I started this blog ten years ago today, so I wanted to do something to mark the anniversary. I decided to write about one of the most important trends of the decade--growing political polarization. Of course, that's too much for one post, so I will just start it here and continue it in future posts. Many people have talked about this development, but I'd say that most of the explanations fall into three main groups.
1. Many white people feel threatened because their traditionally dominant status is threatened. Their determination to hold on at all costs is the source of polarization.
2. For many years, elites ignored the wishes of ordinary people, or showed contempt for them. Finally the people rose up in anger, with the Tea Party movement and then with the Trump insurgency.
3. People have experienced a loss of meaning in their lives, and have turned to politics to provide what is missing--politics has become a substitute for religion or community.
The first explanation is popular on the left, while the second and third are more popular on the right and center. In my view, none of them are right. I've had a number of posts that criticize them, but haven't really offered an alternative, although I have hinted at it. (There's also some relevant material in my new book). I'll start this series of posts by summarizing my criticisms, and then suggest an alternative.
The first one is essentially the right explanation, but for the wrong time. It explains a lot about the poltics of the 1970s and 1980s, but not the politics of the 21st century. The reason is that the opinions of white Americans on race have become substantially more progressive. Forty years ago, most whites said that discrimination was bad, but didn't think it was a major problem, and a significant number thought that whites were the ones who were really discriminated against. Today, whites are more likely to see discrimination against blacks as a real problem, and also to see ethnic diversity as a positive good.
I'll add one small but important bit of information that suggests that most people are OK with diversity, and even welcome it. Here are the approval ratings of presidents immediately after they took office and (about) 100 days in, as recorded by the Gallup Poll. (I just consider newly elected presidents, not ones who took over after death or resignation.
Initial 100 days
Obama 67% 63%
GW Bush 57% 53%
Clinton 54% 45%
GHW Bush 51% 56%
Reagan 51% 68%
Carter 66% 63%
Nixon 59% 62%
Kennedy 72% 83%
Eisenhower 68% 74%
Obama had higher approval ratings than other recent presidents when he first took office. That means that many people who had voted against him switched to taking a favorable view, which doesn't fit with the idea that they regarded him as a threat. There is a version of the threat argument (I forget who has offered it) that says that there was a short era of good feeling when people thought we'd become a post-racial society and could forget about race, but whites turned against him once he started governing--that is, he was all right when he was just a symbol, but was seen as a threat when he took action. That's why I also show approval ratings 100 days on, when presidents have nominate cabinet members and started trying to pass legislation. Obama was still popular, with a higher approval rating than any president since Reagan.*
Obama's popularity declined to about 50% in the fall of 2009, and then stayed within a narrow range. But in the first six months or so, being black didn't prevent him from being popular.
*Reagan's approval jumped after an assassination attempt on March 30 (it was 60% in the last survey before then).
No comments:
Post a Comment