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.

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

Trump’s Drug Price Ultimatum and the Rise of Enemy Politics
shallow focus photography of prescription bottle with capsules

Trump’s Drug Price Ultimatum and the Rise of Enemy Politics

In an era increasingly defined by transactional politics, the rhetoric of ultimatum has become one of President Donald Trump's favorite tools. When he declared to pharmaceutical giants on August 1st, "We will deploy every tool in our arsenal" should they fail to lower drug prices, it echoed a familiar pattern of the use of "demand" to shift from negotiation to confrontation. Trump's all-too-familiar pattern of prescribing with deadlines, threats of tariffs or sanctions, and appeals to fairness or national pride.

In his letter to 17 major drug manufacturers, Trump demanded that drug manufacturers slash prices to match "most favored nation" levels—the lowest rates offered in other developed countries. He emphasized that Americans are "demanding lower drug prices and they need them today." His language, though cloaked in populist concern, carried a veiled threat:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

"Scott Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics..." writes Luke Harris.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.

During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Is Really Running the Federal Government? Hint, It’s Not Donald Trump

US Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Who Is Really Running the Federal Government? Hint, It’s Not Donald Trump

For a president who likes command and control, Donald Trump certainly says “I don’t know” a lot when asked questions about what is going on in the federal government he supposedly leads. His latest “I don’t know” came on July 22 in response to a reporter’s question about whether he “support(ed) the DOJ seeking an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell,” the former girlfriend of the notorious Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don’t know anything about it. They’re gonna what? Meet her?” said Trump. Trying to help out, the befuddled president, the reporter explained, “The deputy attorney general has reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney, asking for an interview.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ghislaine Maxwell’s DOJ Meetings Spark New Scrutiny Over Epstein Files

Ghislaine Maxwell, September 20, 2013

(Photo by Paul Zimmerman/WireImage)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s DOJ Meetings Spark New Scrutiny Over Epstein Files

Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, has met twice this week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—a move that’s raising eyebrows across Washington and reigniting public demands for transparency in the Epstein saga.

Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison, reportedly initiated the meetings herself. According to her attorney, David Oscar Markus, she answered “every single question” posed by DOJ officials over the course of nine hours of interviews. Sources indicate that she was granted limited immunity, which allowed her to speak freely without fear of self-incrimination.

Keep ReadingShow less