Democracy flourishes with conflict.
Jan 30, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 19 • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI
We have Occupy Wall Street to thank for the already grating tendency among pundits to sort the American people by percentages. The possibilities for such categorization are endless. There are, of course, the 1 percent of Americans who make more than $516,000 a year and the 99 percent who do not. But there are also the 21 percent of Americans who identify as liberal and the
Tea Party rally, Santa Ana, California (2009)
79 percent who do not; the 28 percent of Americans who hold an undergraduate degree or higher and the
One could go on.
And one could add to the list of divisions the 10 to 20 percent of Americans who are active, committed partisans and the 80 to 90 percent who are inactive, uncommitted, independent, and generally moderate and flexible in their views. These rough estimates come from the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina, who in a series of books has argued (seemingly in vain) that the American people are not nearly as politically divided and “polarized” as talk-show hosts and newspaper columnists have made them out to be. The empirical data seem to back him up. As the authors of Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths About American Voters put it in 2008: “On most things political, Americans hold a broad and largely moderate consensus.” It is only when you enter the ranks of the actively partisan—the bumper-sticker owners, sign holders, precinct canvassers, phone bankers, partisan-media-consumers, small- and high-end donors, and bloggers—that you see major differences on social, economic, and diplomatic affairs.
The Case for Polarized Politics is a book by, about, and for this 10 to 20 percent. The author knows his subject. Since he left the Army in the late 1960s Jeffrey Bell has been an activist and analyst of conservative politics whose work in both areas is indispensable. One of the original Reaganites, Bell wrote the California governor’s briefing book during his failed 1976 presidential campaign and helped persuade him to embrace the supply-side policies of tight money and low taxes at the outset of his more successful run in 1980. In between those years, in 1978, Bell unseated the liberal New Jersey Republican Clifford Case in a Senate primary. While the Columbia graduate went on to lose to Princeton’s Bill Bradley in the general election, Bell’s primary win was nonetheless a sign of the coming Reagan Revolution. In the post-Reagan decades, Bell has turned to consulting, served as president of the Manhattan Institute, wrote the excellent Populism and Elitism (1992), and published op-ed essays and articles on politics for National Review and this magazine. You should read them all.
Bell’s thesis in Populism and Elitism was that politics is a contest between people who think the average man and woman are capable of deciding things for themselves and people who would rather leave such decisions to nonordinary elected officials, bureaucrats, economists, judges, and social workers. The reason for Reagan’s success, Bell argued, was that the fortieth president trusted the average person to make his own choices about where he lived, where he sent his children to school, and how he spent his income. Reagan, and other market populists like Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and William Gladstone, stood for the values and interests of the middle-class workingman against aristocracies of wealth, privilege, power, and credential.
Two decades later, Bell’s argument has not changed so much as it has broadened and deepened. He closed Populism and Elitism by noting that “the ability of the Reagan and Bush administrations to change the federal judiciary has been important, but by itself it can only move politics to a new, more intense stage of a values battle that is already a generation old.” Bingo! The Case for Polarized Politics traces the development of this clash from the watershed year of 1968 to the rise of the Tea Party and beyond.