bestseller lists include Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter — the ranters. But an extremist with a megaphone is still an extremist.

We have confused volume with range. To put it bluntly: Just because we are shouting at each other louder than ever doesn't mean we have something worthwhile to say.

There is, of course, a positive side to all of this. The fact that Americans actually agree on so much means that we don't experience the kind of violent upheaval that plagues much of the world, most recently Haiti. A contested election, a controversial war, a disgruntled minority — in other countries, these lead to tanks on the streets. In the U.S., they lead to higher cable ratings. Let's not be too quick, however, to pat ourselves on the back. One reason we are such a stable nation is because we have artificially limited the range of policy options we are willing to entertain.

Shout radio and its equally high-decibel siblings have drowned out more thoughtful voices. That leaves no room for ideas that are "off the menu." They never make it to the political table, and that is, I think, unfortunate.

I would rather have returned to a nation truly polarized, truly engaged in a grand ideological tussle, than a raucous street brawl posing as the real thing.

Eric Weiner, a correspondent with National Public Radio, is a fellow at Stanford University.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times”

“Common sense - can we handle it? It's the same up here and I suspect in most places in the world when you get down to it.”

“Interesting take, Phaed. I think there's a lot of truth to it. Not THAT cut and dried, but definitely some good food for thought...”

“It's a matter of choice. We can focus on our common ground or beat each other up with our differences. If living together in harmony is a worthwhile goal then focusing on common ground makes sense. When I get into knowing what the answer is or what other folks ought to do, I have to ask myself "Why is it so important to be right."”

“If Eric Weener doesn't think American political culture isn't polarized, I'd hate to see what he does consider to be polarized. He compares us favorably to some 2nd and 3rd world countries. Gee whiz, now that's high praise.

I think Eric's been yanking his Weener a little too much...”

“I don't know, Mutt. I'd say the level of polarization is about as great if not a little less than I experienced in Germany a couple of years ago.

Also, it becomes pretty apparent from the media coming out of Great Britain that they are equally as polarized.

I guess the point I get from that article is that we're spending too much time arguing over the things that matter least.”

“We're all the same. TT is common ground for many of us, but there are other places, too.

God help and bless us all.”

“Amen, gremlin.”

“Some people argue just to argue. I will agree to that. The differences, between President George W. Bush and Kerry are pretty clear. The message that everyone is in agreement is a smoke screen for the important differences.

President Bush supports tax relief.
Kerry supports higher taxes.

President Bush supports a strong defense.
Kerry supports a weaker defense, relying on UN and other mediators.

President Bush supports open trade.
Kerry supports isolationism.

It will be interesting to see the two party platforms after the conventions.”

“Once again, you have misrepresented both sides of the debate toward your own bias.

No one is saying that there are not important factors to consider in the rift between left and right in the the US, the author is saying that the shrill debate is overdone on points that make little real difference.”

“I think the shrill debate refers to the type of personal attacks people use instead of debating the actual issues like the ones I listed above.”

“The author essentially makes his point by comparing us to other countries.

What one should always strive to do is compare one's present status to where one could / should be. I don't want us to be compared to Singapore or Denmark... I'd like to see us compare our present situation to where we'd LIKE to be!”

“Bush is in favor of capital punishment.
Kerry is against capital punishment.

Bush wants to strenghten the CIA.
Kerry has advocating serious funding cut to the CIA.


Bush viwes using the military to fight the war against terrorist.
Kerry views fighting terrorism more as a matter for law enforcement than the military.”

“I would like to see a discussion on these differences instead of calling people stupid for supporting a particular candidate and calling a candidates family criminals. Broad statements about blame for this or that are not legitimate campaign issues.

What about the real differences in the candiates listed above?”

“What is Kerry's position on Gun control?”

“What the hell do you think, dumbass? Then again, Bush is a traitor to RKBA. No winning this one.”

“Gosh Mutt, posts such as yours above are making Miss Anne Thrope look like the reasonable rational person posting.

Think about that for a nanosecond or two.”

“so now we're polarized on whether or not we're polarized, and complaining about complainers, and complaining about complainers complaining about complaining. we're getting pathetic.”

“I think Mutt is just losing patience with Bacpac. It's easy to do.”

“I guess I need a "timeout" this morning.”

“bacpacs comments on ped really disappointed me. but at least he unified us in a common hatred, kind of like 9/11”

“i had sort of a grudging respect for the guy. thats gone now”

“Same here.

As for the debate of the issues: If people (i.e. bacpac and prosecutor on this thread) would stop misrepresenting the views of the opposite candidates, it would be a lot easier to debate the specifics.”

“LOL!

Leave it to kleeter.”

“"but at least he unified us in a common hatred, kind of like 9/11"

that was kind of an unfortunate wording. i did not mean to imply we were unified in our hatred of muslims. i hope no one took it that way.”

“Bush is a Draft Dodger Chicken Hawk ...
Kerry served his country.”

“im a chicken hawk and youre a chicken”

“As for the debate of the issues: If people (i.e. bacpac and prosecutor on this thread) would stop misrepresenting the views of the opposite candidates, it would be a lot easier to debate the specifics."
Phaedrus
09:01:14 AM
03/11/04

If you feel I have misrepresented Kerry's view, please offer a rebuttal on a specific topic with relevant supporting data.

