Culture War - The Myth of a Polarized America - Book Report/Review Example

Critical book review Explanation of Issues I agree with Morris, Abrams and Pope on the misconception that from the outside, Americans are very polarized, particularly because of media’s highly exaggerated perception that America is deeply at odds and is more biased in political support. However, by delving deeper into the American culture the revelation is that the moral division is restricted to a class of politically elected officials, and some activists who cause a deadlock revealing that democrats and republicans never get along. Evidence In chapter one, Morris, Abrams and Pope emphasize the confusion arising from terminology. The authors agree that even though there are close divisions among Americans on national issues, there was no evidence of deeply rooted divisions (7). However, Morris, Abrams and Pope reveal that an appearance of the deeply divided citizenry arises from polarized politicians (8-9). Conversely, the American political parties are deeply divided by true divisions evident in their opinions and the manner they use them to have a competitive advantage over the opponent. Chapter 2 has confirmed the myth of division through the terminology confusion because of closely competitive last elections and the perception of a divided electorate. The chapter adds on the aspects of most population while avoiding the political class for its polarization and time devoted to come up with strong opinions, media filtration of who gets airwaves or print pages, and political candidates influence on the decision of the voters. These divisions only exaggerate the actual variations among Americans and make them think they are deeply divided (15). In chapter three, Morris, Abrams and Pope highlight that in a two party nation, there is an almost exactly evenly match in the ratio1:1. This closeness is cited by Morris, Abrams and Pope as an era of indecision with the largest group of voters being self-dependents and moderates in both the red and blues (24). In my opinion, indicision does not last since an American has to believe in something and not remain like an atheist, which results to no strong ties to the red or blue side hence not primary conflict. Chapter four goes beyond defining polarization by political affiliations of red and blue to consider other factors like age, party identification, education, race, gender, and religion. However, these factors demonstrate depolarization in intergroup dissimilarities. From Morris, Abrams and Pope, only gay rights and abortion while the other evidence indicates no more divisions compared to the past (48). I agree that negligible divisions indicate that on social issues, the values of the public remain the same and disregards media’s revelation that an entire state can be blue or red given variations in individual judgments. In chapter five, the examination of the issue of abortion reveals the myth of deep divisions between the two sides. From a survey, Morris, Abrams and Pope identified that the stances on the abortion issue have remained stable with fairly low variations in six of the circumstances determining its legalization. The reds and the blues refute/support legalization on almost equal measures (of 3.5 and4.0 respectively) that are slightly above the average of 3.0 of 6.0. however, between church frequent and occasional attendants, the differences in support of abortion legalization were greater but not greater than 2.0 (70-72). Like Morris, Abrams and Pope, I agree that differences on the circumstances under which to legalize abortion is the main reason for the close division on the support of legalization. Consequently, this should not translate to deep polarization. Despite the revelation by the media that the issue of homosexuality attracts deep divisions, centrism by the public is high. According to Morris, Abrams and Pope, majority of the population hold moderate views with people across all ages, states or parties gradually accepting homosexuality (88). With the revelation that young people form the majority of those in favor of homosexuality, I agree that with a gradual homosexuality acceptance in people of all ages, there will be less controversy around the issue. The general acceptance of homosexuality by the population does not make it a less touchy subject, but indicates the society’s disagreement with the constitutional amendments seeking to prohibit homosexuals. In chapter seven, media misinterpretation on the shifting of electoral cleavage is demystified by Morris, Abrams and Pope. The authors agree that America is not polarized and use supporting evidence from hotly contested issues like abortion and country religiosity. A focus on economical issues to identify division is driven by the traditional culture where such were main dividers among groups and with changing time, these are replaced by cultural issues like religion and abortion amidst contemporary cultural issues of concern, economic issues still play a crucial role in political division. Consequently, no significant reduction in their role is noted. In chapter eight, media’s perception that the 2004 elections were founded on moral values is discredited through the citation of other contributing factors like jobs, Iraq, economy, and terrorism and more. A closer analysis of other issues besides moral values narrows down to the issue of security being a crucial factor in voter’s choices. For instance, a wining issue on the 2004 election would have been terrorism/Iraq, which ranked 34%. Considering this issue, I agree that this election was more about voting for the safe choice other than the right choice (154). With the September 11 2011 terrorism attach making insecurity real, voting for the safe choice was more appropriate unlike, the right choice guided by moral values or an increase in partisan voters. Morris, Abrams and Pope use chapter nine to examine the determinants of media bias or political affiliation and cites political elites’ influence as the core cause unlike the influence of the ordinary American. When assigned airwaves or print pages, political elites offer partisan views aimed at misguiding the public through emphasis on voter switching to religion and morality and forfeiting economics. The political candidates, interest group leaders, and activists understand that they have to take stronger stands on moral values than the citizens at a time when public opinion is considerate about the personal life and scandals of the candidates like was the case with Bill Clinton ‘s presidency. In chapter ten, the authors offer a reflection on their values and judgments concerning political science and realize that unlike in the past, democracy today depends on factors like increase in purists, and the rise of participtory democracy, and government expansion(230). Unlike ordinary citizens, Morris, Abrams and Pope highlight that purists dominate politics with their large campaign funding which propel them to power and high media coverage. Influence of context and Assumptions Three factors affect the context of this book. First, the authors highlight that government conflicts will always be there because conflict is a part of human nature. Citizens are, therefore called to adapt to conflicts as the best way to make informed decisions. Secondly, with conflicts as part of human nature, fanatic party affiliates should learn to effect control. Thirdly, voters should understand that political intensions would always repress severe minorities. This context is what reflects the people as informed and not blindly implementing the biased views of the media. Student position In my opinion, the book reveals voters enlightenment arising mostly from public awareness of politics. However, the voter enlightenment reveals a disconnect from media views and I give credit to the authors’ use of graphs, tables, and figures to demonstrate the public’s feeling unlike using numbers that readers would not attach any relevant meaning. I do not mind the use of numerous graphs in the book and I appreciate the fact that the authors carried out a real study at a time when media dominance in politics has drawn most people to centrism. Even with strong opinions from opposing sides, citizens are taking moderate standpoints and evaluating crucial aspects like security to make their voting decisions. Conclusion Unlike the differences amongst Americans as displayed by the media, Americans have similar values in common. The shared values are what create an almost 50:50 election indicating that there are two small opposing groups and a large middle ground of persons with moderate opinions. Consequently, the political culture is more sorted currently than was two decades ago and this is confused for polarization, which it is not. Works Cited Read More