News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
traffic_analyzer/Getty Images
'Polarized' doesn't describe us accurately, because there's a third force to reckon with
Jan 13 2021
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<p>The disgraceful storming of the Capitol has led House Democrats to ready a vote Wednesday impeaching President Trump for inciting the mob, and polling shows most Americans want him removed before his time expires next week. But the vast majority of Republicans oppose impeachment, and many still believe Trump's baseless assertion that he's being denied another term because of election fraud.</p><p>So there is undeniably deep division between Democrats and Republicans. But self-described independents, who account for two-fifths of the electorate, are currently siding with the Democrats by 2-to-1. They are hardly evenly divided on impeachment — and it's similarly impossible to prove the leanings of these 100 million are evenly divided between the two parties. </p><p>As a result, it is misleading to say we are a nation divided into two opposing groups. In reality, there are three groups, and you can appreciate this by considering three images of the country.</p>
<p>One is for Trump's backers. The next is for President-elect Joe Biden's supporters. The last is for those who either didn't vote, or voted for either Biden or Trump even though they were not passionately committed to either candidate. </p>
<p>Here is the Trump supporter picture, taken before the end of last week: He is at the White House sitting in bed and tweeting away. We see citizens reading his posts; they are either smiling or cheering, or locking their doors, or grabbing their guns, or checking their investment portfolios on their phones. We see them in churches. Others are at car races and horse races wearing MAGA hats. They are also in their small businesses and at assembly lines, with their hats, assembling machines or working at personal computers. They are predominantly white, and a good number are in rural areas.</p>
<p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>Here is the Biden supporter picture: Citizens are marching in the streets of several cities, protesting Trump and protesting the establishment. They are Blacks, women, environmentalists and members of the LGBTQ community. Others are praying in churches and synagogues, holding pictures of loved ones hospitalized with Covid-19. We see the poor and working-class Americans, on foot or in their cars, waiting at food banks. We see others telling their therapists and internists how relieved they are that their candidate won. They are teachers and professors, nurses and bus drivers. Half are white, but most are living in cities or suburbs.</p>
<p>Here is the third picture: It's dark and you can't see any people, but you can see captions of what they are saying: "I'm a moderate, and I voted for Biden because I don't like Trump." "I'm a moderate and I voted for Trump, but I don't love him." "I don't vote. The parties are the same. They both screw the middle class." "I don't vote either. And no one ever calls me to ask me why." "I stopped voting in 1976 after Richard Nixon was thrown out of office. I don't follow politics anymore." "I'm an independent, and I don't like either major party. I ignore them both. I vote in some elections." "I'm an independent, and I do follow politics. I usually vote for the Republican." "I'm an independent, and I also follow politics, and I usually vote for the Democrat." </p>
<p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>The curious thing about this picture is that we can't see whether these people are living in the country, in cities or in suburbia — in a row house or a big new Colonial. And we cannot see their race or gender. Indeed, we know very little about them other than that about half are what political scientists call "low information voters." This group makes up about 40 percent of Americans old enough to cast a ballot.</p>
<p>What we don't have, then, is one image of America where everyone is rowing the same boat with their own oar. What we don't have is a massive blue army fighting a massive red army as though it were a battle in the Civil War. </p>
<p>There are really three Americas, and they cut across all of the most popular categories. We know a great deal about the pure Democrats and the pure Republicans. We know very little about the moderates and independents who vote for both sides and those citizens who don't vote at all. Independents alone account for two of every five adults eligible to vote. And about 80 million of that group, many millions of them unaffiliated with either party, didn't even vote at all this year.</p>
<p>The media insists that there are two categories, the D's and the R's. Our Washington politicians, who are deeply polarized, also act as though these are the only two options. </p>
<p>In the years ahead we need to recover from Trump, support Biden because he is going to be the president at a very difficult time — and give voice to those who are not part of the polarization drama. Only 51 percent of the 158 million people who voted cast their votes for Biden, while 47 percent went with Trump. </p>
<p>But these figures convey the misleading impression that we are a country divided between two sides. We are not.</p>
<p>Last week's awful assault on Congress should not only cause some Trump supporters to question their allegiance to the Trump Republican Party; it should also throw light on the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans who do not identify with the bitter polarization battles of Washington in the first place.</p>
<p>The new president, and the new Democratic Congress, need to represent all Americans. Not just those who voted for Biden with enthusiasm, or Trump with enthusiasm, but those who voted for Biden and Trump without enthusiasm and those who did not vote at all.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Polarization and the politics of love - The Fulcrum ›
- Study offers hope for moderating polarized views - The Fulcrum ›
- Polarization is more of a cultural problem than a political one ›
- Political polarization is about feelings, not facts - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Civic Ed
True
Icon Sportswire/Getty Images
A photo of the Kentucky Derby gives an accurate indication of the state of the race. The same can't be said for political polls, writes Dave Anderson.
