The Exaggerated Divide: an American Seeking Unity

[Originally Written Winter 2007]

The portrayal of America through the media is commonly that of a divided nation, overrun with ideologues and partisans who view compromise and consensus-building as demonstrations of weakness and impassion. The divide between right and left, red and blue, Democrat and Republican has become the defining political phenomenon of our time. Political upsmanship and illusionary rhetoric obscures policy development and substantive achievement. The perception of the American electorate as polarized and divided has become so pervasive that there are few efforts to dispel it. Consequently, division has replaced unification as the overriding strategy in political campaigning. Voters disillusioned with the seemingly divisive and vituperative nature of the political debate abstain from the process altogether, thus perpetuating the problem. The notion of a heavily divided American electorate is not supported by empirical evidence, yet political strategists commonly advise candidates that they should hitch onto a few “wedge” issues in order to rally their base, essentially dismissing the importance of independent or centrist voters to the overall outcome. There is, as I will argue in this paper, no insurmountable cultural or political divide in America. Americans today are concerned not about right and left, but right and wrong; not about what is best for Democratic and Republican factions, but what is best for the Nation. They seek leaders of wisdom and moderation, but all they are getting today are divisive candidates who foolishly buy into the notion of a divided electorate--a notion that is perpetuated by the media. Ultimately, division sells more newspapers and garners more television ratings than unity. The quiet brilliance of compromise is hardly as sexy as the high drama of conflict. The true divide in America is between extreme partisans and ordinary, reasonable people living their lives, with the former group systematically disillusioning and crowding out the latter. Candidates who recognize this and seize the opportunity to appeal to the vast political center will do themselves and the country a great service.

First I wish to discredit the notion that close elections translate into a divided electorate. It is true that the last two presidential elections have been extremely close, but the prior five presidential elections were far from close. Certainly the polarization that supposedly exists today did not emerge as recently as 2000. Most argue that it began long before then, so it naturally begs the question that if the American electorate is so closely divided, why were those elections won decisively? Candidate coalitions ultimately represent the aggregate accumulation of various interests and concerns, not some homogeneous ideological grouping. Voters make their decisions based upon various factors, and sometimes many are simply choosing between the “lesser of two evils.” Mr. Bush’s vote tally in 2004 was certainly not comprised of conservatives alone. Mr. Kerry did not garner only liberal votes in that year. Independents and centrists split the difference. Some conservative Democrats may have voted for Mr. Bush; some disillusioned Republicans may have voted for Mr. Kerry. A close election does not necessarily mean that the electorate is closely divided between two ideological camps. Indeed, it indicates precisely the opposite: voters have a great many conflicting concerns and priorities, and they select candidates for vastly different reasons. It is fundamentally fallacious to group half of the country into arbitrary classifications of “right” or “left” based upon which candidate they voted for or to divide states into categories of “red” and “blue” based upon which candidates carried them.

As political scientist Morris P. Fiorina notes in his piece “A Divider, Not a Uniter: Did it have to be?”, politicians and those intimately involved in the political process are certainly more divided and polarized. The vast majority of Americans, however, are disengaged from this bitter ideological conflict. The divisiveness of the political process turns many potential voters off entirely. Others follow politics but often remain in the “undecided” column until the very last moment, often making their choice as they step into the voting booth. Americans may be divided over a select few political issues, but even in these instances Americans reject extremist, partisan doctrines in favor of a balanced, moderate approach. Compiled Gallup polling data report that roughly 30-percent of Democrats believe in unrestricted access to abortion; a comparable percentage of Republicans believe that abortion should always be illegal. There is a great silent majority of Americans who may lean one way or the other (pro-choice, pro-life) but still recognize the differences that exist over the issue and want it approached reasonably and sensitively, as opposed to the vituperation and extremism that so often characterizes intensely ideological and partisan debate. Similarly, a great majority of Americans, even those registered with one of the two major parties, would likely identify themselves to be “centrists” or “moderates.” According to some polling data, as much as 35 percent of Americans classify themselves as political independents. A large share of self-identified Democrats and Republicans classify themselves as “moderate” or “centrist.” As with the abortion issue, while voters may lean toward one side or the other, their preference is not nonnegotiable. Americans are not ideologues by nature; they are pragmatists. They want something done, and they value compromise and unity over stubbornness and divisiveness. The political process has failed voters in this regard, and politicians should stop playing the political game. It is time to end the politics of division.

