WILLIAM GALSTON APRIL 5, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The daily commentary about the Obama era has largely overlooked a trend that is now unmistakable—namely, the growing conservative sentiment in this country that goes well beyond the tea-party rallies and Glenn Beck’s rants.
Gallup offered the first piece of compelling evidence. On January 7, 2010, it reported that self-identified conservatives had increased from an average of 37 percent of the electorate in 2008 to 40 percent in 2009. (By contrast, moderates and liberals each decreased by one percentage point during that period.) Gallup based its conclusion on a synthesis of surveys taken throughout 2009, with a total sample of nearly 22 thousand and a margin of error of less than +/- one percentage point. It found, moreover, that ideological shifts among independents—a three-point drop in moderate identifiers, coupled with a five point-gain in conservative identifiers—accounted for most of the overall change.
The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll underscores Gallup’s conclusion. The week of Barack Obama’s inauguration, 24 percent of respondents identified themselves as liberal, 42 percent as moderate, and 32 percent as conservative. In the latest survey period (March 23-26, 2010), by contrast, only 32 percent called themselves moderate, while 42 percent now regarded themselves as conservative—a remarkable 10 percentage-point shift. (Liberals remained unchanged at 24 percent.) I have not been able to find another survey in recent decades that gave conservatives that large a share, or moderates that small a share. While it’s easy to question the significance of a single poll, the liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown as measured by the Washington Post and ABC has averaged 22/38/37 during the Obama administration, versus 22/43/34 during George W. Bush’s second term—clear evidence of a shift toward conservatism among moderates.
These results are part of a polarization of the electorate that has been underway for a generation. While comparisons among polls using differing methodologies is dicey, trends within polls are revealing. In 1992, Gallup found that moderates averaged 43 percent, versus 36 percent for conservatives and only 17 points for liberals. By 2009, both conservatives and liberals had picked up 4 percentage points, while moderates had decreased by 7 points. To be sure, there have been twists and turns along the way. But the overall direction of the tectonic shift is clear.
Let’s take an even longer view. In a study published in the first volume of Brookings’ Red and Blue Nation?, the political scientist Alan Abramowitz examined two decades of evidence from the authoritative National Election Studies. In 1984, he found, 41 percent of voters were at or near the ideological midpoint, versus only 10 percent at or near the left and right endpoints of the scale. By 2004, only 28 percent were at or near the midpoint (a decline of 13 percentage points), while respondents at or near the endpoints had risen by 13 points, to 23 percent.
It remains the case that Washington is more polarized than the nation as a whole. The most recent analysis using the standard political science scoring system found zero ideological overlap between Democrats and Republicans in either chamber of Congress. Which means that in both the House and the Senate, the most conservative Democrat is more liberal than is the most liberal Republican. In the electorate, Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative still overlap with similar Republican identifiers. But as Republicans have shed liberals and moderates over the past generation, the overlap has diminished.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama was obviously aware of these trends, and he understood that Americans were tired of the kind of politics they had engendered. He took office pledging to reverse them. Quite obviously, this has not happened. Historians and political scientists will long debate whether it could have turned out differently, whether a different White House strategy might have weakened the Republicans’ early decision to present a united front in opposition. A plausible case can be made that an achievable bipartisan stimulus bill would have been less effective than the one adopted nearly along party lines—and that there was not enough common ground between Democrats and Republicans to produce significant health insurance reform. Still, it is hard to believe that any political party enjoys a monopoly on wisdom, so a situation in which the minority party gives the majority no incentive to accept the minority’s good ideas is bound to produce sub-optimal results.
Whatever the substantive merits of single-party legislation, there are other reasons to keep working toward more agreement across party lines. Political science research finds a strong inverse relation between the level of combat between the parties and citizens’ trust in their governing institution. While a measure of mistrust is functional in a democracy, excessive mistrust hampers democratic self-government. With trust at historic lows, we have reached that point. And progressives should remember that mistrust hampers those who wish to use government affirmatively more than it does those who seek to limit it.
