Why is American politics so much more polarized than it used to be?

Great Debates
1

In this thread I discuss The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown, by Richard L. Hasen, in relation to the voter-fraud issue and other matters related to election administration in the U.S. But I came across one passage only tangentially relevant to that, which I think merits its own thread:

So, let’s discuss that “variety of reasons.” Why is this level of polarization so unprecedented (since the Great Depression, at least)? Why is it happening now? Is it simply at bottom a generational conflict, or what?

2

Or is it mainly because economic stresses have grown so much worse since the Eisenhower Administration?

3

I think some of it can be traced back to Florida. Not only the fact that the Supreme Court stopped the recount (and voted to do so along party lines), but also the way the Bush administration behaved after Florida,governing as if they had a mandate, rather than seeking reconciliation. I think for a lot of people, Florida made it clear that American politics is now a winner take all game.

4

Too much information. Too much disinformation. Too many places like this.

Seriously, I blame the Internet and Cable news, and the decline of the newspaper and news magazines. Notice that the gap is widening essentially since the advent of the Interwebs and the 24-hour “news” cycle. And in earlier times, taking in the news was a passive activity - now people can start flaming away on-line instantly when they read something they don’t agree with, and either get in raging fights or find hundreds of echo-chambermates that just reinforce their anger.

5

Indeed.

It is no longer necessary to share your opinions with people who do not share your opinions.

6

It’s mainly the madness of the Republican Party. Both parties agree to make the rich richer but the GOP is fighting to make everyone else poorer. Because this isn’t an economic agenda that resonates with voters and you can’t run on social issues alone they are forced to demonize Democrats as a substitute for their lack of an economic agenda. I don’t believe I’ve ever talked to anyone who was happy with either party. People pick the lesser evil. Polarization is the GOP strategy to make the Dems look so evil that plutocracy doesn’t seem so bad.

The conservative elite in America have never accepted the New Deal and this is their attempt to drown it in a bathtub. They view it as not only unfortunate but an illegitimate use of governmental power. It’s not just about money. Economic security for all strengthens the nation and enables risk taking. The rich get even richer. But in their insanity the GOP cannot see that or simply doesn’t care. Madness.

7

OTOH, we do a lot of that here.

8

Yes, we do.

9

Decision-making is central to information processors. Often the decision is between two opposite choices and must be made quickly: Consider the Fight or Flee decision made when seeing a strange animal in the forest. In humans, often these decisions are directed by amygdala, with minimal participation of cerebral cortex.

When no split-second decision is needed, there is time for reflection on a broad range of knowledge and analysis. For example, one might read multiple newspapers to come to an understanding of a political question. Reading multiple newspapers was once common; these days many cities have but a single newspaper and many don’t even read it.

With TV news the situation appears to be opposite of newspapers: various channels giving alternative views. However a TV watcher has a much more passive role than a newspaper reader has. All too often the message droned in is “No need for you to think; we’re training your amygdala for you. When you see a political meme you’ll know immediately whether to fight or flee, whether to love or hate.”

We saw an example recently. One Doper was outraged that Obama forced a Marine to humiliate himself by holding an umbrella. No intelligent person could possibly reach that outrage through cerebral thought. Instead the Doper responded to a right-wing commentator who had trained his amygdala (almost like a sleeper activated in a movie like Manchurian Candidate).

As such “training” persists, the disparity between left and right grows. Stereotypes are reinforced. Those on the left become more outraged by right-wing opinions as they accept more egregious extremes, and vice versa.

If I’m right, the problem in part is the replacement of hour-long discussion and contemplation with 15-second soundbites. The hour-long discussions still exist but unfortunately, due to the polarization, they comprise only one side preaching to themselves.

Occupy Wall Street was a last great chance that failed. It was ridiculed on the right. The left, instead of embracing and helping to focus OWS, distanced itself to maintain their “moderate” credentials.

