We are witnessing the convergence of several trends, which may take politics as we know it and turn it on its head. First, a political trend in which both angry Republicans and angry Democrats now believe that there is zero chance that the government will do anything to improve their lives.
Second, the American Exceptionalism movement is morphing into something that says we must win, and win now. Never mind trying to figure out exactly what âwinningâ means. Weâve now spawned two generations of Trump wanna-beâs who have no time for losing. They must win, win, win, and they will say or do whatever it takes to win.
Third, people have sorted themselves into groups that are impervious to fact. Presenting people with the best available information doesnât change many minds. Like a psychic immune response, they reject ideas that they consider harmful. Regardless of whether the subject is climate, vaccines or politics, they prefer and are much more susceptible to, appeals to emotion.
So we live in a time of angry rage. We canât change most of what we see, but we sure can be pissed about it. The angry voter has been blamed for the insurgent candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and the possible emergence of a third-party presidential run in 2016.
In the midst of this shit storm, political scientists Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster of Emory University last week posted an intriguing analysis at Larry Sabatoâs Crystal Ball Blog on the role of anger in the 2012 presidential election. They conclude that voters are indeed angry. But their anger is directed mainly at the opposing party, and this anger is increasingly correlated with ideology. In other words, the most liberal and most conservative voters are also the most likely to be angry. Looking forward to 2016, they conclude: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
The most important influence on the 2016 presidential election as well as the House and Senate elections will be the division of the American electorate into two warring partisan camps. In the seven decades since the end of World War II, Democrats and Republicans have never been as divided as they are today.
Earlier this year, Abramowitz and Webster released a paper cataloging the sharp increase in party-line voting in recent decades. Once upon a time, it was not uncommon for Republicans to vote Democratic and vice versa. In 2012, the authors tell us, the US saw:
The highest levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting since the American National Election Studies first began measuring party identification in 1952.
Whatâs the reason for the polarization? Abramowitz and Webster call it ânegative partisanshipâ, the tendency of voters to think of their ballots not as a way to help their party but as a way to hurt the opposition. In other words, itâs not that our side is so great; itâs that the other side is so awful.
How do we know the other side is awful?â
Abramowitz and Webster say that a crucial element in negative partisanship is the assignment of negative characteristics to the other party. From 1972 to 2012, the proportion of voters who believed there are significant differences between the parties rose from 55% percent to well over 80%. We can argue over why, but, as the authors point out, these changes in perception are rational, since the parties themselves have become more ideologically rigid.
A thought experiment: Is there a party where the voter who is for abortion rights, but against same-sex marriage is comfortable? How about the voter who supports the Affordable Care Act, but is a skeptic on climate change? And if you donât believe such complex voters exist, you are part of the evidence for the authorsâ thesis about party rigidity.
All of us have met political partisans who believe that those on the other side are irredeemably stupid or evil. Yet we know that view of superiority is ultimately enforceable only at the point of a gun — just the opposite of what we expect of our democracy.
So, is anger good for our democracy? In a world of twitter and other social media, there are just way more outlets for anonymous anger. And that anger reproduces itself with every re-tweet.
And if thereâs one thing anger loves, its attention.
Maybe we can learn something from what Johnny Rotten said in his book, âAnger is an Energyâ, (which is a line from his song âRiseâ): (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
When I was writing the Public Image Ltd song âRiseâ, I didnât quite realize the emotional impact that it would have on me, or anyone whoâs ever heard it since. âAnger is an energyâ was an open statement, saying, âDonât view anger negatively, donât deny it â use it to be creative...’
Anger doesnât necessarily equate directly to violence. Violence very rarely resolves anything. In South Africa, they eventually found a relatively peaceful way out. Using that supposedly negative energy called anger, it can take just one positive move to change things for the better.
Maybe, a third party presidential run in 2016?
While both extremes seem to be equally removed from the other, if we look at actual policies as proposed by Democrats, the case can be made that Democrats are for closer to the center than Republicans. Thus, the Obama presidency’s policies are only marginally left of center. But Republicans in govt (especially at the state level, where they have more ability to act) are hard right.