Gridlock and Culture Wars

In June, the Pew Research Center released the findings from its largest ever study of Americans’ political attitudes. Those findings won’t shock any observer of society and government. They reveal a polity in which increasing numbers of citizens identify as either “consistently liberal” or “consistently conservative,” with fewer people describing themselves as ideologically “mixed.”

The Pew study finds deepening “ideological silos,” in which more and more Americans dislike and/or avoid people ideologically unlike themselves. Significant numbers of consistent conservatives (63 percent) and consistent liberals (49 percent) report that their close friends share their political orientation. Increasing numbers choose to live in areas where their neighbors are likely to share their views. Many say they would be unhappy if a family member married someone affiliated with the opposite party.

These findings reinforce what social scientists have known for years: that differences in policy preferences and political behaviors correlate with a wide range of other cultural tendencies. This was the thesis of James Davison Hunter’s 1991 Culture Wars, which posited that much of the American population falls into opposing camps with respective “orthodox” and “progressive” worldviews that shape their political and social behavior.

The Pew study suggests that consistent conservatives (CCs) and consistent liberals (CLs) possess diverging worldviews that inform their patterns of and attitudes toward everyday living. Whereas CCs prefer living in large houses a far distance apart, with schools, stores, and restaurants several miles away, CLs tend to live in smaller homes with amenities close nearby. Only 23 percent of CCs care about living near theaters and art museums, while 73 percent of liberals do. Only 20 percent of CCs value living amid racial and ethnic diversity, whereas 76 percent of CLs value living in diverse communities.

In contrast, 73 percent of CCs, but only 24 percent of CLs, would be troubled if a family member married someone who didn’t believe in God. 23 percent of CCs, but only 1 percent of CLs, say they’d be unhappy with a family member’s marriage to someone of a different race. And, not surprisingly, 49 percent of CCs, but only 5 percent of CLs, would be happy if someone in their immediate family married a gun owner.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ 

All of this ought to make us think twice about condemning government officials for their bitter partisanship, which simply reflects ideological divergence within the wider population. Indeed, Pew reports that “both liberals and conservatives define the optimal political outcome as one in which their side gets more of what it wants.” It seems liberal and conservative voters resemble elected officials more than they would care to admit. Most of us may dislike gridlock and applaud when government somehow manages to get things done; at the same time, many of us want our elected officials to fight to enact policies that reflect our own ideological preferences.

I suspect that most readers of this post adhere quite consistently to their political convictions. For those of us who do, how willing are we really to see our leaders compromise on matters that matter? If we were a member of Congress, would we fight to pass legislation that embodied our strong preferences, or would we prioritize building bridges with differently inclined others?  If we represented a district where a large majority was comprised of either CCs or CLs, how consistently and vehemently would we act on behalf of that majority?

If we would remain faithful to our own or our constituents’ staunch convictions, then how fair is it to blame our leaders’ tendency to do likewise?