Regardless, American politics now seems condemned to an extended period of intense polarization, with an expanding army of aroused conservatives fighting to halt and reverse what it sees as the deplorable Europeanization of our economy and society. I doubt that a politics so configured will be able to address our long-term economic problems—until a crisis forces us to. I hope I’m wrong.
14 comments
The first change has to be the labels. What do you call a fiscal conservative who is also repelled by the Club for Growth 'starve the beast" ideology, and also a libertarian on 'social' issues? They can not possibly all live only in North Dakota. Both extremes of liberal and conservative, with their intolerant litmus tests, are driving most of us to a centrist independence in search of a country that still works.
- K2K
April 5, 2010 at 1:02am
What liberal "litmus tests"? The top-ranking Democrat in the Senate is pro-life; most recently elected Democrats in Congress are pro-gun; and the Democratic president of the United States consistently speaks against the interests of teachers and other civil-service unions. Where are the litmus tests? One of the causes of polarization is the perpetuation of the lie of right/left equivalence on matters such as this. Also, the word for "fiscal conservative" is Democrat. Anyone who votes for any Republican for any federal office is by definition not a fiscal conservative.
- rhubarbs
April 5, 2010 at 8:21am
The US (and apparently Galston and most tnr editors) have grown up under , and generally accepting, Reagan ideology: government is bad, the less government the better-- no matter what. Toss in, polarization is bad and bipartisanship is the highest policy goal and you have tnr articles generally written by and for Blue Dog DINOs. As Krugman and others have pointed out, Progressives are not for or against big government or bipartisanship-- but rather are for policies that work best for all. Moving the country from automatically accepting Reaganism as the norm means taking risks and the constant presentation of alternate Progressive policies. THAT is something Obama, Democratic politicians, and tnr editors have not done at all consistently. BO may be incapable of so doing because he doesn't have progressive views or because of inherent instincts to compromise, regard bipartisanship as the highest policy goal, or whatever.
- drofnats1
April 5, 2010 at 10:17am
good points, rhubarbs, but the more recent pressures from the left-wing Dems on the Blue Dogs, which drofnats labels DINOs, is a sign that ideological purity simmers. and the litmus tests still apply in many primaries of 'safe' districts for either party. Neither party has any current credibility as 'fiscal conservatives'. Paul Samuelson explores polarization in today's WashPO without mentioning litmus tests. My point remains that the old labels of liberal, moderate, and conservative need to be changed by the pollsters.
- K2K
April 5, 2010 at 12:33pm
oops, it is Robert J. Samuelson's op-ed in WashPO, on "The Poisonous Politics of Self-Esteem" which avoids the litmus tests frame, exploring instead "... the public agenda gravitates toward issues framed as moral matters.... [and] "psychic benefits..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/04/AR2010040402721.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
- K2K
April 5, 2010 at 12:46pm
Using Robert Samuelson as a model proves my point. R Samuelson is all for health reform in the abstract. He's a DINO that never m,et a bill that he can support. You confuse moderate progressives with left-wing. Understandable confusion by a Reaganite.
- drofnats1
April 5, 2010 at 2:14pm
It seems that Galston believes in moderation for its own sake. The problem is that most of these ideological identifiers are based on self-identification and "moderate" has very little meaning without understanding how the label affects viewpoints on specific policies. As a liberal who believes in majority rule, I have to say that if the majority of the nation wishes to move in a conservative direction, then so be it. Clearly, it means that the Dems haven't made their case, or that the Ronald Reagan mantra that "government is bad" is almost impossible to dismantle. In the end, we get the government we deserve.
