Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America

[dazzleman]

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

[dazzleman]

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?

I guess I'm suggesting that it could be.  Often, larger trends can affect politics as well as commercial segments of society.  Often, the two go hand in hand, though political junkees don't always see the connection.  People change their thought process, and that change applies across the board.  This is a byproduct of the change in overall market targeting capabilities brought about in part by technological advances.

It was just one of those thoughts I threw out there, and I'd be interested to hear what others whose opinions I respect think of it.

[dazzleman]

I'm guessing this makes little sense, because I don't see the same economic processes that underlie the change. It seems that parties in the 19th century, for example, would have no problem appealing to specialized groups, and often did, in the form of winning over ethnic blocs, or maintaining a "southern" branch plus an "urban" branch, or a "midwestern" branch plus a "new york" branch. The New Deal coalition is quite an amalgamation. Yet Fiorina seems to argue in favor of the rise of special interests as a result of reforms in the opening up of political parties and the political system in general to greater public participation, and as a more recent phenomenon dating from the 70s, which explains the rise in elite polarization.

There's also the issue of being able to effectively connect with your individual supporters, something that is made a lot easier with things like e-mail.  It's also a lot easier, with computerized mailing lists that can be demographically analyzed, to identify potential supporters and reach out to them.  For example, certain magazines are popular with certain demographic groups, and if that demographic group supports your party, you could purchase that magazine's subscriber list and reach out to those people, rather than simply doing a mass mailing or relying on television advertising.  There are many implications to this type of targeting, and this is a spillover from changed marketing tactics in the commercial spectrum.

I'm not sure I see greater public participation in the political process.  Reforms in the 1970s certainly opened it up more to special interests, as you said, particularly liberal special interests in the Democratic party, but I don't see any higher public participation in general.  In fact, part of the problem is that it seems that everybody is represented except the normal, taxpaying, law-abiding members of the general public.

[dazzleman]

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.

I think you're reading a little more into this than what I said, though I have never denied letting my partisan views color how I see issues.

What I say applies to both parties, though I of course am more hostile to the special interests that have come to dominate the Democratic party than I am toward some of the special interests that have come to at least heavily influence the Republican party.

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base, even though it could probably be argued that I am not, in many ways, really part of the Republican base, being a northerner who is not part of the religious right.

[dazzleman]

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization.

Try tuning into Fox News any night of the week and tell me it's the "left" that are pushing the "culture war" meme. 

The left has waged a surreptitious culture war for decades without saying so.  One thing the right has to learn is to get their opinions across in a subliminal way as effectively as the left does.  The right has never really learned how to hide behind a false facade of impartiality the way the main media organs of the left have been doing for decades.

[dazzleman]

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.

Blacks view themselves as being on the fringes of society.  That is not something I celebrate, but it is a reality, at least to some extent.  Blacks live in largely separate neighborhoods, go to separate churches and schools, etc. for the most part.  By any objective definition, they are on the fringes of society.  Again, I am simply acknowledging that reality, not supporting or celebrating it.  I love how liberals like to read racism into a simple statment of fact.

I think you've fallen victim to your own propaganda.  Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.  And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.

[dazzleman]

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.

Yes, people like Dazzleman's views are what keeps blacks so Democratic.

If the Democratic party was as biased against straight white males as Dazzleman claims, I wouldn't be in it. What a fool.

Straight white males lean overwhelming Republican in places other than Berzekely.  Maybe that makes you the fool.  It seems you can't make a point without personal insults.  Well, I guess all those other white males are just stupider than you.

[dazzleman]

Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.

Exactly, that's why it's called a "base".

And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

Oh, where have I heard that line before?   It's actually a biased, arrogant and ignorant way of thinking, but why should I be surprised?

Maybe they just don't want to pay ever higher taxes for out of control spending on ineffective and substandard government services from which they don't benefit, and maybe they don't like Democratic sympathies on issues like crime, etc.

I'm sure that living in New Hampshire, you develop an in-depth understanding on the fear of minorities.  Why don't you wait until you've lived in a racially mixed urban area before passing judgment.

[dazzleman]

What a stupid conversation.

Agreed, but dazzleman seems obsessed with his Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly routine lately and has been particularly annoying.

Lately?  I've always been particularly annoying to people who hold the opinions that you do.  Don't sell me short, man.

[dazzleman]

I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

I happen to disagree that these things are misconceptions.  I think they're accurate perceptions, shared by many people.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.  What I do find difficult to take is some white people who don't live within miles of a non-white person going around called everybody else "racist" when they have no clue of things.

[dazzleman]

I look at the overall picture and knwo full well there is no Democratic-wide bias against heterosexual white males for I am one.  I have been criticized many times in the past for being a "libbo" and "pandering to the blacks" but they are just false misconceptions people have in their heads about the Democratic party.     

I happen to disagree that these things are misconceptions.  I think they're accurate perceptions, shared by many people.  You have a right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.  What I do find difficult to take is some white people who don't live within miles of a non-white person going around called everybody else "racist" when they have no clue of things.

I have heard the rants of countless Archie Bunker-like Reagan Democrats saying the Democrats are the party of "the blacks, gays, and women's rights and not the working man with a family" and "I was once a Democrat until the n-ers, womens lib, etc. infested our party."  I know better!  True there are a lot of whites that have no clue of things and live in their suburban cocoons while watching MTV and BET and thinking it's all "cool".  Hey, I have been called both a "racist" by some of these rich white clowns in college and a "white libbo" by a truly racist cop kid who was once one of my better friends growing up.  I try to be as pragmatic as possible with this stuff.  I kinda got involved in politics so I can better understand this stuff. 

With some of the sort of people you talk about, the issue is the way they say things, not necessarily what they are saying.  The Democratic party has taken what are, in my opinion, a number of hideous positions on major issues in order to pander to certain interest groups in their party.  Some people are capable of making logical arguments against these policies, while others just lash out at ni--ers and the like.  Still, the root is the same.