A more general problem is that moderates are dragged ever right-ward hoping to regain a unity. Our “polarized” politics have two poles now: Extreme Right and Right-of-center. Actual leftists are out in the cold wondering what in heck has happened.

10

This question is posed often in conversation and on the internet. I’m not aware of any data as to the “why” of what I think most of us recognize as an increase in polarization–it used to be funny that ARchie Bunker and similar characters on t.v. and in cartoons would dismiss all opposing opinions, even those of experts, as stupid and crazy. Now it’s almost the norm; it seems that everyone’s opinion is as valid as anyone’s and even what should be factual questions are debated at the same level.

I think there are many factors, including loss of respect and trust in expertise and public figures, but it seems likely to me that the leveling effect of the internet is one.

11

I think it’s mostly a result of the huge increase in the availability of news and information exacerbated by some particularly polarizing events. Over the course of the last couple of decades, we’ve gone from a point where even the people most interested in news probably only got new information once a day, to the point where people who previously couldn’t have cared less, hear way more about it within hours, sometimes even minutes, of events happening. So, by being bombarded with information, it’s difficult not to have at least some sort of opinion on it and by our very nature, we tend to build into an us vs. them mentality, and once that opinion starts to take hold, confirmation bias just strengthens it.

So, let’s take politics as an example. In the 90s, there were still Republicans and Democrats, but there was a huge number of people in the middle who were, for better or worse, pretty much ill-informed on the issues simply because they weren’t incentivized to go read up about whatever random events that might sway their opinion one way or the other. But these days, even if one doesn’t particularly care, they’re going to hear about the latest thing that Obama, Boehner, or whoever did, whether it’s through the 24-hour news cycle on Cable, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever other social media they use. Thus, by simply hearing about it, even if they don’t care, it will have to have some sort of affect, and then it just slides more and more in one direction or the other.

All of this increase in social media just happens to occur while we have some news going on that is inherently polarizing. Regardless of what your opinion was on the Iraq war under Bush, I think it’s hard to look at the news and information circulating about it and still not have some opinion about whether it was good or bad. Wars have a way of being highly polarizing by their nature, and this happens while our society is adjusting to this huge influx of new information and trying to figure out how to filter out the trash and form opinions with it. And so, I think people who weren’t used to getting all that sort of information got information overload, started forming opinions on it even if they previously wouldn’t have cared much, and then pretty much just ran with it.

And now that we’re heavily polarized, where before people who were somewhere in between could be comfortable there since they had a lot of company, they just get fewer and fewer, feeling the social pressure to join a team because everyone else has, and then getting the pressure itself from their family, friends, and coworkers.

That all said, it does seem like there’s a bit of a trend where whole new ideas come out that don’t have a strong correlation with established teams, so to speak, and now that we’ve started to learn to filter out the extraneous information, people are starting to be able to make a bit more informed decisions. It’s particularly interesting to see how some recent things have drawn some Dems and Pubs with a lot more similar representation on both sides than in the past. I wonder if this trend is strong enough to, in time, overcome the tides of polarization, or if polarization will set too strongly and we’ll see these new ideas start with that sort of evenness but ultimately settle out such that it will end up associated with one side or the other and slowly slip back that way. I really hope it’s the former.

12

I blame low voter turnout. If everyone cast a vote, even if only grudgingly for the person they hate only a little bit less than the other guy, candidates would have to back moderate positions with broad appeal, even if those positions seem wishy-washy.

With low over turnout, politicians are more interested in “energizing the base” – i.e. making sure their supporters come out to the polls in higher proportion than the other guy’s supporters. To do that, you need to support exactly what your core constituency wants you to support with gusto. Try to compromise, and your base thinks you’re wishy-washy, stops coming out and you lose.

I maintain that if voting was mandatory in the US, politics would be a lot different.

13

I disagree with the premise and I think at most we’re marginally more polarized than the past, if at all. We forget how divisive topics were in the past an focus on today’s arguments. For example, is anything today as divisive as the Vietnam War?

