political

The Washington Post is running a story on common misperceptions about how American voters base their decisions on moral values. 

The myths: (1)”Moral values” determine who wins elections. (2) Americans have broadly rejected “traditional values.” (3) Americans are polarized and fighting a culture war over values. (4) Traditional values are “family values” or “moral values.” (5) Basic values, properly understood, are compatible and harmonious.

In support of myth #2, the Post draws upon the work of sociologist Wayne Baker. MYTH #2: “Americans have broadly rejected ‘traditional values.’ — Actually, Americans retain our traditional values more than just about any other developed country in the world.”

That’s what University of Michigan sociologist Wayne Baker found in his 2005 book, “America’s Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception.” Baker uses the World Values Surveys to look at American values from a broad, global perspective. He describes human values on two planes. The first is a scale of values from traditional to secular-rationalist. Societies with more traditional values emphasize the importance of God and religion, family and parenting, national identity and pride and absolute standards of morality, not relative ones. Secular-rationalist values are pretty much the opposite: nonreligious, open to abortion and euthanasia, skeptical of national pride or patriotism and evolving away from family, duty and authority.

The second range of values runs from survival values to self-expression ones. In less developed and safe societies, survival values reign. Procuring physical security and meeting basic material needs dominate; foreigners and ethnic diversity are seen as threatening; intolerance is exaggerated. Self-expression values concern creativity, self-fulfillment and lifestyle.

Fascinating. Read more about the other myths here.

Mother Jones ran a story yesterday that was meant to serve as a ‘field guide’ to vote-blocking tactics titled, “Beyond Diebold: Ten Ways to Steal This Election.” The piece outlined a number of different state and federal measures taken to exclude certain voting populations… and sociologist Chandler Davidson helped Mother Jones sort this out.

Tactics to deny Americans the right to vote are as old as, well, the right to vote. Democrats have been at fault in the past—take the literacy tests Southern states used to deprive blacks of their suffrage from the Civil War up through 1965. Today’s shenanigans—which still target minorities and vulnerable first-time voters—are more often designed to stifle Democratic turnout, perhaps never more than in 2008. “This is obviously an important election, and the turnout may break records,” says Rice University sociologist Chandler Davidson, who has studied vote suppression, “so there is every reason to expect these tactics will be employed.”

Read more.

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, has recently written about how vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is reigniting the culture war as her ‘everywoman’ act plays well with audiences. She suggests that this might indicate that the GOP will try to once again paint Barack Obama as an elitist.

In her article Clift included commentary from sociologist Todd Gitlin, who spoke at a Pew Forum discussion in Washington as to whether the cultural war will have an impact come November…

Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, speaking from the progressive side, said the culture war always matters, but that it may not be decisive, with economic issues making it harder for Republicans to get traction on lampooning Obama as an elitist, in the way they turned John Kerry into a windsurfing Frenchman. Gitlin described the presidential election as a “quadrennial plebiscite of who we are,” with Americans casting their vote for the candidate that best embodies who we are as a nation.

Newsweek’s commentary on the vice-presidential candidates in this culture war…

Nobody wants to be an elitist. In politics, it’s a deadly label. What we saw in Thursday night’s debate were two competing strains of populism. Biden, the Irish-Catholic kid from Scranton, represents Main Street populism, the people against the powerful, anti-corporatism, little guy kitchen-table values. Palin is wooing the same working-class constituency that could decide the election in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with her pro-gun, family and religious down-to-earth values.

Read more here.

ScienceNews.com reports today on a recent sociological investigation into attitudes about global warming. Pollsters from Gallup asked groups of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents about whether they believe that ‘global warming poses a serious threat to the American way of life.’ The emerging results suggest that over the last 10 years, Democrats have increasingly said ‘yes’ (49% today as opposed to 31% ten years ago) while the share of Republicans saying ‘yes’ has grown more slowly (now 26% and previously 20%).

Science News reports: 

… While virtually half of Democrats currently view global warming as posing a serious threat within their lifetimes, only one-quarter of Republicans feel similarly, report Oklahoma State University sociologist Riley E. Dunlap (who’s also a Scholar for the Environment at the Gallup Organization) and sociologist Aaron M. McCright of Lyman Briggs Collegeand Michigan State University.

The pair argue that the polling data suggest Republicans and Democrats are becoming “more ideologically polarized,” at least on the issue of global warming. They attribute the increasingly divergent views on this issue to “party sorting” — that is, people choosing a party on the basis of its general views on this issue, or people within a party increasingly assuming the views on this issue that are espoused by leaders of their party.

Dunlap and McCright find that the tight correlation between party affiliation and attitudes about climate hold even after accounting statistically for other potentially confounding demographic factors such as gender, age, race, income and education. Moreover, they observe, throughout the past decade, “Republicans and Democrats who believe they understand global warming reasonably well [have been holding] more divergent views compared with their presumably less-informed counterparts.”

The bottom line? Democrats’ views about global warming have reflected scientific conclusions on climate change, while Republicans dismiss the scientific assessments.

Read on. 

This morning the Guardian (UK) reported on the battle over Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8, also known as the ‘California Marriage Protection Act,’ is a proposed amendment to California’s state Constitution which will only recognize heterosexual unions, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Guardian article describes this battle as emblematic of a larger cultural divide in the United States. 

The Guardian reports:

Conservative and evangelical groups were freshly mobilised by the California supreme court’s decision in May to overrule voters’ approval of a ban on same-sex marriages in 2000.

But the movement has its roots in the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, says University of California-Berkeley sociology professor Michael Hout.

“They got as far as they could on abortion and have embraced marriage laws as the next step in their agenda,” said Hout, co-author of The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe. “Their main agenda remains the reversal of Roe v Wade, but they’re trying to gain new allies who look askance at gay marriage.”

Not that it’s a purely Machiavellian manoeuvre. Proponents of bans on same-sex marriage are “truly concerned that the state should not be licensing immoral behaviour”, Hout said.

“In their interpretation of the Bible, they see a prohibition on homosexual activity. Gay marriage condones a lifestyle that’s ruled out by their reading of the scripture.”

Read the full story.

This morning a CBS news station out of Birmingham, Alabama featured commentary from sociologist Stephen Parker on the impact of 9/11 today. Parker’s commentary was part of a larger piece titled ‘9-11: Looking Ahead’ that featured interviews with other academics.

The station reports:

Sociologist Stephen Parker says that the mindset of the American People has changed in the years since. Now many Americans have lost a sense of security that comes when the only knowledge of such terrible acts of violence comes from newscasters reporting such hatred occurring anywhere else but on American soil. “When you look at the recognition of terrorism throughout Europe for much of the last 25 to 30 years, we shouldn’t have been surprised.”

Parker’s remarks were supplemented by comments from historian Jim Day:

Dr. Jim Day is the Dean of History at the University of Montevallo. He says looking ahead the United States will struggle with international relations because of its post 9-11 strategy. “I think we’ve compromised our position on a global scale and I think we’re going to have to do some repair work as we move on into the 21st century and get farther away from that cataclysmic event of 9-11.”

Day and his colleagues believe it will be extremely difficult to mend those relations. That job will fall to a new generation of American leaders who will need to be more proactive to succeed. And that’s something Sociologist Stephen Parker fears may not happen. “People on college campuses are unaffected by it. It doesn’t affect them in that way.”

Watch the video of the interviews with Parker and Day.