- actorney
April 5, 2010 at 2:25pm
I agree with actorney and I'd add as a rider that neither liberal, moderate, nor conservative labels are any use whatsoever as tools to solve the significant challenges this country faces, from losing out in the global education stakes to having our national security tied to our carbon-based energy consumption. The great problem with conservatism today is that it isn't a source of alternate ideas for addressing and hopefully mastering these challenges, but rather a source of pathological denial that such challenges actually exist. This is apocalyptically dangerous, and a reason why one should not take Republicans seriously as a party that wants to govern and has ideas for solving problems until they show an interest in both government and ideas. So the true labels are no longer liberal or conservative, but rather "in touch with the real world" and "living in a fantasy universe in which no modern state could exist." If we're not careful, we'll wake up one morning wearing a tricorn hat in a world that doesn't take the United States seriously any more.
- ironyroad
April 5, 2010 at 4:11pm
Believe it or not, we liberals do not feel bad about who we are, we don't feel guilty for being secretly wrong, and we are confident that our ideals work and are the best for the nation. Since Russell Kirk, Repubs and Cons have been trying to get liberals to doubt themselves, and our view of the world, and although there have been failures and shortcomings, that self-doubt mission hasn't worked. This is why conservative ideology has had to rely entirely on conversion of the apathetic section of the middle and relentless hammering of the pleasure centers of the base. Liberals believe in rationality, believe in the essential goodness of human nature, and in a world that operates by just principles. The fact that we acknowledge flaws in human nature (something cons cannot do) does not mean we have self-doubt. Liberal belief in what we do makes Peggy Noonan's brazen confidence look like Woody Allen's self-loathing.
- haricot
April 5, 2010 at 6:35pm
agree ironyroad, except my concern is that the broken political system in DC and some of the states, is not going to stop the decline I have lived through my adult life, in education, the failure to react to the 1973-75 oil/inflation crisis, and on and on and on. I never understood the appeal of Reagan's conservatism (and ROFL to be labelled a Reaganite by drofnats), yet also see the complete failure of the Democratic machine in 'governing' New York State. too many lawyers in politics with too little pragmatism, and I shall be glad to soon stop witnessing this slow tragedy of history.
- K2K
April 5, 2010 at 8:53pm
K2K, I'd agree wholeheartedly that there are many signal examples of the corruption and failure of Democratic politics. Maybe New York and, say, Illinois are outliers, but they don't do much for our general reputation. The distinction I'd make, however, is that it's still possible to get Democrats to see and accept realities, especially via scientific evidence, and in some cases to try to reconfigure things so that we can deal regionally or nationally with challenges. I worry less about liberal fudge and corruption than I do about the conservative disconnect from reality. If you talk to Republicans today, there's no climate problem, health care can be fixed by cross-state insurance purchase, education is fine, and the Marine Corps will make up for the fact that solar energy will be developed for the 21st century without the U.S. as a serious competitor.
- ironyroad
April 6, 2010 at 1:18am
I agree with K2K's criticism of labels. I consider myself a Conservative Democrat, am pro-life, pro-Iraq and Afghanistan war, but pro-Health care reform. Moderate seems squishy as a label, as though one doesn't have strong beliefs, is too open to compromise, etc. so depending on how the survey is laid out I might easily be categorized a Conservative, though I would never dream of voting for any Republican for National office right now.
- blackton
April 6, 2010 at 10:22am
Blackton, even the political party labels can be squishy. My (now former) best friend stopped talking with me because I voted for Mike Bloomberg in 2001, because he ran on the Republican line. (Mark Green's rabid negative ads were too much to bear). Bloomberg was liberal Democrat who could not fight the Dem machine and found it easy enough to win the Republican primary. Now New York has Steve Levy considering the same tactic in order to run for Governor since the Dem machine pre-anointed Andrew Cuomo. Labels are for pollsters.
- K2K
April 6, 2010 at 11:15am
As a committed Radical Moderate, I abhor squishiness. We stand foresquare for America's only true ideology: pragmatism. Lose the parties, at least to the extent that they suck the oxygen out of the process currently. Open primaries, party-neutral redistricting...we can take this thing back if we want to.
- Robert Powell
April 6, 2010 at 4:49pm