US political polarization is getting *very* bad

[lpetrich]

Political Polarization in the American Public | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

US political polarization is getting *very* bad. The graphs are very revealing: the Democratic and Republican peaks are moving apart with much more separation than in the early 1990's. The numbers:
[table="width: 500"]
[tr] [td]Year[/td] [td]Dem[/td] [td]Rep[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]1994[/td] [td]70%[/td] [td]64%[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]2004[/td] [td]68%[/td] [td]70%[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]2014[/td] [td]94%[/td] [td]92%[/td] [/tr]
[/table]

• Dem: fraction of Democrats more liberal than the median Republican
• Rep: fraction of Republicans more liberal than the median Democrat

This is the *average*. Among the less political, the peaks are closer but still becoming more separate in recent years. Among the more political, the peaks are farther apart. Among politicians,

Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap.

But those with liberal positions were much more likely to describe themselves as moderate than those with conservative positions.

There is also a growing trend to have an unfavorable view of the other party, though with Republicans feeling more strongly about that than Democrats.

Another interesting thing is how people of each party viewed recent Presidents. Not surprisingly, people of each party tended to prefer Presidents of the same party. But what is interesting is how same-party and opposite-party preferences compare.

Variations in approval rather roughly track each other. What increases or decreases the popularity of a President for one party also does so for the other party. So the partisan gap remains roughly constant.

But it's interesting to compare that gap for different Presidents.

For Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, it was about 30%. But for Reagan, it jumped up to 50%, though for Bush I, it went down to 30%. For Clinton and Bush II, it returned to 50%, and for Obama, it reached a whopping 60%.


Where they like to live is revealing.

Where they like to live is revealing.

Both liberals and conservatives like being near extended family, high-quality public schools, and access to the outdoors for hiking, fishing, and camping.

Liberals prefer cities, schools, stores, and restaurants in walking distance even with smaller and closer houses, access to art museums and theaters, and a mix of people with different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Conservatives prefer small towns and rural areas, larger and more separated houses even if with schools, stores, and restaurants being several miles away, many people sharing their religious faith.

Nobody seems to like suburbs very much.


Liberals like watching MSNBC, while conservatives like watching Fox News.


Liberals would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Republican, a born-again Christian, a gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.

Conservatives would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Democrat, an atheist, someone of a different race, or someone from another country.


Both liberal and conservative partisans want compromises to go in their direction, though liberals profess to prefer politicians willing to compromise. In-between people prefer more equal compromises.


What's going on?

The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America | Social Evolution Forum and Polarized America Page take the long view, noting that US political polarization has gotten as bad as it had been around the turn of the 20th cy.

Cliodynamics, Peter Turchin – The history of inequality, The Road to Disunion | Social Evolution Forum

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's the other side's fault

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting article. Haven't finished it yet, but it appears that the entire country (including Republicans) were shifting more liberal until 2004, when Reblicans suddenly shifted rapidly conservative again. What happened in 2004?

The interesting exceptions are on immigration and homosexuality, but even with immigration a sharp divide happened in 2004. Prior to that, Republican and Democratic views were on an almost identical track, and both trending more liberal. In 2004, while both tracks continue to trend more liberal, Republicans slowed almost to a flat line in that trend.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What happened in 2004?

We realized that the Iraq War was not going to be a cake walk.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting article. Haven't finished it yet, but it appears that the entire country (including Republicans) were shifting more liberal until 2004, when Reblicans suddenly shifted rapidly conservative again. What happened in 2004?

The interesting exceptions are on immigration and homosexuality, but even with immigration a sharp divide happened in 2004. Prior to that, Republican and Democratic views were on an almost identical track, and both trending more liberal. In 2004, while both tracks continue to trend more liberal, Republicans slowed almost to a flat line in that trend.

Both parties have been moving to the right since ~1980

 

[Underseer]

Both sides are exactly as bad because those America-hating liberals claim that they are not part of a vast conspiracy to confiscate our guns and install re-education camps throughout the country! They also claim that they are not putting fluoride in the water as part of a plot to turn everyone into communists! The fact that they are so out of touch with reality proves that they are just as bad and just as much at fault for the current divide as we patriotic Real Americans(tm)! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What happened in 2004?

We realized that the Iraq War was not going to be a cake walk.

That was '06.

'04 was the first Presidential election after '00 when W won the election by a single vote and the demographics were developing in a way that the right-wing realized they needed to rile up the base to pass anti-gay marriage legislation in order to get the vote out to win in '04. If the right-wing doesn't fan the flames, they lose.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

is seems the main polarization are the people who are coping with the new economy and the people who are left behind.

 

[thebeave]

Liberals would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Republican, a born-again Christian, a gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.

This kind of cracked me up. Don't liberals pat themselves on the back for being tolerant and against bigotry? Yet they don't want a family member to marry a born-again Christian, or even more incredible, someone who didn't go to college? What the fuck? Liberals claim to be a friend of the poor, "non-college educated" working class (e.g. fast food worker), but I guess when it comes to them becoming a member of the family, its like...um, no thanks...please go away (quietly, if you don't mind)...we don't want your kind.