The public needs to put polling in proper perspective
Dec 03 2020
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<p>
Political polls have value, but their value is very limited.<br>
</p><p>
President Trump did much better in the election than the polls predicted. If he had won about 100,000 more votes across Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, he would be headed toward his second term. This is basically the same thing that happened to Hillary Clinton when she lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a combined 77,000 votes four years ago. It is true that President-elect Joe Biden is ahead nationally by 6.2 million votes, but the total number of people who support each candidate continues to have no relevance to how we choose a president.
</p><p>
The so-called exit polls, two national surveys taken of people after they cast their votes on Election Day or before, suggest that 6.5 million of Trump's ballots came from people who said they had just voted for the first time. This factor helped to explain the president's better showing in the battleground states than the pre-election polls suggested.
</p><p>
One wonders how any polls could have predicted the increase in new voters for Trump. You can ask people if they plan to vote for the first time, but this is something like predicting the weather a week or two, or indeed a month, in advance. Don't bet on a sunny day or a rainy day a month out. Very few meteorologists would.
</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>
Consider a second problem: If a candidate is down in the polls, say by 5 percentage points, it may encourage supporters of the opponent to get out and vote — because they see their candidate needing their help. Likewise, a polling lead like that could harm the candidate who's ahead, because his or her fans may decide it's OK to stay home — due to inconvenience, illness or some other reason — because it appears their help will not be needed.
</p><p>
This is basically manipulative. Polls, yes, can be manipulative.
</p><p>
A poll two weeks out is not like a crisp photograph of the pack at the Kentucky Derby approaching the final stretch: Polls do not give an actual picture of where the candidates are, relative to one another, because it is impossible to get such a clear picture. At best, you can get a picture that is 95 to 97 percent accurate — and that's a pretty fuzzy picture. And your picture may actually be 90 percent accurate or less.
</p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>
At bottom, polls in the information age have threatened the very idea of voting in a democracy because they essentially tell voters what they should expect to happen unless the race really appears nose to nose. The very act of voting is compromised by the pollsters because people expect the outcome to be as predicted by the polls. We are handing our freedom to the pollsters, since we vote feeling that the outcome has already been determined.
</p><p>
Polling has also been criticized because it limits public discussion. Back in 1986, Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg argued in "The Captive Public: How Mass Opinion Promotes State Power" that polling typically reinforces the status quo. Questions are posed in such a way to restrict the alternatives available to citizens. By answering the questions posed, public understanding of problems and public dialogue itself are both narrowed. Polling in the United States also reinforces the dominance of the two-party system.
</p><p>
The polling industry is obviously not going to be put out of business, and polling can have value. But it is critical for citizens to appreciate that polling can both mislead them as they head into the final stages of a ballot measure campaign or contest among candidates — and make it more difficult for the unconventional ideas and people to gain attention.
</p><p>
Polls can manipulate us and put brakes on our imagination. Tens of millions of dollars a year are invested in the polling industry for candidates and interest groups in search of a path to victory. How much of that money is really being used to mislead us and restrict our choices?
</p><p>
There is no easy answer to this question and no easy way to stop candidates and interest groups from using polls. But making citizens aware of the severe limitations of polls is a first step toward putting polls in their place.
</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Poll watching vs. electioneering — your questions answered - The ... ›
- Tufts University poll: young voters poised to assert power - The ... ›
- Want to know what will happen in 2020? Look to state polls - The ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Civic Ed
True
alancrosthwaite/Getty Images
The media needs to do better explaining differing political values
Oct 05 2020
Anderson was editor of "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and sought the Democratic nomination for a House seat in Maryland in 2016.
