Americans Aren’t Particularly Ideological

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, progressive Democratic Party operative Steve Rosenthal argues that Americans are becoming more progressive:

Not too long ago, everyone was declaring American politics a lost cause for progressives. The religious right supposedly had a stranglehold on elections. Then it was the tea party that had the political establishment — initially Democrats and Republicans — quaking. The media and the general public took hold of a narrative parroted by conservative candidates and opinion leaders: The United States was a “center-right” nation.

But after two consecutive elections in which the Democratic candidate for president garnered more than 50 percent of the vote — a one-two punch last achieved by Franklin Roosevelt — it is worth questioning that assumption. The country is getting more diverse, and as the proportion of white voters shrinks, so, too, does the conservative base. As demographics shift, so do political preferences — in this case, toward the left. A close examination of U.S. attitudes in the past decade-plus reveals that the United States is steadily becoming more progressive.

He continues by considering Americans’ views of immigration, marijuana, and big business.

Now, I don’t honestly know whether Americans are becoming more progressive, more conservative, or what. However, I don’t think you can arrive at that conclusion using the methods Mr. Rosenthal is using and moreover I think the question itself is meaningless.

For every issue on which Americans’ views have shifted in a direction that Mr. Rosenthal characterizes as “more liberal”, another issue could be identified on which Americans’ views have shifted in a way that he, presumably, would not think of that way. For example, Americans now believe that government is the biggest problem facing us (a problem not easily solved by the application of more government, which I think most would agree is the progressives’ preferred strategy); Americans’ approval of labor unions is weaker than it was five years ago, five years ago it was weaker than it was ten years ago, ten years ago it was weaker than it was twenty years ago and so on; and the role of religion remains strong in American life, something that distinguishes the United States from the more left-leaning states of Europe.

Additionally, because Americans’ views on immigration have changed since 2006 does not necessarily mean that they’ve become more liberal. More likely, it means that circumstances have changed. In 2006 we were in the midst of an up-tick in immigration. Over the last couple of years that has declined or even reversed. Thinking that reducing immigration is now less important than finding a practical and just way of dealing with the illegals already here isn’t ideological. It’s practical.

That’s what I believe about Americans’ political views. For good or ill unlike Mr. Rosenthal and unlike most in Congress a majority of Americans aren’t particularly ideological one way or another. You might characterize their views as eclectic, incoherent, or pragmatic depending on your own point-of-view but not ideological.

11 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Looking at Obama’s success in garnering 51.1% of the vote and declaring 51.1% of Americans progressive is silly, particularly since some of his strongest supporters like to emphasize how moderate or conservative he is.

    I think the true story of where we are requires looking at all of the national elections, and noticing that we are at a point of very balanced competition. That the parties have created a near tie situation confuses people like Rosenthal into thinking that great trends are afoot. It is far more true that microtrends are moving the ball back and forth across the 50 yard line with no true gain observable from the cheap seats.

  • TimH Link

    I agree with Shaw’s 1st point but not entirely his second. Shaw’s right – people didn’t vote for Obama because they’re progressives, they voted for him because he was the preferred candidate out of two.

    I think Rosenthal is right demographics shifting and favoring Democrats; the Republican party tried (largely under Bush) to appeal to a broader electorate, especially Latino voters. Since then, the GOP has unloaded magazines of ammo on its feet on that effort by sounding anti-immigrant (rather than anti-illegal-immigration) in such a way that comes off as thinly veiled racism. The GOP should try to move to the middle on a few issues to get these voters, but I don’t think they’ll be able to given politics right now.

  • TimH:

    There’s a difference between “favoring Democrats” and becoming more progressive. Progressives are a minority of the Democratic Party—roughly a third. To whatever extent that Democrats consolidate electoral gains it will be by pushing progressives aside.

