[EL] CPA/Zicklin
Schultz, David A.
dschultz at hamline.edu
Wed Sep 24 16:54:35 PDT 2014
I was busy working today so I could not post earlier. This was a column of
mine that appeared in Politics in Minnesota on September 18, 2014 that
talks about politics and business.
*It’s All Political–and it’s not good*
Politics is ubiquitous. It’s not simply because it is election
season and political ads are about to run 24/7. It is more fundamental
than that. It is the reality that American society–including every
institution, product, television show, and neighborhood–has become
politicized. At least this is the conclusion of several recent academic
studies. For some this politicization is good, but the reality is that
such politicization has also produced the polarization that has come to
characterize contemporary politics and American society.
Even the most casual observer of politics recognizes that the
American political system is polarized. Several studies confirm this. The
Pew Research Center’s June 2014 reports *Political Polarization in the
American Public *and* Beyond Red v. Blue: The Political Typology* aptly
describe not only a polarized government but also an electorate.
Congressionally,
for the first time in years if ever the most conservative Democrat is to
the left of the most liberal Republican. Unlike a generation or two ago
where both parties had a range of ideologies it could count among its
members, this is no longer the case. The two major parties have moved from
the traditional place as coalitions of diverse viewpoints to more
European-style ideological political entities. While the Pew Research
notes that those who consider themselves Democrats have moved further to
the left in the last few years they are only catching up to the rightward
drift of Republicans that took place in the 1980s. Both parties have
sorted themselves out, at the same time moving further toward opposite
ideological poles.
Pew also reports that the polarization is not simply a trait of
the parties. The electorate has similarly polarized. Increasingly
Democrats or Republicans describe members of the opposite party as a threat
to America. Members of both of these parties are becoming entrenched in
their positions–describing themselves as solidly liberal or conservative or
Democrat or Republican–and they are expressing increasingly stronger
attitudes of intolerance against members of the opposite parties. The Pew
study, along with a recently published paper by communication scholars
Shanto Iyengar and Sean J. Westwood in “Fear and Loathing Across Party
Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization” show how Democrats and
Republicans discriminate against one another socially. Asked if they or
their children should live next to, work with, date, or marry a member of
the opposite party, growing percentages say no. Finally, the Bipartisan
Policy Center’s new report “Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan
Blueprint to Strengthening Our Democracy” also documents both the growing
gap between the two major parties and a frustration among many voters with
the all-or-nothing stance Democrats and Republicans exhibit.
The upshot of these four reports confirms the journalistic
description of a red and blue America. Yet that red and blue is more
precise and deeper than many understand. At the presidential level one can
point to red and blue states, but even within Republican ones such as Texas
one sees real Democratic enclaves in cities such as Austin, San Antonio,
and increasingly Dallas. California finds Republican places such as
Orange County. Even in Minnesota there are solidly Republican and Democrat
areas. States are really polka-doted, with specific cities or even
neighborhoods demonstrating ideological stratification. All of this is
confirming a trend that Bill Bishop’s 2004 *The Big Sort*
described–American’s are politically sorting themselves out geographically.
They are choosing to live in one party neighborhoods and near people with
whom they ideologically agree. This trend explains why, for example, there
are probably less than 20 seats in US Congress this year that really could
shift from one party to another. Or why in Minnesota perhaps no more than
a dozen of the state house races are two party competitive. Even good
redistricting will have a difficulty fixing this trend. The result is that
the big sort has now created so many safe one party districts that office
holders have few political incentives to compromise.
But the polarization goes even deeper than this. Evidence
points to the fact that Democrats and Republicans watch different news
shows (MSNBC v Fox), prefer different movies, have different patterns of
pop culture consumption, and even shop and dine along contrasting
lines. Consider
the battle line between Wal-Mart and Costco. For many liberals Wal-Mart is
the evil empire. The way it pays its employees, its impact on
neighborhoods, the products it sells, all are detestable to many Democrats
who boycott the store. Costco evokes the same feeling among many
Republicans.
Politically, we are what we consume. Karl Rove figured this
out in 2004. Republicans were the first to understand how to overlay
political turnout maps with marketing data. There are powerful
correlations with, for example, car ownership and who one votes for. Show
me a person who drives a Subaru and I will show you a liberal Democrat. Or
show me a person who has an ATV or a snow mobile and I will show you a
Republican. Obama in 2008 and 2012 built on all of this with GPS cell
phone and social media technology to identify his supporters. Understanding
how to use consumer data to identify and mobilize voters is the future of
micro politics.
Finally, consider yet another aspect of how this polarization
has occurred. The demand to make businesses socially responsible has been
beneficial, but it also has opened up corporations to be charged with
political tasks or responsibilities. They are asked to promote human
rights, not pollute, support same-sex marriage or increases in the minimum
wage. But the 2010 Supreme Court *Citizens United* decision along with
the recent *Hobby Lobby* case also took the politicization of the
corporation to a new level. Corporations are now persons with the right to
expend money to influence campaigns and elections, and they have free
exercise of religion rights. Businesses, depending on how they act and
spend money, will be seen as Democrat, Republican, or Christian or not
companies. Who they hire, the products they sell, the clients that
patronage them, will sort themselves out by ideology or religion. This is
especially true among a new generation of Millennials who consider the
political character of a company when making employment and consumption
choices. Potentially no longer will businesses be judged by the quality of
their products but by the ideological colors they have. Partisanship and
religion will become marketing tools, alienating many consumers,
trivializing faith.
Political philosopher Michael Walzer once argued that the
defining mark of modern society was about erecting walls of separation. We
separated the public from the private, secular from the spiritual, and
business from politics. We did that in the name of peace, toleration, and
in seeking to work and live together. But if the four studies above are
correct, the walls of separation are falling down. It’s all political now,
and that is not good.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:58 PM, David Ely <ely at compass-demographics.com>
wrote:
> Which is why markets do such a poor job of dealing with external effects
> of economic activity. It’s hard for a consumer to separate worrying about
> political views and activities from worrying about economic decisions that
> externalize public costs from the price of a product.
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Smith, Brad
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:03 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] CPA/Zicklin
>
>
>
> CPI writes:
>
>
>
> "Watch your Netflix show, wear your Ralph Lauren shirt, brew your Keurig
> coffee and deposit your paycheck at M&T Bank.
>
> Just know that you're patronizing some of the nation's least politically
> transparent companies,"
>
> What a horrible, impoverished way to live one's life, worrying about the
> political views and activities of everyone you come into contact with, and
> using that to decide whether to do business with them.
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> * Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140924/9ba4a84c/attachment.html>
View list directory