Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Dining habits reflect Americans’ self-segregation

people having dinner
Portra Images/Getty Images

For centuries, people have used the phrase “breaking bread” to mean much more than just sharing a meal. It indicates a deeper connection, a bond that unites people around a common community. But what happens when we only break bread with those who reflect our own beliefs and backgrounds?

According to new polling, only half of Americans have had a meal with Democrats or Republicans over the past six months, and less than half have shared a meal with someone representing a racial minority. If the Ipsos/Axios poll is any indication, there is a common line between personal interactions and a sense of commonalities.

Three-quarters of respondents said they have “a lot” or “some” in common with white people, matching the 77 percent who said they have had a meal with a white person in the past six months.

But the numbers dropped off when the pollsters asked about minorities.


Forty-seven percent of people have had a meal with a Black person in the past six months and 55 percent said they have “a lot” or “some” in common with Black people. The numbers were even lower for Hispanic people (42 percent a shared meal/47 percent something in common) and Asian people (29/43).

The country appears to be evenly split when it comes to members of political parties, with less than half saying they have something in common with Democrats and the same for Republicans (and one quarter saying they have “nothing” in common in both cases).

Exactly 50 percent said they have shared a meal with a Democrat in the past six months, with the same percentage for Republicans.

According to the data, politics seems to create a wider chasm than race and religion.

Nearly half (46 percent) agreed with the statement, “People with opposing political views don’t share my values.” Just 39 percent disagreed.

However, when asked the same question but about people with different racial or religious backgrounds, just 26 percent agreed they do not share the same values and 60 percent disagreed.

Ipsos also asked people how confident they are that Americans will sort out differences over the next five years, and the answers were discouraging, with just 25 percent confident and 63 percent not confident.

The survey was conducted May 9-10 of 1,005 adults and had a margin of error of 3.8 percent.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less