Reddit reviews Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America (3rd Edition)

I think I disagree with your answer, because I understand the OP's question slightly differently, and I'm therefore not quite convinced by the reasons you provide .

As I understand the OP, he asks whether the two-party system makes tribalism (ie. us.vs.them) more salient. Otherwise, the question wouldn't make much sense. Tribalism is probably innate, in the sense of "prepared for certain experiences", since it can be triggered by arbitrary differences.

If so, whoever claimed that a two-party system has a moderating effect didn't think hard enought.

Assuming that in every population people are normally distributed on a conservative-progressive scale, there will always be two parties fighting for the center – at least if they act economically (ie. rationally), and they assume peope vote for the party closest to their own preference.

Suppose an extreme third party manages to survive (in terms of making enought money for its politicians to make a living). Such an extreme party will persuade some voters on the extreme left or right. Let's say left for the sake of the argument. This weakens the left center party, obviously, but will it move to the left to (re-)gain voters?

Probably not, for every step to the left in search for profit (in terms of left voters) will have costs in terms of voters on the center. Given a normal distribution of voter preferences, any step to the left will have high costs (loosing many voters close to the center), while the profits are low (gaining only a few voters close the left extreme).

Of course, that's just a model but it describes the basic current political landscape in Germany.

Concerning whether the two party model in the US makes tribalism more salient: Some research indicates that it does. For examples, see "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America" by Fiorina et.al.

For instance, according to surveys, the US public is not really divided on the issue of abortion. There's a majority to make abortion on demand legal in the first trimester, and to make it illegal in the third trimester. If I recall correctly, the second trimester is kind of fuzzy but the differences are not that high.

It's only people with extreme views (illegal vs. legal under all circumstances) who make this an on-going political issue in the US. In other words, given only two options, people on the extreme sides have more influence on the center than they otherwise would have.

Note that almost all European countries have mostly settled the issue decades ago.

We're not nearly as divided as we sometimes think we are when looking at the wingnuts on both sides. Most people don't hold the extreme opinions on issues like gun control, taxation, or abortion that the fringe always ascribes to society as a whole.

Regarding the polarization part, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America is a good read. He puts the onus on politicians and tactics.

Fiorina and others argue that most Americans really are in the middle and that the notion of polarization is overblown. If centrist voters make "polarized" choices, keeping their beliefs and positions constant, their voting behavior will appear more polarized when the candidates act more extreme left/right.


When these relationships between voters and their candidates change, analysts tend to assign the source of the change to voter attitudes, not as a response to changes in candidate strategy and candidate behavior.

If "Polarization" is even a thing. There is still some debate on that topic, see Fiorina (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Myth-Polarized-America-Edition/dp/0205779883). Not to say she is right, merely that there is debate on that topic specifically.

And the point I think was made, that I am more inclined to believe, is that historical events like this are generally culminations of a long process of events. As soon as you say it began with laissez faire Republicans, someone can go back and say that the roots of laissez faire Republicanism are the actual root. But of course, those roots have roots, and back and back we go.

For me, I pick FDR as the "start" of this shift as he was the "class traitor" that really pushed the shift to the left.

This is partly because out current representatives appeal to the extreme left or right to get elected and usually have policy positions that are to the right/left of their constituency. This is largely because that is a way to get elected and because we have not expanded the House of representatives to keep up with changes in population. Some works to consult would be Culture War and Disconnect by Fiorina and Frederick's Congressional Representation & Constituents: The case for increasing the U.S. House of representatives

tl;dr Our districts are too big to get good candidates, so we have to choose between left/right wingnuts instead of moderates.