I read this opinion piece by Daniel Yankelovich in the CS Monitor last weekend, which evidently is the first in a series of 8 articles entitled "Talking with the Enemy." (Other articles in the series are available at links on this page.) Coincidently, I also read this review of the book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina, a Stanford poli sci professor affiliated with the Hoover Institution, and Samuel J. Abrams, a Harvard research fellow (also affiliated with the Hoover), and Jeremy C. Pope, an assistant professor at BYU. These two stories paint completely opposing pictures of our nation's political (non-)division.On the one hand, the Yankelovich article paints a troubling picture of a deeply divided and politically polarized American public. We are so divided, he writes, that our "seemingly irreconcilable differences split the nation down the middle." Yankelovich explains that our polarization may have the effect of paralyzing us from forming "the kind of consensus needed to take effective action. The glue that binds our diversity together dissolves. We are prevented from reaching truths we desperately need for our future safety and survival." The article encourages dialogue over advocacy as the "superior method for resolving gridlock." It's hard to argue with that. Given all the news in this election cycle about the national polarization over issues like the Iraq War, foreign policy, national health care, stem cell research, social security, nation building, etc., I'm sure Yankelovich's article strikes a cord with many.
On the other hand, Fiorina et al. appear to debunk that polarization speak. They take the position that "Americans are closely divided, but they are not deeply divided." The book review quotes the book (which I have not read) as saying: "And we are closely divided because many of us are ambivalent and uncertain, and consequently reluctant to make firm commitments to parties, politicians or policies ... We divide evenly in elections or sit them out entirely because we instinctively seek the center while the parties and candidates hang out on the extremes." The book review describes a recent lecture where "Fiorina explained that although the nation's electorate is not divided, the nation's political elites are split. In turn, he said, the positions of this polarized minority get exaggerated into generalizations by journalists in search of a good news story. 'Conflict, of course, is high in news value,' Fiorina writes. 'Disagreement, division, polarization, battles and war make good copy. Agreement, consensus, moderation, compromise and peace do not.' He adds: 'A polarized political class makes the citizenry appear polarized, but it is only that-an appearance.'"
This is all very interesting to me. Media playing up the "news value" of conflicts among party elites (I suppose we're primarily talking about Ds and Rs here) sounds plausible to me. Having good friends (and family) who are across the aisle from me politically, I know that at least in my world we are not THAT different in our goals for making this country a strong democracy, and a healthy, safe and prosperous place to live. So I wonder who's right in this debate? I'm leaning towards the Fiorina view, but in this election year, Yankelovich's words are worthy to consider -- are we hurting ourselves by focusing so strongly on our differences and forsaking the opportunity for consensus building?