Think for yourself, don't depend on your "political team" being right

Shankar Vedantam's Department of Human Behavior column in The Washington Post today has another interesting discussion of the way we make political decisions.

Research indicates that while Democrats and Republican activists both tend to see more difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates these days, moderates tend to see less difference. He ascribes this phenomenon in part to the fact that activists are more interested in politics on the average than moderates, and follow the candidates more closely. However, following the research of political scientist Marc J. Hetherington, he suggests that party members are exhibiting behavior analogous to that of sports fans following their teams.

On a variety of unrelated issues -- gun control, the economy, war, same-sex marriage, abortion, the environment, the financial bailout -- the views of Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly monolithic. There is no reason someone who is against abortion should necessarily also be against gun control or for economic deregulation, but that is exactly what tends to happen among committed Republicans. Loyal Democrats have similarly monolithic views on unrelated issues......

Another consequence of intense party identification is that the Democratic and Republican parties have rid themselves of contrarians. Liberal Republicans and, to a lesser extent, conservative Democrats are endangered species.

Vedantum suggests that this is more true of American voters now than was true in the past. Accepting that this polarization has taken place, there is still the question of why now, after more than 200 years of partisan politics in the United States.

Let me advance an uninformed hypothesis. People tend to seek out information that agrees with their preconceptions, and to believe more in data that confirms rather than challenges those preconceptions. Today it is easier to do so, not only by choosing friends as informants, but also by choosing apparently "authoritative" sources of information from the media. Not only are the mass media dividing along partisan lines in the United States, but using the Internet we can seek out copacetic opinions. Indeed, we can watch the speeches of our favorite candidate on the Internet without the "inconvenience" of listening to the other side. So the information we choose leads us to believe more of what the other members of our party believe, if we are members of a party.

One should also "follow the money". The candidates who have the most money and buy the most and best advertising get the most votes and win their elections. Incumbents have an advantage in the elections, and thus attract more money from those seeking to invest wisely in the search for influence. Thus incumbents are almost always reelected. The exception is incumbents in years of voter discontent in vulnerable constituencies; they receive support from their state and national parties. The dominant party in the state is more likely to be effective in exercising that influence. States become more monolithic politically.

Still, I think there is much to be said for the position that the media are not doing their job. They do not ask hard questions of candidates on both sides, and seek to honestly present the positions on both sides while debunking the political hyperbole and falsehoods.

Perhaps the best antidote to falling into the trap is to make a conscious effort to listen to the arguments on both sides. Ask yourself if you really accept each position of your candidate. There is no reason why one can not be a fiscal conservative and a social progressive. Certainly one can be a conservationist and not a conservative! One can feel we should not have entered the war in Iraq, and also feel that we need to get out of that war very carefully due both to the risks involved in destabilizing a large part of the world and to the moral responsibility we owe to the Iraqi people.
Source of table: “The Discounted Voter: Polarization at the Congressional District Level,” Marc J. Hetherington and Bruce I. Oppenheimer

Almost half of Congressional districts had closer than a 40/60 split in 1976, fewer than one-quarter in 2004. Fourteen districts had a 20/80 split or more polarized in 1976, while 40 did in 2004.