Americans are not great at discussing polarization and partisanship. It’s true that the political class talks about these subjects all the time, so you might think that we would have developed some skills, but the truth is America’s discussion of its own oft-bemoaned “polarization” often lacks nuance (or worse).
To illustrate, consider the phrases “everything is polarized” or “the country is deeply divided.” Those blanket statements manage to sweep a wealth of variability under the rug. The truth is that divisions range between a canyon, a small ravine, and no division at all. Results from this past summer’s American Family Survey, conducted by YouGov and sponsored by the Deseret News and the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, vividly illustrate this point.
First, the canyon-like division. When asked if they agreed with the statement that “Black families face obstacles that white families do not,” Democrats agreed with the statement 80% of the time. Republicans only agreed 25% of the time. That 65-point gulf is enormous and certainly buttresses any claim that Americans have deep divisions on race. Because they reflect profoundly divergent diagnoses of the problem, such differences mean that finding common ground on concrete policy changes is likely to be difficult.
While the partisan chasm in Americans’ views of racial equality is concerning, such partisan divisions do not necessarily extend to other areas of life and politics. For example, our American Family Survey shows striking similarities in the day-to-day rhythms of family life for both Republicans and Democrats. But these similarities also extend to at least some political and policy issues. Consider the following statements about which policies would be “helpful” in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.
| Democrats | Republicans | |
| Provide financial relief to small businesses | 66% | 65% |
| Provide financial relief to large businesses | 30% | 43% |
| Provide relief checks to individuals and families | 76% | 72% |
| Pause / hold rent and mortgage payments | 67% | 50% |
| Limit prices companies can charge for certain goods | 65% | 52% |
| Guarantee people’s jobs | 64% | 49% |
| Postpone primary or general elections | 20% | 22% |
By our lights, there is more agreement than disagreement across a wide range of policy ideas. Sixty-six percent of Democrats, along with 65% of Republicans, support financial relief to small businesses, and around three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans favor providing relief checks directly to individuals and families. Overwhelming majorities of both parties reject the idea that elections should be postponed in the face of the pandemic — only 22% of Democrats and 20% of Republicans have favored delays,
And even when we find some space between the parties, more unites them than divides them. More Democrats than Republicans favor a pause in rent or mortgage payments, but it appears that a majority or near-majority in both parties favors that measure. And although only 49% of Republicans favor guaranteed jobs (relative to 65% of Democrats), that is hardly the 65-point gulf on race. That nearly half of Republicans favor the traditionally liberal notion of government job guarantees is striking. Taken as a whole, this evidence suggests that with respect to the pandemic, there is a substantial amount of consensus across partisan lines, leaving us with at least the potential for a broad consensus policy.
We could go on with a much wider array of policies where there are big partisan differences and policies where partisan differences are slim to none. The problem, as we see it, is that until our public discourse emphasizes more nuance, it will be hard to have productive conversations about policy. Despite the on-again, off-again nature of the current stimulus talks, the evidence clearly indicates the availability of a fairly wide range of policy deals just waiting to be struck on the coronavirus response. This need not please just red or blue voters but a wide cross-section of both types.
Why do our discussions lack nuance on this? Why is the country “divided” or “polarized” or “torn apart”? Telling the tale of medium-sized or small or nonexistent differences goes against the current conventional wisdom. It lacks punch, and conflict, and narrative value — all staples of an effective media story. All it has going for it is truth, an old-fashioned value anyway.
While we think that the public often agrees on many policies, we would be fools not to recognize the institutional dysfunction at the national level. Leaders of both parties have incentives to extend conflict or to play to the most extreme elements of the base instead of finding points of common agreement. As the political scientist Frances Lee has shown, party leaders often dramatize partisan differences in order to galvanize supporters and sharpen electoral contrasts. But such efforts work against the legislative imperative to form large, bipartisan coalitions.
Our point is that public opinion provides space to assemble such coalitions, at least on some issues. We do not mean to say that the public always identifies the best policies. Still, unity, even at the supermajority level, exists in public life. And if we squander our efforts to talk about polarization on every issue, whether it is actually polarized or not, we will not have any time or effort left over for the areas where it really does matter. We can think of few, if any, areas that deserve public attention more than racial equity. But the truth is that if we talk about polarization and partisanship as if it were an endless phenomenon that characterizes all of our political interactions, we waste time, energy, and effort.
The real canyons of politics and policy deserve the effort. But if we cannot triage what policy issues are truly divisive and which are relatively unified, we will never make it to the policy areas that truly need our attention.
Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope are professors of political science at Brigham Young University, co-directors of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, and the principal investigators of The American Family Survey.