The name calling is not a political debate.”

“It's almost not worth rebutting.

For instance:
President Bush supports open trade.
Kerry supports isolationism.


Where do you get your information? You provide no evidence for this, nor do you define your terms. Kleetn's post is just as valid as this particular pap.”

“I would like to see you defend Kerry's position on trade. I don't want to attack him, but these are his positions:

I don't support the Free Trade Agreement of America nor the Central American Free Trade Agreement as it is today because they do desperately need to have increased labor standards, environment standards, to bring other countries up.

- Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico Sep 4, 2003

Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market

- Senate Resolution 118”

“This is a long standing obviousness that has yet to be addressed by either Clinton or Bush: Without environmental and worker's rights standards in free trade agreements, you automatically hand the advantage to the country that is most willing to pollute and drive its workers for the lowest wages.

Not only would adding these things to NAFTA be good for the workers in Mexico and the environment, it would make the US more competitive for those jobs. It seems like common sense to me.

I can't speak to the trade sanctions on Japan, as I haven't researched it, and don't know the circumstances.

At any rate, I think it's pretty clear that your initial statement that Kerry is for protectionism is a gross misrepresentation.”

“In other words, the idea is to have an even playing field, rather than giving an advantage to other countries in the areas of labor and environmental controls.”

“The closest I can see coming to even protectionism is his stance on government contracts:

Use Government Contracts for U.S. Workers. Some states have begun outsourcing government contracts. For example, New Jersey has outsourced government services to help move people from welfare to work. The idea of using taxpayer dollars to send entry-level service jobs overseas to administer a program aimed at finding domestic entry-level service jobs for welfare recipients makes no sense. John Kerry believes that U.S. Federal contracts where possible should be performed by American workers. He will direct his Cabinet Secretaries to look at procurement policies and assure wherever possible Federal contracts are not being outsourced overseas. ”

“"The name calling is not a political debate."
Miss Anne Thrope

bacpacs trying to take the moral high ground. now THATS funny”

“I did notice he took his picture down after I made fun of him. You know what they say about people in glass houses...”

“Kerry may not be as much of an isolationist as I thought. I mean even though he rips NAFTA he did vote for it.

Did you feel the rest of the comparisons were pretty close?”

“NO!

President Bush supports tax relief.
Kerry supports higher taxes.

President Bush supports a strong defense.
Kerry supports a weaker defense, relying on UN and other mediators.


Both of the above statements are gross misrepresentations of the stances he has taken on those issues. For instance, he supports tax cuts in incentives for businesses that provide American jobs rahter than outsource, for small businesses that provide healthcare for employees - the list goes on. The fact that he does, indeed plan to roll back Bush's tax cuts in favor of tax breaks in a different (and I think better) demographic does not make him "for higher taxes", necessarily, unless you consider that attempts to reduce the defecit will result in higher taxation rates. I think Bush will be forced to do the same, if he plans to reduce the deficit.

As for the "weaker defense" thing - that one should be obvious.”

“I'm glad Bush is amking the remarks he is early in the campaign. It will give Kerry plenty of time to set the record straight.

The Dems have one big thing going in their favor and that's Bush's personality (or lack of one).

He is so arrogant and thinks he is so much smarter then anyone else that he will do something completely stupid.


Using a flag draped coffin from 9/11 has cost him at least 100,000 votes on bad taste. Hopefully he will continue to be the know it all and not listen to his advisors.

As for those on TT that misrepresent the facts or mouth off without backing anything up with facts, just hit the ignore button.

I love a good debate especially when the other side can present some good arguments backed up by substance.

Unfortunately, challenging some people on these forums to a battle of the wits would be grossly unfair, they don't have any ammunition! They don't even have enough sense to avoid getting into a pi**ing contest with a skunk.”

“Phaedrus, the only thing obvious about Kerry's position on Defense is that he is a pacifist. He used that in his campaign. His voting record on defense supports his pacifist views. Kerry may be many things, but he is not strong on Defense.

As far as being progressive on tax relief I don't see it.

Kerry Voted Against President Bush’s Tax Cuts, At Least The Tenth Key Anti-Tax Relief Vote Of His Senate Career.

Kerry Voted For The Biggest Tax Increase In American History Under President Clinton.

Kerry Has A Lifetime Rating Of 26% From Citizens Against Government Waste And Is A Long-Time Supporter Of Federal Funding For Boston’s “Big Dig.””

“Why not voice the advantages of John Kerry instead of making attacks without substance against the President? You know, present some good arguements backed up by substance.”

“Phaedrus, the only thing obvious about Kerry's position on Defense is that he is a pacifist. He used that in his campaign. His voting record on defense supports his pacifist views. Kerry may be many things, but he is not strong on Defense.


Pacifist... Please elaborate.”

“I'm going to be very general and then the "big debators" can do what they want with it:

Maybe it's not just Americans and it's not just politics. You need to feel "polarized" to justify a particular stance or opposition, to fight for something good, to fight against "evil". Maybe this is an "instinct" that is fed and manipulated by the powers that be but it is there to begin with.

I feel I have not made my point and the muddy water of my brain is getting more clouded.

Oh well. Me speak not so good. Too big lead in water at faucet.”