14

Much of the political scene has come to be dominated by certain emotional anchors. I speak of abortion/choice and gay rights in particular. For many people, their beliefs re: these issues are central to their political being. Strong emotional attachment, almost by definition, leads to demonizing and polarizing effects.

15

Hi! I am a first-time poster, long-time lurker. I think that American Politics is so polarized for a few reasons.

As others have pointed out, there is SO MUCH information out there, not only is it hard to determine what is real or fake but it’s so difficult just to sift through it all. So instead of sift through it, we determine that <insert news source(s)> is a “reliable” and “trustworthy” place to get news from. Often times, because of the quantity and the desire to have the “It” news story of the hour, purveyors of news will highlight those stories that often times are very far to the left or right to get ratings. We want to hear about the liberals who are going to kick our doors in and steal our guns or the conservatives that want to legislate a woman’s body. Now that’s news <face palm>. Plainly put, middle of the road politics is boring and doesn’t get ratings.

On top of that, we now live in a society that is no longer tolerant of those who think differently than us (within our social group). My dad and I were just talking about that - how groups of teenagers seem to be getting into more serious trouble than they did when I was growing up (I’m in my late 30’s so I was in high school during the early 90’s). In my group of high school friends, if one of us did something really hurtful or boneheaded, you got called out on it by the rest of the group and had to make amends. We were self-policing. Now, desenters are thrown out of the social group until the entire group shares a like system of beliefs / morals / ethics. So before, when you had people in the group that may act like “The Voice of Reason”, you now only have people cheering / egging you on to do whatever stupid stunt you want to do.

There is no middle ground anymore. Societal changes and especially the media want us to pick sides because it makes better news. I guess fighting is better for ratings than getting along? Sad.

16

I think it’s squarely due to the Internet and the removal of the Fairness Doctrine. CNN and other 24 hour news sites were around a decade or more before the real popularization of the Internet in 1997-1999.

What that combination did is not only allow talk radio to become a much more polarized thing (Rush Limbaugh), but it also let people set themselves up in their own little echo chambers- if they’re conservative, they can look at Fox News, Drudge Report, etc… and if they’re liberal, they can look at Huffington Post, Move On, etc… AND NOT LOOK AT ANYTHING ELSE.

Prior to this, they had to pretty much make do with the general-consumption TV news, newspapers and radio programs, which were/are much more even-handed about the topics and issues at hand.

Once the Internet came around, they could surround themselves with only their own views, and send bits of political glurge around to like-minded people to reinforce their beliefs- I still see this- my geezerous relations seem to love to send birther crap even now, as well as all sorts of garbage about how awesome Bush 43 was and how Obama is the Antichrist.

I’m not even a Democrat, but this stuff is absurd, and they seem to eat it up, and it reinforces their world view instead of challenging it.

I think that as the population ages, we’ll see less of this kind of thing because most anyone under about 40 will actually know that the internet can be sketchy and to look at everything you see/hear on there with a skeptical/critical eye.

17

erm, Fox News?

18

I sort of blame Clinton. Gave the Vocal Right a feather for their cap, (“we told you he was a sleazy liar!”) and then it all escalated quickly on both sides.

Nixon was as bad a person, but times were different and it didn’t cause so much trouble.
As mentioned upthread, there were deep divisions at the time already.

19

I simply don’t see this polarization that the rest of you are talking about. There are a few issues where Democrats and Republicans have differing views: social issues (gays, abortion…) and safety net issues come to mind.

But for the vast majority of issues Democrats and Republicans pretty much have the same beliefs. Both are strong believers in a strong military empire and military interventionism (Iraq, Afghanistan…). Both are hostile to civil liberties. Both reject the concept that banksters who break the law should go to jail. Both are strong believers of kicking the can down the road and letting the next generation try to avoid catastrophe…

20

Then why the drastically increasing presidential partisan-approval gap?