View From Down Under

Politics and political discourse in the US has polarized over the last 30 years, with both politicians and voters moving further from the center.  The cause may be geographic self selection, or changes to the legal framework.  Or it may be more complicated.

Other forces that have been accused of complicity in this polarisation include income inequality, increasing immigration (particularly illegal immigration), growth of fundamentalist religion, imbecilic left wing radicals, fascist right wing radicals, increasingly effective protest strategies, and etc.

Whatever the causes, the result is not disputed.  Analysis of voting patterns in Congress shows quite a clear move away from consensus and towards increasing divergence.  Polls such as those on health care reform show an increasing split among American voters.

So, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Polarization has the effect of stifling reform.  If the members of Congress are polarized in opinion and politically unable to compromise (by compromising they risk losing their seat), meaningful reform grinds to something close to a halt.  Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on whether you support the particular reform in question.  Polarization limited the cuts on capital gains and death taxes proposed by the Bush administration, and is now limiting the ability of the Obama administration to implement health care reform.

Being a fan of progress, I think this is a bad thing.

Polarization has certainly made politics more interesting.  Elections tend to mean more than they used to, candidates are more clearly different from each other, and television and radio coverage of politics is far more entertaining.  Rush Limbaugh would not be worth listening to if he had moderate views, and would certainly be a far less wealthy man today.

However, entertainment always comes at a cost.  Trying to filter out what actually happened from what the talking heads are saying is becoming more and more difficult.  And I find the continuous search for outrage by the political commentators to be tiresome and, frankly, childish.

To me the worst thing about this trend is the lack of sense it makes.  Taking extreme left or right wing views almost always involves ignoring facts and letting ideology or emotion govern reaction.  Wouldn’t it be a better place if we looked at proposals on their merits, instead of the knee jerk reaction of labelling things socialist or racist because they came from the other side of the aisle?

Of course, that is a pipe dream in the US today.

Stephen Gottlieb of the Albany Law School recently published a paper describing the polarization of politics in terms of legal and regulatory changes over the last 25 years.  He focused on two areas: media and candidate selection.

In the days of Walter Cronkite, there were three national networks operating under a fairness doctrine which required the networks to show both sides of a political argument.  Because that was both controversial and kind of boring, network news and commentary was designed not to offend.  The focus was on “that’s the way it is”, and no further.  As the media framework shifted to allow more networks, the upstarts found they needed to differentiate themselves.  The mainstream networks ultimately found that trying to please everyone ended up pleasing no one – and losing ratings in the process.  In the chase for advertising dollars, news became more political, reporting changed to analysis, and analysis descended into name calling and face pulling.

At the same time, the candidate selection process shifted solidly towards primaries.  This move, coupled with increased gerrymandering of safe seats and changes to campaign finance laws, ended up with each party putting up candidates that were more and more removed from the center.

So the question that raises to me is: Do you watch or listen to programs you may disagree with?  Any liberals out there spend any time listening to Limbaugh or watching O’Reilly?  Any conservatives spend time on the Huffington Post? 

A couple of other questions:  Does anyone get excited about a moderate candidate?  Do you trust any television or radio host as much as you trusted Walter Cronkite?

I am a fan of progress.  Most of the time, change is good, normal, and healthy.   However the trend in the US towards increasingly polarised politics and opinion is, in my view, none of those things.

Apart from a brief period after September 11, 2001, Americans have been inexorably moving away from the center and from each other – both figuratively and literally – since the Carter administration. 

As much as the trend is discouraging, some of the reasons for this shift are actually quite interesting. 

A recent article in the Economist magazine (subscription required) described the shift in physical terms.  As Americans move around, they are naturally drawn to areas that feel ‘comfortable’ to them.  Over the last 20 years, this has resulted in liberals tending to live where other liberals live, and conservatives likewise.  For example, if you work in Washington DC and are liberal, you tend to live in Maryland.  Conservatives working in DC tend to live in northern Virginia.  In Texas, Austin is a kind of liberal enclave, with some areas of the city resembling Berkeley.  Move a little north or south of Austin, and you are in solid red state territory.  One result of this physical split is that increasingly conservatives only interact with other conservatives, and liberals the same.  There is less and less political discussion amongst friends who have different opinions.  And quite naturally, opinions on both sides tend to become both exaggerated and deep seated.

Which begs the question:  When was the last time you had a political conversation with someone who disagreed with you?  If it’s been a while, might be a good time to have a civil conversation with someone from the other side of the spectrum.