Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America

In Culture War? The fiction of a Polarized America,1 Morris Fiorina takes aim at the contention that in that respect is a culture war in America, that our society is badly landmarkd and polarized so that we argon rapidly falling into devil competing camps ready to do battle with iodin an a nonher(prenominal). It is a bold argument.The idea that a culture war is raging in America is a staple of plastered media outlets, especially AM talk radio, where the the likes of Michael Savage, dick OReilly, and Rush Limbaugh on the beneficial, and Thom Hartman, Randi Rhodes, and Al Franken of left-leaning Air America constantly function alarms, crying that whichever barbarians they dread are around to storm the temple. Against this habitual belief, Morris Fiorina has impressive credentials he taught at for ten geezerhood at CalTech, for sixteen years at Harvard, and he is now a senior fel depressive disorder at the Hoover work and holds an endowed chair in political science at S tanford University.Using sophisticated taste data, Fiorina come outs that the American usual holds a err of diverse opinions, that finds that instead of organism change magnitudely polarized, the American public has mainly been moving to the center of the political spectrum on many issues. Consider an issue which he admits is a hot button souvenir homosexuality. Fiorina finds that the American public has gradually but steadily become more than than judge of homosexuals over the past 30 years.True enough, the public does not have a bun in the oven homosexual marriage, nor did they concur opening the military to gays, but these are not the entire question of homosexuality. On the issue of being willing to accept homosexuals in command, the public attitude has shown increasing moderation. To establish this, Fiorina considers polls in which the examine group was asked to rate homosexuals on a thermometerscale, in which 100 is total acceptance, and 0 is total rejection. In 1984, homosexuals earned a 0 score from 30 share of Americans.By 2000, the theatrical roleage of 0 scores has dropped to that 10 pct, and the overall acceptance place for homosexuals has risen from 30 percent to 49 percent. (84) While these ratings do not show that homosexuals have managed to escape the stigma chthonic which they have been compelled to live, they show that the shocking divide in which the issue is often gifted does not exist. Similarly, the spontaneous abortion issue, long considered the approximately divisive of social issues, is decidedly less(prenominal) divisive than it is pictured in popular media.A clear majority of Americans now reserve the basic decision in hard roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court abortion case. more than 65 percent of Americans support a strong right to choose. (54) Further, attitudes as to when abortion should be allowed are to the highest degree unvarying since 1973. As of 1999, the last year for which Fiorina has data, 88 percent of Americans hope that abortion should be allowed if the life or health of the large(predicate) cleaning woman was seriously endangered. (55) In 1973, the government issue was 87 percent.If, like Fiorina, we accept the norm that a change of quadruple percent or less in a survey of this type is not statistically operative, then the wholly factor more or less which the surveys have asked which has seen a statistically significant change is the right to a woman to have an abortion based on a claim that she has an income so low that she cannot afford another child. Even in this situation, some 40 percent of the general population would allow the abortion. (55) The change in attitudes, such as it is, is in the percentage of Americans who bank that all abortion is murder.While this adage a slight rebound in the late 1990s, it has fallen from 22 percent in 1973 to 18 percent, and since Roe, it has neer been in a higher place 25 percent. (71) Another remarkable determi nation that Fiorina uncovered is that men and women have virtually identical attitudes on abortion, even though they differ markedly in their views on other issues. (71-72) The percentage of men and women who believe that abortion should be legal to a lower place all circumstances has varied mingled with 21 and 36 percent for women, and betwixt 20 and 30 percent for men, with the residue betwixt sexes never being more than six percent.The percentage of men and women believe that abortion should be illegal to a lower place all circumstances has run amidst 15 and 23 percent for women and between 13 and 21 percent for men, with never more than a difference of four percent. (71) By contrast on other issues, the difference between mens and womens attitude is far more marked. Responding to the suggestion that all handguns except those carried by police or other persons in authority should be illegal, exactly 28 percent of men agree 48 percent of women agree.Regarding the caning of an American adolescent arrested in Singapore for acts of vandalism, 61 percent of men applaudd of the punishment single 39 percent of women approved. While 43 percent of men consider themselves conservative, only 29 percent of women do. (72) In short, era abortion does not appear to be as divisive an issue as it is portrayed, there are other issues on which there is instalment. Fiorina presents a sweeping roam of data, all of which shows far less air division than is generally assume to exist.This raises a essential question if there are fewer deep divisions than Americans believe, why do Americans believe that there are such division? Fiorina points to several sources, including political parties, media, and pundits. Media and pundits want to portray conflict, because conflict sells. (115-23) As the quip goes, If it bleeds, it leads. To fulfil his conclusions, Fiorina has to delve into sophisticated statistical models.The ref wishing to follow his argument in detail face s a daunting task, because Fiorina uses tether dimensional statistical models ass he works through and through assumptions about elector and candidate behavior. (118-24) In the end, Fiorina argues that it is not the general populace that is divided, but the elites, the nation who are active in party work. (125-31) In their turn, the elites are the or so accessible to and the most accessing of the media and the pundits. (141-42) Party elite organizations tend to be strongly self-selecting.Only a true worshiper among Republicans can rise far through the Republican party organization only a true believing democrat gets to the top of the Democratic party. Once in the elite, these people tend to demand liken zeal from anyone else wanting admission, and to select people with the same ideals to join the elites. The result is clan of self-perpetuating cadres of zealots, who believe, or at least would like to believe that they stand on the ramparts and react for the Lord. In Fiorina convincing? He would plausibly find a certain irony in the response maybe.Any serious commentator must give pause. There is easiness in the idea is that we are not becoming constantly more polarized. mute we are conditioned to believe we are polarized. That idea appears so often that a refutation is hard to accept. But anyone who reads this bind will probably ponder if Fiorina is right or not. He would probably approve of that response. AUTHORITY CITED Fiorina, Morris, with Samuel Abrams and Jeremy Pope. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized Amierca. New York, New York Pearson/Longman, 2005.