Interesting that liberals don't mention anything about not wanting a family member to marry a fundamentalist Muslim. I guess that would be crossing a line.

 

[Ford]

Conservatives would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Democrat, an atheist, someone of a different race, or someone from another country.

And yet when you point out the race thing, they go ballistic and accuse you of falsely playing the "race card."

 

[Petrel]

Liberals would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Republican, a born-again Christian, a gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.

This kind of cracked me up. Don't liberals pat themselves on the back for being tolerant and against bigotry? Yet they don't want a family member to marry a born-again Christian, or even more incredible, someone who didn't go to college? What the fuck? Liberals claim to be a friend of the poor, "non-college educated" working class (e.g. fast food worker), but I guess when it comes to them becoming a member of the family, its like...um, no thanks...please go away (quietly, if you don't mind)...we don't want your kind.

But how many of them would be willing to make everything they're unhappy about a federal offense? That's the real difference: the far right wingnuts want everybody who makes them unhappy in privately-owned prisons, disenfranchised or dead.

 

[Jayjay]

I must have missed the part of being a liberal that says liberals aren't allowed to choose who they marry, or have any opinions about the actions of their family members.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Mitt Romney has blamed Cantor's loss on Obama. Okee dokee, Mitt.

I guess what I'm trying to say is have you ever heard anything more stupid come out of a politician's mouth? Is this as clever or as intelligent as Mitt and his republican allies can be? Even Sanitorium is saying that the Republican party is not paying enough attention to the concerns and troubles of the average working american. You'd think the Mitt would have something to say along these lines. He sounds like Palin. 'Stupid, baby stupid!'

Polarization in america is because of income and opportunity inequality.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I must have missed the part of being a liberal that says liberals aren't allowed to choose who they marry, or have any opinions about the actions of their family members.

Don't forget the part about guns! Liberals never ever own a gun.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Interesting article. Haven't finished it yet, but it appears that the entire country (including Republicans) were shifting more liberal until 2004, when Reblicans suddenly shifted rapidly conservative again. What happened in 2004?

The interesting exceptions are on immigration and homosexuality, but even with immigration a sharp divide happened in 2004. Prior to that, Republican and Democratic views were on an almost identical track, and both trending more liberal. In 2004, while both tracks continue to trend more liberal, Republicans slowed almost to a flat line in that trend.

I am just theorizing here... would it be possible that the Republican shift towards more conservative is associated with the Religious Right Wing becoming more vocal and influential? Organized groups like the Family Research Council for example.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Liberals would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Republican, a born-again Christian, a gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.

This kind of cracked me up. Don't liberals pat themselves on the back for being tolerant and against bigotry? Yet they don't want a family member to marry a born-again Christian, or even more incredible, someone who didn't go to college? What the fuck? Liberals claim to be a friend of the poor, "non-college educated" working class (e.g. fast food worker), but I guess when it comes to them becoming a member of the family, its like...um, no thanks...please go away (quietly, if you don't mind)...we don't want your kind.

Interesting that liberals don't mention anything about not wanting a family member to marry a fundamentalist Muslim. I guess that would be crossing a line.

I will safely assume that the potential for marrying a born-again Christian was much higher than the daughter or son raised in an American family hanging out with fundamentalist Muslims in the US to then marry a Fundamentalist Muslim. Somehow I do not think that was considered a potential to be happening, thus a concern. Evangelical Christians remain the religious majority in the US versus extreme minority religious groups such as "fundamentalist Muslims".

Looking at this part addressing Conservatives :

Conservatives would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Democrat, an atheist, someone of a different race, or someone from another country

"someone of a different race" though it does not focus on any specific ethnicity, considering the 2 largest ethnic minority groups in the US who have been and continue to be the targets of racial prejudice, one may assume that there was a highest potential to socialize with the largest groups Hispanics and African Americans than other much smaller minority groups.

"someone from another country" though no specific there, one may assume that it was deemed more acceptable to socialize and marry someone from a European or "europeanized" nation than someone from other continents with vast cultural differences. Then of course there is a nationalistic trend among some Conservatives. The "True American" mantra proudly cultivating the Anglo Saxon heritage.

"an atheist"... no surprise there considering the Christian profile of a majority of Conservatives. Christian profile which includes claims of detaining a copyright on character and morality.

 

[doubtingt]

Liberals would be unhappy if a family member was to marry a Republican, a born-again Christian, a gun owner, or someone who didn't go to college.

This kind of cracked me up. Don't liberals pat themselves on the back for being tolerant and against bigotry? Yet they don't want a family member to marry a born-again Christian, or even more incredible, someone who didn't go to college? What the fuck? Liberals claim to be a friend of the poor, "non-college educated" working class (e.g. fast food worker), but I guess when it comes to them becoming a member of the family, its like...um, no thanks...please go away (quietly, if you don't mind)...we don't want your kind.

