Sandy Smoothes the Mood

As Hurricane Sandy’s destructive winds hurdled waves up and down the coast of New Jersey the past few days, a new aura of agreement has arisen between President Barack Obama and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

The New York Times has a photo of the two men — who often reside at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum — walking side by side in an effort to clean up the mess that is now New Jersey.

As many are probably well aware, this crisis event is creating a “rally around the flag” response from politicians. The partisan qualms that have kept Christie away from President Obama, and next to candidate Mitt Romney, have been thrown out the window.

The reaction to Sandy is similar to the September 11 terrorist attacks that brought the Republicans and Democrats together in 2001. But I wonder how long the bipartisan nature will last, and how large of a crisis it would take to cause a permanent shift in the parties.

Events like the Gabby Giffords shooting and the Aurora, Colorado movie theater attack didn’t seem to do the trick, but a natural disaster with a long recovery could instill some long-term relationships.

Although the country wishes those along the east coast a fast recovery, we cannot forget what Mayor Rahm Emanuel once famously warned — never let a serious crisis go to waste.

—

Interested in more on polarization? Check out my first story in a three part series tomorrow morning at IowaWatch.org.

The Path to Polarization: The existence of a “culture war” has become common thought in America, but is the war real? Stop by tomorrow to find out. 

Journalism Heroes of Yesterday Become Villains of Polarization

By Emily Hoerner

What do Walter Lippmann, Walter Cronkite, Carl Bernstien, Bob Woodward, and Edward Murrow all have in common, aside from being some of the greatest nonpartisan reporters in modern journalism.

Well, according to an Op-Ed article by Cass R. Sunstein in today’s New York Times, they may be the ones responsible for increasing the political polarization of the masses.

The column says that ultra liberal and conservative news organizations — think Fox News — aren’t what causes the public to be more polarized. It’s actually the news reporters who are putting forward both sides of the story that drives a person to move further to the left or right of the ideological scale.

A.K.A, those great reporters who uncovered government mistakes and covered controversial issues by shedding light on all sides of a story are the ones to blame.

Although the column seems well supported, I must disagree with a few of the key points.

Firstly, I understand that hearing information from the both sides of an argument doesn’t necessarily make you change your mind.

This makes me think of an example my Introduction to Psychology professor told me freshman year of college. He said our mind often justifies our own actions through a process called “cognitive dissonance.”

For example, he told us, think about when people smoke cigarettes and don’t quit. When a smoker hears news or advice about the nasty side effects of tobacco, he or she doesn’t necessarily listen to the advice, take it to heart, and quit their addictive habits all together. What usually happens instead is that the smoker will justify their own reasons for smoking in retaliation to the advice they disagree with. Perhaps they will say, “well everyone gets cancer now anyway,” or “if it was really so bad many people wouldn’t still smoke like me.”

This is what the columnist is essentially claiming. You see a point of view you do not like, then you see the point of view you do approve of. You use your favorite opinion to render the oppositional one irrelevant. Thus your views would be to be moving closer to the extremes.

This point makes perfect sense. But if this idea is true, then why has polarization changed dramatically in only the past 40 years?

If news that presents an objective story with all sides drives polarization, why didn’t it start at the advent of modern journalism in the 1900’s with the muckracker movement? And what about Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion book in 1922? Why didn’t polarization drastically increase when the great Walter Cronkite reported over the television in the 1960’s and 70’s? If the main idea is that unbiased news coverage created our current state of polarization, it seems that it should have happened years ago.

This column also assumes that the public is indeed more polarized than ever before, without providing data that implies such a claim. If the public is truly polarized then why back in the 90’s did they elect President Bill Clinton two terms in a row, someone who bargained with both sides of the aisle. And why in December of 2011 was the gridlocked Congress’ approval rating only 11 percent? If the public really wanted polarization, they should have been proud of their representatives for refusing to budge for the sake of getting something passed.

I don’t know whether the public is polarized or not — but if people are, I have to believe it’s because of something more than an unbiased story in their local newspaper.

Even Tragedy Doesn’t Bring Us Together?

Today’s New York Times front page story surrounded the death of the United States Libyan Ambassador after an attack by an extremist group. Amidst the rising drama surrounding that story and further uprisings in other Middle Eastern states over an offensive iconoclastic video featuring the Prophet Muhammad, a division among party lines could be seen.

President Obama and his opponent, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, both responded to the Libyan disaster. But Romney distanced himself from the Obama administrations apology immediately.

The Times wrote that Romeny “wasted little time going on the attack, accusing the president of apologizing and appeasing Islamic extremists.”

Although this response from Romney appears normal in our current attack-ad friendly campaign season, this “othering” of the Obama administration seems very polarizing.

In this instance Romney has created an “us” group who are tough on the countries enemies, and a “they” group who let America be a doormat to be walked all over. His people don’t apologize for the freedoms of America, while the other guys are weak on protecting American values.

I find this polarization especially strange in this situation. Traditionally, politicians of both parties will respond similarly to disasters like this.

For example, the reporter from the Times wrote that even party leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell “kept their distance from Mr. Romney’s comments, instead sticking to expressions of resolve and sorrow.”

Resolve and sorrow are typical. At times of great loss the the political parties usually join together, absolve their differences — if only momentarily — and apologize and grieve together. Think most recently of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

This polarization among two presidential candidates during a time when the citizenry looks to the government for solace is, to me, quite alarming.

If the candidates can’t even compromise on how to deal with a national tragedy, what can they possibly work together on?

The Obama Years: Giving Up On Compromise

Today’s New York Times featured “Man In The News” follows the first four years of President Barack Obama’s tenure as commander in chief.  And as the article carefully documents the successes and failures of the 51-year-old politician made timely by this weeks Democratic National Convention, special attention is paid to Obama’s relations with Congress.

What is most interesting is his trajectory from believing compromise was possible with Congress to then completely trashing the plan and instead going straight to the people who care most.

For example, when Congress needed to act on legislation regarding student loan interest rates Obama took the road now more frequently traveled, an appeal to the public.

The New York Times wrote, “no one, even Mr. Obama, thought about talking with Republicans.”

The article continues to explain the ways by which Obama’s opinions about the nature of our two-party system have changed, eluding to the fact that he has hardened as a candidate and has all but given up on the idea of getting along with his congress.

A dramatic level of polarization in Washington has been shown in the last two years, especially in 2010 after the Democrats lost control of the House. Even the president has given up his idealistic hopes of a “grand bargain.”

I wonder whether this election will be as life-changing as the candidates make it appear. Will, as Obama hopes, the Republicans give in and compromise if he wins reelection? This outcome could seemingly change the course of polarization among the elites.

Or, will the refusal to bargain continue no matter the winner of the presidential race?

Either way, the election could have strong implications on democracy in America. Whether they will be good or bad may be a matter of opinion.