    Additionally, Hispanics aren’t a captive constituency of the Democrats in the way that blacks are. Indeed, among the spoils system Democrats that comprise a very hefty chunk of the party those two constituencies are doomed to duke it out. I think you’ll see an increasing proportion of Hispanic Republicans, particularly in, say, Texas where the immigration discussion is quite a bit different than it is in, say, California.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @TimH, did you look at my link. Its got a very pretty chart.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Well, they think government/politicians is the biggest problem, which I think we can agree is much more ambiguous answer than government itself.

    I don’t think progressives are going to be growing more popular but I do believe that in five to ten years, the old model of there being two sides to every issue will be done with. This will create an illusion of consensus, in the same way that there is a consensus on climate change–all of the people who know anything about it on one side, hacks and the indifferent on the other, and no real idea how to fix it. Or the drug war–it was striking when David Brooks wrote his moronic column how little he and the drug war’s defenders know. The New Jim Crow was really popular, for a policy book, and yet it apparently penetrated nowhere outside of the left.

  • michael reynolds Link

    I don’t think we have a very clear idea what a “progressive” is, so I’m not sure how we go about measuring it.

  • I don’t think we have a very clear idea what a “progressive” is, so I’m not sure how we go about measuring it.

    Not only is the concept malleable over time but is different in different parts of the country. That’s one of the reasons I think the question is meaningless.

    All of that having been said by comparison with European countries, U. S. politics is sort of over to one side. Thinking of that side as left or right (something that refers to the seating chart in Les États-Généraux more than two hundred years ago) is well, quaint.

  • jan Link

    The political dynamics of America evolve like a teeter totter. One “side” gains popularity, for a while, and then, when enough seeds of discontent are sowed, it begins to fall, leaving room for another POV (ideology) to rise into power. In the background, there are also cultural recalculations that are either tightening or loosening the mores of society. Nonetheless, ‘change’ is really the only constant that bedevils a civilization, as pundits, immersed in their own belief systems, continue to cast said changes into cement-like trends. IMO, though, tomorrow will be different from today. And, that difference will depend on outside circumstances — many of which we have no control over.

  • michael reynolds Link

    If I were to come up with a fanciful binary division of humanity I think I might try stickers vs. movers. There are people who, faced with adversity, stay and make it work. And there are people who, faced with adversity, go somewhere else. Both are necessary, both are dangerous. You need those crazy bastards who tough out one North Dakota winter after another getting that wheat crop in. But they are all the descendants of people who said, “Let’s get the hell outta here and go to North Dakota.”

    Seen in a 400 year time-lapse photo sequence the United States was a big emptiness (sorry Native Americans) filled by a rush of people from elsewhere who populated the east coast, spread west and then just settled in to fill in the last few empty spaces. We have a self-image and a national mythology of exceptionalism that rests in large part on that kinetic history. It’s probably not coincidence that the cowboy myth is dead with kids now. Now we’re as static as the Spaniards or the Chinese. I sometimes think that’s the malaise at the heart of this country. We aren’t the pioneers anymore. We’re not on the move. We’ve lost our sense of being on a mission.

    The great, oft-parodied scene at the end of Shane, has the farmer staying put and Shane riding off, with the young boy (and the wife) torn between the two. We’re all that damned farmer now.

  • PD Shaw Link

    “I don’t think we have a very clear idea what a “progressive” is, so I’m not sure how we go about measuring it.”

    Particularly here where most of the examples of the ascendancy of progressiveism (marijuana, gay marriage, and immigration) are shared positions with libertarians on the right. Libertarians might also express concern over Big Business, but generally they see Big Business as a creature of the state, and probably have little common policy wise with progressives.

  • jan Link

    Similar empty frontiers are Mars or the Moon. Maybe future exploration/settlement of these planets might be the coming antidote to our ‘malaise,’ as being a central reason for problems here in the US.

    However, I do think purpose does drive an individual, as well as a country, to achieve something better, deeper, or more rewarding. Without a sense of purpose, there is also little meaning attached to life, which can set a person adrift during times of philosophical inquiries, most often occupying a person’s late night/early morning thoughts.

Leave a Comment