Despite the conventional wisdom and to some the common knowledge that a major chasm exists between the two major parties in American politics, Morris P. Fiorina (et al), author of
Culture War?, provides an excellent argument that debunks that logic. This conventional point of view is created by network news reports from the traditional media, more so on cable network newscasts, partisan mouthpieces, and interests groups among others. Being a skeptic of this contention before reading his text, it was enlightening to see large amounts of real data presented in one place on the same issue at the same time. This allowed for the reader to asses the situation on their own rather than getting the one controversial result on the network news feed or selected arbitrarily at your favorite web log.
...
...
Often one selected poll is glamorized while another that is less appealing to the intended audience or interest group is brushed aside. The reality that is cleared up in this book is the myth of a highly polarized America. Using a large amount of polling data presented together and without spin, this reality is created. Instead of two great powers bitterly opposed at either side of the spectrum and assuring the others destruction, there is a divide in the middle of the American electorate that can only manage to net a handful of people from each side to wage this war through grassroots activism and punditry. Being written after the 2004 elections, this books data is quickly becoming dated and issues may be becoming threatened by forces poll numbers - especially national data - do not affect. Therefore, the following discussion will investigate two subjects; abortion and gay marriage, for new polling data and new or strengthening avenues to address the issue in a court that doesn't listen to national public opinion or movements of individual states that don't either; and also because they're interesting.
Abortion (Polling Report Data)
We'll begin with the issue of abortion because it is the more interesting of the two to me. On one end there are those who believe in the right to privacy, on another there are some who object to the practice of moral, ethical, or religious grounds enough to want to violate the rights granted in the Fourth Amendment, and still there are a variety of other opinions out there, as well as some who are undecided. This dynamic is often misinterpreted in the (all encompassing) media as a polarizing issue, one that can not be compromised upon. These claims are false (Fiorina, et al, 79-80).
Some new data has been collected on the issue of abortion since Fiorina's book went to press. First, one of the polls that Fiorina featured in his book was done by The Gallup Poll on Americas support for Roe v. Wade. This poll is presented as a trend that began in 1974 at ~48% in support of Roe; it went from the mid-forties to the mid-sixties from 1986 to 1992 where it has stayed constant till January 2006. The newest available data (a January 2006 poll) puts support for Roe at 66% with 9% still undecided; up 3 percentage points.
In his book, Fiorina looks at the issue of abortion with more representative lens. He breaks up the one or the other question used above by Gallup into six groups. It addresses the context of the abortion as individual events such as if a women's life is in danger of if the mother is not married. This helps isolated a divide within the issue of abortion based on context. Although new data was not available - or locatable - other polls suggest that most people are willing to make abortions legal for instances of health (of child and mother) and rape (Fiorina, et al, 83-84). However they were less open to keeping it legal for someone who's pregnancy was a mistake, who can't afford a (or another) child, or if they aren't married. In a poll conducted by CBS News, they asked its subjects to pick one of the following: "What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases. (2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. (3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. OR, (4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life," never, and unsure. The results were 33% chose that it be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mothers life - the highest - , 29% picked that abortion be legal in all circumstances. Only 4% said it should never be legal, 14% wanted abortions only if the mother's life was in danger, and 17% wanted greater restrictions. This verifies Fiorina's conclusions.
The partisan break down - into Republicans, Democrats and Independents - was an enlightening argument brought up by Fiorina (93-94). Citing a poll from 1992, the national average for approval of Roe was 59% with 58% of both Republicans and Democrats and 62% of Independents approving. In a 2005 poll that asked whether the Roe v. Wade decision was good or bad found that nationally 60% saw it as a good thing. However, when looked at from a partisan perspective, 73% of Democrats supported it, 64% of Independents, while Republican support came in at only 41%. This indicates quite a shift in the partisan dynamics from those of 1992. Perhaps it is indicative of what Nixon era Republican Kevin Phillips calls "...the first religious party in U.S. history" (Phillips, B03). But we'll have to wait for Fiorina to address that statement.
Although polling data is interesting and a good way to diagnose true public opinion from what you hear from the ever present mouthpieces on the Left and the Right, it is not actionable. Even if 85% of Americans indicated in a poll that they favored Roe and wanted all abortions to be legal, that wouldn't mean that the decision and the Fourth Amendment was safe. The two newest editions to the Supreme Court have tipped the balance on issues like abortion to the Right, and if a law were to come under review by the Court with proper wording, it would most likely overturn Roe. The first try at this was quickly initiated by the South Dakotan legislature in February 2006 (Nieves, A01). Its language makes it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion; it allows only one exception in the case of a mother whose life is in danger. State Representative Roger W. Hunt (R-SD) says that "The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future." Perhaps he should read Fiorina's book because his idea of `change' is not - and it hasn't been for well over a decade - the national sentiment. It isn't even the sentiment in states that went to Bush-Cheney in 2004 (Fiorina, et al, 84-86). Unfortunately for this democracy this right - that of privacy - is currently threatened by what the George Bush or Jerry Falwell equivalent on the Left would call `activist judges.'
Homosexuality - Gay Marriage (Polling Report Data)
Another issue that is part of the culture war is homosexual rights especially gay marriage. This is part of the culture war because there is a war ongoing. It is not between a polarized nation, but a nation being pulled at by a few.
Fiorina averages five polls from 2004-2004 that asks if homosexual marriage should be seen as valid by the law and given the same rights. His results were 63% saying that it should not. However, in a more recent and similarly worded poll only 56% said it should not be recognized. When asked if one would favor or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to marry legally Fiorina (et al, 121) found, again, that - in an average of four polls from 2004 - 60% agreed. The latest data for that particular poll from April 2006 shows an 8 point drop from 61% to 53% in the percentages that oppose the proposed law.
The specter of civil unions changes the dynamics of the debate some; "When the option of civil unions is available, opposition to legal recognition of gay relationships drops 10 to 20 percentage points" (Fiorina, et al, 120). In his book he cites an average of a series of four Quinnipiac University Polls that indicate that 53% oppose civil unions with equal rights (Fiorina, et al, 121). In a similar poll that adds `many of' in front of rights as opposed to all rights granted to man and woman marriages that 53% goes to favoring such a plan rather than opposing it. So much for the American slogan of `equal rights for all,' but the trend is moving slowly but steadily towards those idealistic slogans we Americans love to embrace (Fiorina, et al, 123- 126).
Still threats similar to those that attack the pro-choice crowd threaten homosexuals as well. Many religious groups that controls the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party place this issue on a pedestal above many other, more worthy causes. In addition, an avalanche of states have passed or are in the process of passing laws prohibiting gay marriage or protecting the word marriage as being only between a man and a women. It is shameful that the rights of some are jeopardized on the altar of semantics at the request of a handful of religious fundamentalists and at the request of media blowhards and partisan operatives.
Prior to reading Fiorina's book, I had the perspective that he so elegantly and aggressively debunked. He did not prove that the culture war does not exist, but rather that the battlefield is not very divided and that fringe forces on the Left and Right work overtime to keep public opinion - a very docile entity - on their side. These `fringe forces' operate from moral positions such as the church, political positions from Washington, D.C., and a good deal of them do it for the money by selling their point of view - or hate literature - in Barnes & Noble bookstores. Every American - especially politicians - should read this book so they know that we are not a bitterly divided electorate on many issues and that they are being deceived by bigots and party operatives into thinking otherwise. Should America overcome this myth of polarization, then maybe we, as a country, can begin to address legitimate issues rather than tinkering with the fourth amendment and/or playing semantics. Until then, I will continue to fight as I was before reading Fiorina.