Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
100 of 106 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Political class is polarized, but the rest of us can think!, November 16, 2004
This is a very brief and tightly argued book of enormous relevance to us in 2004. It makes the following remarkable points:
1. On close inspection of individual opinions, the vast majority of the electorate in the U.S. are *moderate*, not radically polarized into liberals and conservatives. That is, most of us are, as we would like to believe, capable of thinking independently for ourselves rather than strictly along party ideological lines.
We are a _closely_divided_ nation, as reflected in the very close recent elections, however we are NOT a _*deeply*_divided_ nation. That is, we are not really a nation of two distinct warring camps and a couple of swing states as the media sometimes present it for dramatic purposes. Fiorina sugests that we are actually something close to an ambivalent nation which divides itself in poltitical matters because we have no choice when presented with highly divided options.
2. The American public has *not* become dramatically polarized even over such hot topics as abortion. Rather, relatively small differences among us have been magnified by the rhetoric used to present the issues to us.
3. The political choices we have are determined by a distinct class of politicians, party activists, and interest group leaders, who *have* become increasingly polarized over moral and religious ideology as well as economic ideology.
4. A large part of the polarization of the political class has been the result of the realignment of the South, such that republicans aligned aggressive foreign policy with hostility to the welfare state, and democrats aligned antiwar sentiment with support of those at risk. This is represented particular well by the "gender gap" which widened at the same time this realignment or tuning of the ideologies of the parties was taking place.
Fiorina suggests that when Bill Clinton once said early in his presidency that he was Pro-Choice, but against abortion, most Americans knew what he meant, that most of us, liberal or conservative, do not want to legislate morality for others, even though we have a clear sense of what is right and wrong. Fiorina also points out for example that most 80% of us believe that abortion should be legal under some conditions (even if wrong), and illegal under others. The extremes at each end which promote unconditional rights for unborn babies or for mothers are roughly the 10% tail at either side of a normal curve.
Finally, he also provides data showing that the averaged opinions of self-identified liberals and conservatives regarding abortion differ only regarding under what specific conditions they think abortion should be legal, not the legality of abortion in general.
The result is that the supposed "culture war" is really a war between increasingly ideologically polarized political parties and their activists who arent really even aware of each others reasoning, with most of us in the middle getting hit by friendly fire from both sides, but being forced to choose between them.
The bottom line for Fiorina's argument here is that we are a nation currently creating unneccessary internal conflicts and indulging in "culture war" polarized issues like gay marriage or unconditional rights of various kinds that are really of concern to a relatively small and unrepresentative number of us. They are sold to us by political parties and the media because of their drama rather than their relative importance. It's hard for me to look at the political ads for either of the current candidates in 2004 without nodding agreement on this.
Our political system provides us with ideological extremism on both sides, and seems to have no desire or ability to change itself, whereas most of us caught in it would usually prefer pragmatic and non-ideological solutions to issues that address larger numbers of us.
I read this at the same time at Juergensmeyer's book "Terror in the Mind of God," and it is chilling how much the "culture war" among the political elites comes to resemble the "cosmic war" of good and evil that Juergensmeyer theorizes leads to real violence under some conditions. If Fiorina is right, we may not really have a (popular) culture war at all, but we could create one if it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as we come to accept it uncritically.
If Fiornia had a solution for this centrally important problem, this book would merit 6 or 7 stars. However, just by pointing it out so clearly, it merits the highest rating I can give it.
Please read this important and timely book.
|
|
|
65 of 69 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting little book - serious and informative , October 5, 2004
This is a short book written by a serious scholar who shares the ample statistical evidence that most of the American people is still moderate when it comes to political, economical and social issues. The findings of the book have been common sense for a long time, but it is contrary to the much-hyped "culture war" ideas that have been trumpeted by the media and partisan radicals. In fact, the book proves how stable and moderate the public opinion has been in the last 30 years regarding almost every controversial issue. Radical ideas, both to the left and the right, have not gained much ground at all, despite what you might think by reading the newspapers and watching TV. One of the useful passages of this book is when the author shows examples of how the media has consistently distorted the real picture with simplistic articles that promote the "culture war" and "the great divide". According to the author, most of the motivation for hyping this "war" is simply because dramatic news sells - and I agree. Moreover, the "culture war" talk is used by the political parties to mobilize their " base" (which, by the way, is already much more radical than the typical electorate)to vote in elections - particularly useful in a political scene that alienates more and more the moderate majority ("half of the citizens do not bother to vote!" Now that should be a headline...)
Perhaps the most interesting and revealing point of the book is how similar are the political views of both Red and Blue states -the author contests the validity of this classification (and he introduces the example of "flip-flop" California to drive his point).
The charts and tables in the book are VERY USER-FRIENDLY and INSIGHTFUL - you definitely do not have to be a scientist or an economist to follow them.
This is a NON-PARTISAN book that I recommend for political studies students and all people interested in politics, particularly moderate citizens who try to understand what is really going on in American politics.
|
|
|
22 of 26 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Red and blue for me and you..., March 24, 2005
We are using Fiorina's book as a supplementary text to the primary text book in our Introduction to Political Science course at the community college where I tutor. It helps to add dimension to the more basic exposition of the structure of government (separation of powers, federal systems, etc.) by looking at partisan and party political issues more in-depth, and more currently. This book starts with the wonderful quote from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who once stated that all are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Fiorina walks a fine line between opinion and fact, and does so with skill.
The book goes through the midterm elections of 2002 for its data; hopefully an update will be forthcoming soon. Still, the closely divided nature of the country is still present throughout, a roughly 50/50 nation of red states and blue states, with plenty of blue in the red, and plenty of red in the blue. This is a key understanding for Fiorina - the nation is not sharply divided or deeply divided, but rather closely divided. He points to events such as Patrick Buchanan's speech in 1992 heralding a replacement of the Cold War with the Culture War, and showing that, despite the best efforts of commentators on all sides, the typical American will still be a centrist and moderate in many respects.
The idea of a culture war is a myth, according to Fiorina. This is based on the misrepresentation of facts, or misinterpretation of such data as election results and polling data. The polarisation of America is more of an appearance or illusion brought out by statistical manipulation than a reality inherent in the system.
At the highest levels, Fiorina states, the parties are indeed more polarised, but this sharp identification left or right is greatly diluted, the further from the party centre, the less polarised people are. One example of this is the issue of gay rights and gay marriage, which came to the forefront strongly in the run-up to the 2004 Presidential and Congressional elections. Fiorina analyses this, forecasting that the idea of a permanent shift from economic to religious-based issues is a premature conclusion that many commentators are drawing, and that more traditional identifications are still very strongly present in the American political spectrum.
Fiorina also examines the way in which extreme voices on both sides of the political spectrum can influence, and indeed dominate, American politics in the media, and how this can be understood and put in proper perspective by the middle-ground majority. He identifies three major developments: the rise of the purists, the expansion of government, and the increasing level of participation in democracy in the country. These three elements (together with other factors) make for a tricky situation in the future. Fiorina's humour is apparent in various ways - he uses a quote from Stealer's Wheel ('clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...') to describe much of the way people see American politics (and the clowns and jokers can be on both sides alternately, and sometimes simultaneously!).
This is a good text to use to understanding and explore current political trends. Only a bit more than 100 pages, it encompasses a great deal of information, in an interesting and engaging manner.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Martin P. Wattenberg
by John R. Zaller
by Michael Nelson
