January 02, 2004
60-40 NATION (via Luxor Lee):
Splitting society, not hairs (John Leo, December 7, 2003, Townhall)
If polarization is essentially confined to a small numbers of actors clashing swords in front of klieg lights, why do polls show that the number of centrists and swing votes are dwindling? This would explain why both parties seem to spend so much time and money appealing to their base -- they are no longer convinced that there is much of a middle to appeal to. I'm told by a reliable source that Karl Rove is working with data showing that true swing voters are down to 7 percent of the electorate. (Kohut says no--the percentage of legitimate swing voters is at least 20 points higher.)Like most analysts who say they see no polarization, [Robert} Samuelson cites America's great improvement in racial attitudes and increased tolerance for homosexuals. True, but left unsaid is that a fierce and apparently growing majority of Americans oppose gay marriage (up 6 points to 59 percent, according to Pew) and an even larger percentage of the public opposes racial preferences. ([Alan] Wolfe found that 76 percent of blacks and 83 percent of whites oppose preferences even when the euphemism "priority" is used in the question). These are not random findings but hot-button issues in a continuing war over basic values. If the left keeps using the courts to impose minority opinions on unwilling majorities, conflict will broaden and intensify.
Consider too the growing polarization that pits secularists against religious people. In the 2000 senate race in New York, two-thirds of secularists voted for Hillary Clinton and two thirds of religious people voted for Rick Lazio. This kind of split showed up in House races around the country in 2000, says Louis Bolce, an associate professor of political science at Baruch College in New York City. The Pew study shows that the most religious states vote Republican, the least religious go Democratic.
More and more, religiously committed people tend to vote Republican, largely because of "the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic party and the party's resulting antagonism toward traditional values."
What's interesting--and potentially portends a true political realignment--is that the polarization is not 50-50 on social issues, but favors conservatives by at least 60-40 on each question. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 2, 2004 10:27 AM
I think this demonstrates why tyrannies (forcibly imposed political systems) tend to collapse all at once. And I suspect that the Democrats will collapse the same way.
All these changes -- essentially starting with Roe v. Wade -- have been nothing but pure arbitrary decisions, backed up by nothing but personal preference of the liberal judges. Imposed on a public that emphatically believes that these positions are morally wrong.
However, the definition of "moral" shifts over time, or at least the way in which it's applied to society shifts.
Thus, one decade's controversy becomes another decade's baseline.
If there are fewer true swing voters, why are party affiliated registered voters down, and registered independents up ?
The Democratic party and establishment have done a REALLY bad job with the war on terror and Iraq, but those issues will fade.
'08 may be a fairer test of the extent to which the Dems have become unviable.
And yet Bush's New Republicans don't believe the party has any business messing with social issues,as you showed in recent post about them.
Posted by: M. at January 3, 2004 07:10 AMFour guys in WA.
Posted by: oj at January 3, 2004 09:19 AMMichael:
That's how Democrats are comforting themselves--it's just the war--but in fact 9-11 has been a net negative for Bush and the GOP, causing bitter divisiveness, boosting the deficit, distracting from more urgent domestic reforms, etc. GOP control of the House and Senate since 1994 can hardly be traced to 9-11.
Posted by: oj at January 3, 2004 09:30 AM"Four guys in WA"........and Arnold in California and......etc,etc,etc.
Posted by: M. at January 3, 2004 11:20 AM