Loyalists All

"One wanders to the left, another to the right. Both are equally in error, but, are seduced by different delusions."

  - Horace (65-8 BC), Roman poet

David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times, has written an interesting piece titled "Circling the Wagons" (brief registration required). In it he talks about how partisanship is contributing to the deep divides we see among the American people today.

Referencing Partisan Hearts and Minds, a book by political scientists Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler, Brooks tells us that:

"In a perfectly rational world, citizens would figure out which parties best represent their interests and their values, and they would provisionally attach themselves to those parties. If their situations changed or their interests changed, then their party affiliations would change. But that is not how things work in real life...Few people switch parties once they hit middle age."

Interestingly, the authors of this book have found that people do not choose parties by researching their platforms and selecting one based on which will most nearly work for the nation's interests. Rather, they have "stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves."

Further, once they've decided to devote their allegiance to a particular party, they alter their beliefs to become more in tune with their "political tribe." Paul Goren of Arizona State University reinforces this theory with survey data he's used to track the same voters over time:

"Under the classic model, you'd expect to find that people who valued equal opportunity would become Democrats and that people who valued limited government would become Republicans. In fact,you're more likely to find that people become Democrats first, then place increasing value on equal opportunity, or they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. Party affiliation shapes values, not the other way around."

Mr. Brooks also cites Angus Campbell's book, The American Voter, in which he argues that party affiliation shapes people's perceptions of reality:

"...partisanship serves as a filter. A partisan filters out facts that are inconsistent with the party's approved worldview and exaggerates facts that confirm it."

And finally, Brooks refers to Princeton University's Larry Bartels, who provides some examples of this phenomenon at work:

"In 1988, voters were asked if they thought the nation's inflation rate had fallen during the Reagan presidency. In fact, it did. The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent. But only 8 percent of strong Democrats said the rate had fallen. Fifty percent of partisan Democrats believed that inflation had risen under Reagan. Strong Republicans had a much sunnier and more accurate impression of economic trends. Forty-seven percent said inflation had declined.

Then at the end of the Clinton presidency, voters were asked similar questions about how the country had fared in the previous eight years. This time, it was Republicans who were inaccurate and negative. Democrats were much more positive. Bartels concludes that partisan loyalties have a pervasive influence on how people see the world."

Brooks concludes that these academics may have a point, for he sees rival political communities today embracing "one-sided attitudes and perceptions," and views this as a rather depressing development.

As I read all this, I kept asking myself, "Is this me? Is this what I do?" I like to think not, but am I sure? In a recent post I made the observation that we hear the things we want to hear, and I think that's generally true. Most of the time we use selective listening when we hear something, ignoring what doesn't fit our belief system and accepting what does. I think that most of us would deny that we are guilty of this. We like to believe that we're open-minded and willing to consider opposing views. Perhaps we are, but then again, perhaps we aren't.