Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How polling can stop making America’s polarization problem worse

Choosing a middle path
Mananya Kaewthawee/Getty Images

Friedman is a former president of Public Agenda and the founder of its Hidden Common Ground initiative.

Survey research can serve democracy by illuminating people’s views, values and concerns. But, as an exhausted nation with a shredding social fabric faces a fateful midterm, I worry about the ways polling can also exacerbate America’s polarization problem.

Pollsters often ask questions in ways that exaggerate America’s divisions. This feeds the narrative, trumpeted by news outlets and weaponized by demagogues, of two monolithic nations vehemently opposed on every conceivable question. Yes, our national parties are polarized to the point of dysfunction, as are significant segments of the American public. But in many instances the narrative mischaracterizes the American people overall, feeding the anxiety and depression sweeping the land like omicron and depleting our democratic imagination when we need it most.


For example, an NPR/PBS News Hour/Marist Poll in June 2021 asked which concerned respondents more, “making sure everyone who wants to vote can do so” or “making sure that no one votes who is not eligible.” The poll found strong partisan polarization, with 85 percent of Democrats concerned with access and 72 percent of Republicans with security.

But what if you ask the question in a less binary way, as a Public Agenda/USA Today poll did in July? Rather than an either/or question, respondents were asked if their biggest priority was “preventing voter fraud,” “making voting simpler, convenient and hassle free for everyone,” or “preventing fraud AND making voting simple, convenient and hassle free”? A consensus of Republicans (67 percent), Democrats (64 percent) and independents (73 percent) chose the third option. Rather than extreme polarization, we see considerable common ground.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Which is the more accurate representation? Binary questions can sometimes reveal important partisan differences, such as on America's racial reckoning. But election security vs. voter access? Just because politicians pretend it’s an either/or proposition is no reason for pollsters to mimic a false choice and create a false impression.

A Pew study from April 2021 shows that the common ground on voting extends to concrete proposals, including requiring paper backups for electronic voting machines and permitting in-person voting for at least two weeks. More, the Public Agenda/USA Today poll found that super majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree that the federal government should ensure voting access for everyone.

We see a similar pattern on culture war flare-ups about teaching American history, as in a recent USA Today article based on an Ipsos poll. “[N]ot surprisingly,” it contends, “the issue is firmly politicized: More than 8 in 10 Democrat parents believed their children should learn about the lingering impact of slavery and racism in schools, compared with fewer than 4 in 10 Republican parents.”

While the issue can be politicized, is it so starkly polarized among most Americans? Another Public Agenda/USA Today poll casts doubt. Respondents were asked which school curriculum would do the most to bring the country together. One that emphasizes “America’s achievements and greatness and honors its traditions,” “America’s shortcomings, mistakes and how it needs to change,” or “both America’s shortcomings and achievements”? Majorities or pluralities across the political spectrum favored the both/and response, showing a great many Americans willing to engage the kind of question posed by Eddie Glaude in reflecting on James Baldwin: “What does the story of slavery … look like when told in a way that neither glosses over the cruelty and failures of the country nor demonizes every aspect of the society… ?”

There are plenty of reasons pollsters sometimes frame questions in ways that elicit polarized responses, including that news outlets find those stories easier to tell than more nuanced ones. Another was suggested to me by a leading academic researcher: Pollsters take their cues from the way political leaders frame issues. He asked if I thought they should take it upon themselves to do otherwise. My response is that researchers should frame questions in ways that enable people to express what they really think.

Polls should do more than ask people to react to the limited choices offered by powerful, dysfunctional elites. If our democracy is to renew itself in this time of existential threat, pollsters can help by neither exaggerating nor papering over our differences. They should pay as much attention to the common ground upon which solutions and coalitions can be built as to the authentic disagreements the nation must navigate. They can help by letting the people speak.

Read More

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.

CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less