A Nation Divided: Why the election is still tied

[MavKikiNYC]

Not sure how much I agree with this simplification, but it's an interesting starting point.

Why IS the country so divided?


OP-ED COLUMNIST
The More Things Change...
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 23, 2004

Why is this country still tied?

Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.

Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?

That is the central mystery of this election.

The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.

But what explains this stable divide?

Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.

Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.

But two forces do account for the stable political divide. First, partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people care that passionately about being a Democrat or a Republican.

Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that bind the group.

In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe different policies. They describe different realities. In short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.

Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that runs through recent elections.

Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But he should have a clear, broad vision of America's exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated.

Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary. Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.

Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government. It is easy to imagine each of them serving as a cabinet secretary.

It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement.

That's why we are still tied.

[Chiwas]

Excelent article. One of a kind over this section, not partisan, trying to find the roots of an apparently not sane tie.

It explains and describes the polarization, but I didn't get why now again after 120 years.

The description of two realities by the candidates and the leadership war? I think this was not unusual in the past century. Although probably the two realities are becoming more evident in time.

Good read, anyway.

[Chiwas]

I just read this article that coincides with the latter on one of the issues:




'Ready for everything to take charge of the US'

"THE CAMPAIGN OF THE MOST MACHO: BUSH AND KERRY".

[Evilmav2]

Hmmmm... If the upcoming election truly is a "campaign of the most macho", I'm not so sure that's necessarily such a good thing for J. Forbes Kerry...

[Epitome22]

Assuming the gist of the article is correct. What sets off this tribalism? Reagan (second campaign) and Bush the Elder (first campaign) won in landslides. The first Clinton election was the result of a divided vote between Bush and Perot. Unless there's just been a huge influx of liberal democrats in the country (which I doubt) what can explain this tribalism? which is what it is. I find that a large part of the political landscape don't even care about the issues in the election. They just use the elections to reinforce their tribalism, huddle in their bunkers and hurl grenades at the other side.

[Chiwas]

They just use the elections to reinforce their tribalism.

Exactly, the article mentions it. The pink color of democracy does not exist anymore, if it existed ever. They care more about their jobs, own future and welfare, than about those of the citizens, than those of the nation; that's why the flip-flops and lies, the negative campaings, the lack of solutions or plans based on party platforms, the substitution of institutions for individuals, the electoral frauds, the hidden or lost records, the manipulation of polls, the increasing bigotry, the excess of makeup, the criticism on the family of the candidates, the dubious past of the candidates and persons related to them, the inffluence of the economic sectors on the agendas, etcetera.

The trend is worrisome, it's not a good symptom for our democracies.

[mercury_rev]

[/quote]The pink color of democracy does not exist anymore, if it existed ever.[/quote]

Democracy isn't a panacea. Athenians democratically gave Socrates the "option" of excommunication or capital punishment. War-weary Germans democratically elected Hitler. Shah-weary Iranians democratically elected the Ayatollah Khomeini. President Bush recently claimed that he would tolerate an Iraqi Islamist state if that is what a majority of Iraqis choose to elect. (I hope he was only joking in light of Afghanistan's overwhelming election of Karzai.)

Obviously, terrorism/war is the leading issue in this election, but sadly it isn't the overarching dominant issue. There are too many variables to explain voter motivations. Bush won Ohio in 2000 but now he's fighting to win it again after an economic downturn in the manufacturing sector. If the polls are accurate, many Ohio citizens will vote for Kerry solely on the jobs issue. Many Alabamans will vote for Bush solely on the partial-birth abortion issue. Many Floridians will vote for Kerry solely on the Social Security issue. Etc...

Democracy is about pandering to constituents who vote, mostly for local prizes. Why else would a Red State like South Dakota keep electing Tom Daschle unless he brought home pork? The pandering is more obvious with congressional figures but it also applies to elected members of the executive branch.

With a two-party system, it's not unusual for presidential elections to be close. Recently: Nixon/Kennedy in 1960, Carter/Ford in 1976, Bush/Gore in 2000, most likely Bush/Kerry in 2004. I bet the '92 election would have been close without Perot in the mix. Presidential elections tend to be close unless the incumbent screws the pooch or faces an ineffectual opponent.

Aside from that, both political parties poll/focus group/questionnaire/compromise over which groups they will pander to as their base and which groups they will leave cold. Neither party can leave too many cold, so they strike a natural balance. In the last 25 years, Republicans have found evangelicals and Democrats have found leftists. Meanwhile, most other Americans are unsatisfied with either party's platform, but most other Americans don't have enough overlapping values or principles to give them a third party with enough clout to unseat the other two (look at the Greens, Reform Parties, Libertarians, Natural Law Parties....) As for the "undecideds" both candidates will look to split differences and pander to specific local and state interests.

I've rambled too long. Brooks may be on to something with the tribalism stuff about _some_ voters, but I'm not sure if the closeness of this election isn't just a reflection of the equilibrium democracies make possible. I don't see this as a recent phenomena of war-divided voters each retreating to their inner citadels. There are too many other issues that have always motivated (and split) the vote close to 50/50.

[Chiwas]

Good reply, mercury. I have some issues but I only will focus on this sentence, the core, "They care more about their jobs, own future and welfare, than about those of the citizens, than those of the nation;", the other stuff are the symptoms of a degenerative abuse of the democratic system by the political class more and more. If democracy is not a panacea, they are taking over it to make it fewer.

The author says that such a tie for two consecutive elections hadn't happened in 120 years. That's not close to normal, I understand it so.




Edit (this sentence, the core)