Book Review: Culture War?

This will be an analysis of Culture War by Morris P. Fiorina. In this book Fiorina attempts to provide a definitive position on the political polarization of a America. He asserts that the message that the media and politicians convey that America is deeply divided is a myth, and covers a number of topics in order to provide support for his conclusion. He blames the pervasion of this myth to the American people on politicians using the concept as political ammunition for their war machines, and the Media using the Idea as entertainment to raise ratings to keep in the black.

In his first chapter, Fiorina begins by describing the rise, ebb, and flow of the culture war idea. He provides many sources that provide evidence that the culture war permeates many levels of society from high-level politicians to every level of news media; accusing them of exaggeration and outright lies, and believing them to all contribute to the spread of the culture war myth. He posits that the vast majority of Americans are mere bystanders in a war between hard-core activists on the right and the left. He cites three reasons for this myth being perpetuated: "misinterpretation of election results, lack of comprehensive examination of public opinion data, , systematic and self-serving misrepresentation by issue activists, and selective coverage by an uncritical media" (8). He ends chapter one by briefly outlining his argument so that chapter two will continue to detail what he has discussed in chapter 1 and further chapters after will focus on specific pin-point claims.In chapter two Fiorina addresses the question of if his hypothesis is correct then why is it that everyone thinks otherwise? He identifies here four major factors that could result in his theory; the first is confusing a closely divided electorate with a deeply divided one, the second is counting the loudest voices in the room as representative of the majority, the third the tendency of the media to fall into hyperbole and the fourth counting a persons choice as a representation of their position on an issue.

In his explanation of the first factor he cites that an election result of 50/50 can be produced by two opposed outcomes: one with two large opposing groups and a small middle ground or one with one large middle ground and two small opposing groups. Most people will then automatically assume the latter is to be true when it could equally be the former which is foolish because election outcomes alone cannot tell you which of these two results is the correct one. His second factor is that while the greater American public is not polarized our political class is. This only servers to encourage the myth of a polarized America when it is assumed that what is true for one must therefore be true for another. The third factor, that of the media's role; is simply the result of the media providing a conclusion affected by sampling error because the media mostly reports on the heavily polarized political class, and that the media chooses those stories which will provoke the most emotional response, the red and blue divided america, in pursuit of ratings. He finishes by stating that the fourth and final factor is that it is mistakenly being interpreted that we are polarized because of our choices. Our decision when we cast our vote isn't just based on our positions but also the candidate and the candidates are the ones who are divided thus polarizing our choice but not our positions.

In chapter three, Fiorina begins laying out his argument to prove that Americans are closely but not deeply divided. This chapter is mostly him posting research data that demonstrates that democrats/republicans and liberal/conservatives agree just as often as they disagree on issues. He then poses the question of why then is the picture of the American political landscape painted in clearly defined shades of red and blue? He places most of the blame for this on the Media. The media tends to over exaggerate the differences between red and blue for the sake of entertainment which in turn helps make it seem there is a "culture war" going on.Chapter four is mostly Fiorina identifying another cause in the the pervading myth of a culture war. Expanding on his second factor, he states that our political culture is much better sorted today then they were twenty years ago which can make them appear more polarized. They are also better organized, and people are much more likely to choose a party that fits their beliefs rather than their geographical location. This has the effect of making blue, more blue and red, more red. This is then taken as the media once again as a sign that Americans themselves are more polarized when the reality is still close but not as close as it once was.

With Chapter five, Fiorina states that abortion is the defining issue in the culture wars. He indicates that the deep social divide between pro-choice and pro-life does not exist. He again blames the media for over exaggerating how much Americans are divided on the issue, and demonstrates it with survey data that essentially shows that the majority of the populace is in the middle of the road. It seems most of us agree that women should have the right to abortion under certain circumstances and that right refused on circumstances but hardly the black and white abortion or not picture the media tends to paint. Thus, if we are not polarized on the defining issue then it is probably true we are not polarized at all.

Fiorina discusses homosexuals, what may be a keystone for a divided electorate in the future, in chapter six. He states that while homosexuality has its always ok liberals and never ok conservatives, most people are in the middle of the road. The general consensus among the population is that homosexuality is wrong, but they are unwilling to impose limitations on a persons lifestyle even if they feel it is immoral, and even though the older more conservative anti-homosexual population is dying off and being replaced with more young liberals he doesn't believe there's enough data to determine if this will be a battleground for a polarized America yet.Seven is about what Fiorina believes is splitting the votes so evenly as to make Americans seem deeply divided. He states that people's votes are very heavily tied to how often they attend church. He derives the conclusion from his data that people of the same religious denominations, with the difference being attendance, vote differently.
Chapter eight mostly points out there is probably some collection error and misrepresentation of data collected on public opinion by the media that has an effect on the myth of polarization. The questions used to poll data could be made much more equal with some being very specific and others being very general while the data collected on Bushes performance is correct, some key points were lost in the aggregate such as him losing votes with some groups but picking up votes with others.

In chapter nine, Fiorina expands on one of his factors from the beginning of the book. Mostly that we are taking the polarization of our political elite and take it as the norm for the general populace. He simply says that because our political class is without a doubt polarized and present us with only two choices it makes Americans seem deeply divided.

With chapter ten, we see the completion of Florina's argument and he now expounds on the problem our current system and the myth of a polarized America it creates. First off he cites that there are three things that have created the current political system: the rise of purists who are heavily principled politicians driven by what they feel is right, an increase in voter participation mostly brought on by the change to the presidential nomination process in 1960, and the expansion of the government into our private lives. Fiorina argues that these three factors have allowed our elite political class to gain control of our government; Participation in government is a costly affair in time and knowledge that the average person is not willing to make, so those who are the political elite are given absolute control. Fiorina believes the only way to solve this problem is to increase overall participation. He believes the only way to fix the problem is to involve the moderate majority that is often misrepresented.

In conclusion, the hypothesis that the culture war is a myth is a strong argument and has a good chance of being probably true. Fiorina has argued that while people are closely divided they are not deeply so, and that the current divide is do to errors in information collection, media over exaggeration, and a polarized political class. There is no single issue right now for Americans to polarize around and our apparent polarization is because our vote is affected by church attendance and our lack of choices beyond standard red and blue. Fiorina believes that this state of affairs has allowed our political class to gain previously not enjoyed levels of control in the government and that the moderate majority needs to involve itself again to take back our democratic rights to govern ourselves.

Fiorina, Morris P, et al. Culture War? The Myth of a Polzarized America. New York: Pearson-Longman.