People often assume that political attitudes and behaviors among their fellow Americans are dictated exclusively by their worldviews, such as political orientation, religious ideology or moral belief system. John opposes welfare because he’s a Republican; Janet favors legal abortion because she’s a feminist; Jasmine is opposed to gay marriage because she’s a fundamentalist Christian, and so on. Thus, the United States would seem to be locked in an internal conflict among cultures.
However, there is reason to question whether the country really is as deeply divided as some pundits have suggested. Since the “red-state/blue-state” division in voting was identified after the 2000 election, many have seized upon the idea that the U.S. can be neatly carved into two different sectors: the progressive blue states and the more traditional red states.
Credit: contributed
Credit: contributed
The reality is that most Americans could still be considered pragmatic moderates on the majority of political issues facing the country and, while research does show some polarization has increased, it appears to have been exaggerated. Perhaps among the most harmful effects of the current obsession with polarization is that we are missing opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations across ideologies. After all, if one believes that individuals are simply driven by ideology alone and therefore do not really think about issues, what point is there in communicating rationally?
A democracy of the people and for the people rests on the assumption that the people can reason. But, when we underestimate the American public’s ability to rationally consider issues, we undermine the very foundation of our nation.
How might we fix this? It is important to understand how the concept of “blame” is one of the primary pragmatic considerations Americans attend to when forming opinions on social problems and appropriate solutions. In fact, the current focus on blame has emerged as the missing link connecting ideology to attitude across a range of issues.
A great deal of research suggests when individuals confront an issue, they strive to understand what caused it. The perceived cause influences whom we hold as responsible for the problem. Those perceptions of blame are then associated with specific emotional reactions and with a particular attitude toward the problem and possible solutions.
Consider the issue of poverty.
Many studies, including one of my own, have documented that liberals tend to view poverty as caused by structural factors, such as lack of available jobs or low wages, and thus hold society responsible for poverty. They tend to express more sympathy toward the poor and to favor government assistance. Conversely, conservatives are more likely to attribute poverty to individualistic factors, such as lack of effort or alcohol and drug use among the poor. They are more likely to blame the poor themselves for poverty and be opposed to government help. Thus, our worldviews nudge us to place blame for social problems in particular ways.
Despite the divergence in the opinions that result from this process, individuals who hold different worldviews embark on a similar decision-making process.
Both liberals and conservatives make judgments about the cause of the problem, such as unwanted pregnancy or poverty, and the way they place blame influences their attitude toward the solution. And both liberals and conservatives are less than enthusiastic about programs that help a person who is perceived to be at blame for the cause of their negative plight.
This fact offers more promise for finding common ground between those on opposite sides of the ideological divide. Moreover, although it would be difficult to change a person’s worldview, there is evidence that perceptions of blame can be influenced, allowing for the possibility of finding areas of agreement between those on the right and those on the left.
Unfortunately, reasoned analyses of social issues seem to be of little interest to many political pundits and politicians. It is easy and profitable to stoke the so-called culture war by feeding the public lies that even the media figures themselves do not believe.
The American public deserves better.
Gail Sahar is a professor of psychology at Wheaton College in Norton, Mass. This piece is adapted from her new book “Blame and Political Attitudes: The Psychology of America’s Culture War.”
About the Author