The core values of fundamentalist Christianity are intolerant racism, sexism, general intolerance, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and and authoritarian and anti-liberty. Why would anyone want someone they care about being around and influenced by such a person?
Notice that unlike fundamentalist Christians, liberals don't want government to jail people just for being a person that don't want their child or sibling to marry, but not wanting to be around or have your loved one's be shaped by the extreme intolerance that defines fundamentalist Christianity is exactly how any rational person who values tolerance and liberty would feel. There is nothing hypocritical or self-contradictory about it.

As for not going to college, why would someone want their loved one to marry someone uneducated and likely less financially stable? Not to mention, a college education is related (and likely in a causal way) to less racism, sexism, anti-intellectualism, and reduction in similar values that directly oppose those of liberalism. The question isn't about rejecting an actual specific in-law that is non-college educated but loving, caring, financially stable, etc.. It is about whether in the hypothetical abstract you'd prefer that your loved ones not marry a person who not only didn't go to college but because they are a hypothetical abstraction has all the qualities or lack thereof that are empirically associated with not having a college education. And once again, unlike conservatives, most liberals wouldn't want to strip such a person of their basic rights just because they don't personally like some of their traits.

Interesting that liberals don't mention anything about not wanting a family member to marry a fundamentalist Muslim. I guess that would be crossing a line.

Not interesting at all. Fundamentalist Christians outnumber Fundamentalist Muslim in the USA by about 50 to 1, and adherence to Islam is so correlated with ethnicity and Muslims tend to marry other Muslims that the odds of a family member having the opportunity to marry a fundy Christian are about 100 times higher than to marry a fundy Muslim. It is quite rational for people to be more concerned by probable undesired outcomes than by highly improbable ones. BTW, a college education makes illogical arguments like yours less likely (though still too common), and who wants to have to deal with such arguments every holiday?

 

[lpetrich]

This is for someone that a family member might marry. The percentages for how many like and dislike what.
[table="class:grid"]
[tr] [td]Marrying a[/td] [td]Con -[/td] [td]Con +[/td] [td]Lib -[/td] [td]Lib +[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Republican[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]23[/td] [td]5[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Democrat[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]35[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Born-Again Xian[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]57[/td] [td]27[/td] [td]16[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Atheist[/td] [td]73[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]24[/td] [td]10[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Different Race[/td] [td]23[/td] [td]6[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]14[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]From Another Country[/td] [td]11[/td] [td]7[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]15[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Gun Owner[/td] [td]1[/td] [td]49[/td] [td]31[/td] [td]5[/td] [/tr]
[tr] [td]Didn't Go To College[/td] [td]8[/td] [td]6[/td] [td]17[/td] [td]7[/td] [/tr]
[/table]
Con, Lib = consistently conservative, liberal
- = unhappy, + = unhappy, remainder = doesn't matter
From Another Country = born and raised there
Atheist = doesn't believe in God

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting article. Haven't finished it yet, but it appears that the entire country (including Republicans) were shifting more liberal until 2004, when Reblicans suddenly shifted rapidly conservative again. What happened in 2004?

The interesting exceptions are on immigration and homosexuality, but even with immigration a sharp divide happened in 2004. Prior to that, Republican and Democratic views were on an almost identical track, and both trending more liberal. In 2004, while both tracks continue to trend more liberal, Republicans slowed almost to a flat line in that trend.

I am just theorizing here... would it be possible that the Republican shift towards more conservative is associated with the Religious Right Wing becoming more vocal and influential? Organized groups like the Family Research Council for example.

More to deal with their alienation of everything not white and evangelical. They need to save the Hispanic vote, but have put too much of the pot into the demonize Hispanics pool to be able to save it. So they need to get out their base and that is an intolerant and very conservative group of people.

 

[doubtingt]

Polarization of the parties and of political views are related but separate issues. Even if there are the same number of extremes conservatives and liberals today, there would still be party polarization, due largely to the Republican "Southern Strategy" that started in the mid 1960's as a conscious effort by the Republican party to gain seats and power by appealing directly to conservative christian racists (yeah, largely redundant) and their resentment of civil rights movements. Their positioning of themselves and their efforts to paint the Dems as the party of anti-conservative (i.e., egalitarian, pro-women and minority values attracted the most the more extreme conservatives to the Repubs and drove non-racist, non-sexist moderates toward the Dems.

This has made the Repubs the party controlled by extremist white social conservatives, and Dems the party supported more by any person not willing to have racism, sexism, homophobia, and religious intolerance be the driving forces of public policy.

Polarization of beliefs could be a partial consequence of party polarization. As the base voters of the parties became more clearly defined by social issues, the messages of the parties have been crafted to emphasize the importance of those issues. Political rhetoric increasingly focuses upon things related to gender, race,and sexuality as the sole things to be concerned with, whether from a conservative or liberal perspective. Along with that comes an increase in the irrationality of the rhetoric, and abuse of science and statistics towards those ideological ends.

In addition, the polarization of the parties on these social issues means that it has become prudent for many voters to oppose the other party in general, which means opposing any and all members of the opposing party and not wanting them to get any positive credit for anything, because these ultimately support the core agenda of the party as a whole. This will manufacture an increase in the polarization on other issues that otherwise might find more common ground if not for ties to opposing parties.