<p>If given one moral word to use in a campaign speech, a Democrat would probably pick "justice" whereas a Republican would probably pick "freedom." </p><p>Republicans love to talk about freedom because they believe the purpose of government is to ensure our freedom — freedom from foreign invasion; freedom from assault, theft, bribery and other forms of interference in our lives; freedom to have a business and operate within a broadly free market; and freedom to pursue our own good, which includes the good of our families.</p><p>Democrats love to talk about justice because they believe the purpose of government is to promote a just society — with justice in our election system so all have an equal right to vote; justice for women against those men who have harassed or assaulted them; justice ensuring those who have lost out in terms of natural talents and socio-economic class, especially children, are provided the means to have the same opportunities as those who have been more lucky.</p><p>Freedom and justice can both draw forth deep emotions from their advocates. </p><p>Those denied freedom feel as though they have been wronged. </p><p>Someone whose father fought and died in Vietnam or World War II may have deep emotions connected to the value of freedom because the dad fought and died for it.</p><p><p style="text-align: center;" id="sufn"><a style="font-weight: bold;margin:40px auto;font-size:2rem" href="https://thefulcrum.us/st/newsletters">Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter </a></p></p><p>Likewise, someone whose mother was raped as a teenager may have deep emotions connected to the value of justice because they always find themselves standing up for fellow citizens who have been violated in some deeply personal way. It is one thing to have a car stolen and quite another to have a man throw you on the back seat of his car and force himself on you.</p><p>Many different theories of freedom and justice have been advanced by Western democratic thinkers — whether they fall into the liberal, libertarian, conservative, social democrat or socialist traditions. College students in political philosophy classes learn that rival theories don't accept the same definitions of such moral concepts as freedom, justice, equality and autonomy. Instead, rival theories typically define and develop moral concepts in different ways. They may not use all the same concepts, and they may draw differing sets of connections among the concepts.</p><p>This is why political philosophers often talk past each other in their debates — because, in the end, the values they embrace and the perspectives they advance are different. It would be nice if Don Lemon on CNN, Tucker Carlson on Fox, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and all our other prominent media commentators pointed this out when discussing the debates between politicians. </p><p><div class="x12"><div class="htlad-Desktop_Content_Banner"></div></div></p><p>It is simply not true that Democrats and Republicans, or even some factions within each party, share the same "American" values and only disagree about the means for upholding them. Our politicians — who admittedly rarely get to the point of systematic explanations of the concepts and values that drive their arguments — do not share the same values as their opponents. </p><p>Within American society there is room for basic disagreement over basic values like freedom and justice, and it is precisely that room that helps explain why voters who are indecisive or uninterested have difficulty understanding the fights between the parties. Add to these conceptual fights all of the theatrics and the posturing, and it becomes very hard to understand what values really drive particular points of view.</p><p>Achieving a decent level of national respect for the differing opinions of Democrats and Republicans will require the media doing more to help voters understand how terms like freedom and justice are being used by politicians — and explaining whether their candidates' overall positioning is consistent with how they are defining their terms.</p><p>It is then up to voters to decide which points of view they prefer, whether the candidates in question have done what they claim they have done, whether they like the visions proposed and whether they like and respect the people who are presenting them.</p><div></div><p>But we should not assume all that divides candidates is their records, the means they took to promote them and their personal character — because they usually have very different values and very different priorities in the first place. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Voting at the interaction of power and democratic values - The Fulcrum ›
- The poverty of partisan identity - The Fulcrum ›
- A profound distrust is corroding American politics - The Fulcrum ›
- Polarization is more of a cultural problem than a political one ›
- New survey finds opportunity to unite Americans on values - The Fulcrum ›
- Some pros and cons of e-voting, including risks of ID theft - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
- 2. Political values and Democratic candidate support Political values ... ›
- Basic Personal Values, Core Political Values, and Voting: A ... ›
- what is a political value? political philosophy and fidelity to reality ›
- political values Flashcards | Quizlet ›
- The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider | Pew ... ›
Keep reading...
Show less