Americans Don’t Disagree That Much on the Issues—But Don’t Expect That to Matter

If there’s a nasty storm brewing outside,
and a bunch of my friends settle on takeout from Subway to satisfy
their hunger, there’s no doubt that we have a majority preference
for sandwiches for dinner. But they’re likely to end up with Pad
Thai anyway, if I’m the only one motivated enough to get up and
head out into the elements for the vittles. That’s because I prefer
Thai food and I can be a bit of a dick about these things. That’s
what comes to mind as I read the good-government group Voice of the
People’s (VOP) announcement
that a “new study finds remarkably little difference between the
views of people who live in red (Republican) districts or states,
and those who live in blue (Democratic) districts or states on
questions about what policies the government should pursue.”

There may be a lot of general agreement on the issues, but that
isn’t going to matter very much if the meeting of minds isn’t
shared by those who are actually driven to participate in the
business of influencing government and making policy. The study,

A Not So Divided America, also assumes a bipolar
ideological world, which isn’t necessarily the case, even in a
two-party system.

To find the degree of policy agreement among Americans, VOP
selected 388 questions from 24 different surveys that broke
respondents down by state and/or congressional district.

Comparing the views of people who live in red Congressional
districts or states to those of people who live in blue
Congressional districts or states, across 388 questions, majorities
or pluralities took opposing positions in about one out of thirty
cases (just 3.6 percent of the time). In two out of three cases
there were no statistical differences.

VOP did find red/blue divides at the state and district level on
some hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun rights.
Majorities differed when asked in broad terms about those issues,
There was, however, quite a bit of agreement on specific policy
proposals, such as permitting concealed-carry permits, abortions in
cases of rape, and civil unions.

VOP also found wide agreement on spending priorities, taxes,
health care reform…

But, there’s a catch.

In cases where two basic responses were offered respondents
(e.g. favor vs. oppose) but they were also offered intensity
options (e.g. very or somewhat), the intensity variations were
collapsed for each basic response.

Here’s where we get to, “what do you guys want for dinner?”
Americans in general may well be in general agreement if you call
them on the phone and badger them into answering a few questions.
But the country’s political decision-making isn’t driven by the
rule of “meh”—it’s driven by those with sufficiently intense
feelings to commit time, money, and energy to win their way on
specific issues. That means the guy willing to go out into the
storm ultimately has more say over the choice between sandwiches
and Pad Thai than the folks with a weak preference and a spot on
the sofa.

VOP would likely say that’s the problem—the organization was
founded as an objection to partisan politics. But how do you make
the voices of people with weak preferences on any given issue equal
to those of the highly motivated? And should you really try, given
that those with more intense feelings usually have some skin in the
game and may well take the time to become better-informed about the
issues?

VOP also makes the common American assumption that there are two
and only two “camps” to be examined, and crowds everybody into
them.

To compare responses in red districts/states and blue
districts/states, each poll question had to be treated in a binary
fashion. This was self-evident in the many cases in which the poll
question offered the respondent two possible structured responses.
However, other variants had to be adapted to a binary analysis.

True, this is a two-party system, but those parties are
factionalized and red vs. blue can cover a world of differences,
like the gulfs between
Rand Paul and John McCain, or Jared
Polis and
Dianne Feinstein. Tribal affiliations aside, is a “red”
district in Alabama really comparable to one in Arizona? A blue one
in Massachusetts necessarily the same as one in New Mexico?

That said, there is likely more national agreement on many
issues—from guns, to taxes, to marijuana—than is apparent from what
goes on in the halls of Congress or on the nation’s OpEd pages. But
the political battles will certainly continue so long as weak
agreement is offset by intense commitment—and
strong tribal loyalties.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.