Further, it is worth noting that even those voting blocs that would seem easily to classify have competing interests and concerns. Pragmatic, centrist voters tend to base their votes on “bread and butter” issues, which Democratic candidates generally receive high marks for. In 2006 polling data, American voters overwhelmingly ranked the economy, health care, education and Social Security as the issues most important to them. National security concerns ranked closely behind, with so-called “wedge issues” such as abortion, flag desecration and gay marriage ranking near the bottom of the list. In approaching economic issues that directly impact their lives, voters are hardly ideologues; they are practical. They desire the candidate that will make their lives better. A substantial number of right-leaning Independents voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 because of his moderate stance on such issues. Ronald Reagan was also able to attract left-leaning independents who generally sided with Democrats on economic issues, but opposed the dramatic excesses of government welfare programs. In approaching national security issues, voters are equally pragmatic, admiring both strength and prudence. Mr. Bush’s 2004 re-election was less a vindication of his policies than a rebuke of the leadership style of his opponent, who was seen as passionless and lacking principled judgment. Voters want honesty and consistency, and regardless of one’s view of Mr. Bush, he has certainly been consistent. The pitfalls of Mr. Bush’s style are clear--consistency can often turn into arrogance--but voters want pragmatic leaders who can amend their views with the emergence of new evidence rather than for purely political reasons. Ordinary Americans who are not veritable political junkies care far more about what each candidate has to offer than what party label appears next to a candidate’s name.

It is thus necessary for a candidate to appeal to the center in order to be successful. Even Mr. Bush, who rallied his base with his micro-targeted emphasis on moral values, also appeared to centrists by taking moderate positions on the same “bread and butter issues” I mentioned earlier. By pushing forward with education reform and a new program designed to help poor seniors get prescription drugs, Mr. Bush conveyed to moderates that he was an economic pragmatist rather than an ideologue. His predecessor perfected this balance by advocating new government programs in some areas and abolishing them in others. Further, he appealed to moderates by approving the welfare reform law in 1996. I am certainly not advocating that candidates follow the examples of these two men, but I note these examples simply to illustrate the viability of such a strategy. Where Mr. Bush, of course, falls short is his arrogance; Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, was seen as unprincipled, always watchful of public opinion and lacking the conviction and consistency that voters demand. It is important for candidates to appear principled but flexible. They should admit to their mistakes and atone for them; they should abandon the divisive political game in favor of a strategy that unites the country. They should not attack the political system simply because it is a good way to appear “above the fray” and appeal to disillusioned voters, but rather offer voters an alternative to the current process and the policies it has produced.

It has been said that in American politics fear always defeats hope, but this is hardly true, for hope has rarely had a voice. Politicians on both the right and the left condemn each other and instill fear in voters about the other side. In 2004, Mr. Bush consistently implied that the election of John Kerry would leave America vulnerable to terrorist attack. Mr. Kerry told senior citizens that Mr. Bush wanted to gut the Social Security system and that their retirement checks were in jeopardy. Division and fear have become the tactics of choice in winning political campaigns, but it is hardly accurate to suggest that they are most effective because a true attempt has yet to be made to offer a new politics of unity and hope. Campaigning and governing from the center will serve candidates and the nation well.

The 2008 political campaign promises to be a blockbuster, and the rhetoric is already so divisive that the notion of “hopeful and unifying” politics seems improbable. However, candidates who approach the issues that voters care about with moderation and pragmatism will do better than those who offer nothing but fear, hateful rhetoric and prophecies of doom. A successful candidate in 2008 should make note of the failures of the current administration and of whomever his or her opponent may be. However, attacking others too often becomes the focus of the campaign. Voters do not want attacks and they certainly do not want to focus on the past; they are most interested in the future. Candidates should offer their own vision for the future. They should be candid and articulate their positions clearly. Voters are generally reasonable, and they certainly don’t expect to agree with a candidate on every issue. Their level of agreement is matched in importance with their level of trust and confidence in the candidate’s ability to keep their promises, do what is in the interest of the Nation, and bring the country together. In pursuing this approach, candidates will appeal to the vast center--the part of the political spectrum into which most Americans fall. In approaching economic issues moderately, they will project themselves as sensitive to the concerns of ordinary people. In approaching national security issues pragmatically, they will project themselves as capable of leading a powerful nation in an increasingly complex world. Finally, in creating a new brand of politics, they will bring disillusioned voters into the political process.

Voters deserve better than what they are currently getting. Politicians and ideologues may be obsessed with tearing their opponents to shreds and adhering to a rigid ideology totally detached from reality, but ordinary Americans are interested only in moving the country forward. Victory will not be obtained solely by appealing to the base of one’s respective party, but rather by branching out and addressing the concerns of the vast majority of voters who consider the labels of “Republican” and “Democrat” inconsequential compared to the label of “American.” A winning political strategy, in the final analysis, can and should be one that emphasizes hope over fear, pragmatism over extremism, unity over division, and progress over stagnation. Such a strategy will lead a candidate to victory and the Nation to greatness.