A Nation Divided? Who Says?

A part of this theory makes sense: among elites, political polarization is much more deeply embedded than among the common man types.

For many people (even among the college educated), polarization of political beliefs tends to occur as a reaction to perceived threats. But for the smaller group of well educated elites with whom I am friends, their beliefs are Soviet in nature -- aggressive, zealous, expansionistic and ultimately messianic. To believe is to be part of the revolutionary vanguard...

I don't live in an imaginary rosy world of political harmony, but I am skeptical of reading too much into the red/blue dichotomy that commentators love so much. Social trends that create ever closer convergence of speech patterns between young people in New Orleans and LA, DC and New York are also working their magic on political beliefs. As Americans are subjected to similar images, soundbites, movies, etc, some degree of convergance must occur over the long term -- but it would be difficult to isolate scientifically from all of the other external influences in a person's life.

For a good (but biased toward northeastern sensibilities) look at some of the social differences that manifest themselves partially in political identification, read Paul Fussell's book, "Class: a guide through the American Status System." By the title, he is already staking a claim to a key red/blue issue -- that of accessibility of success.

Thoughts?


The New York Times > Week in Review > A Nation Divided? Who Says?