Exhausted Majority: US Politically Made Up of Seven Tribes - Progressive Activists Tribe Make Up 8%

A report entitled "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape" is about polarization in the US today and what is driving us apart, and what can bring us back together.  This report has been the basis of articles in both the NYT and Miami Herald.  

=======================================================

Excerpt from the foreword of "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape":

At the root of America’s polarization are divergent sets of values and worldviews, or “core beliefs.” These core beliefs shape the ways that individuals interpret the world around them at the most fundamental level. Our study shows how political opinions stem from these deeply held core beliefs. This study examines five dimensions of individuals’ core beliefs:
 – Tribalism and group identification – Fear and perception of threat – Parenting style and authoritarian disposition – Moral foundations – Personal agency and responsibility
The study finds that this hidden architecture of beliefs, worldview and group attachments can predict an individual’s views on social and political issues with greater accuracy than demographic factors like race, gender, or income. The research undertaken for this report identifies seven segments of Americans (or “tribes”) who are distinguished by differences in their underlying beliefs and attitudes. Membership in these tribes was determined by each individual’s answers to a subset of 58 core belief and behavioral questions that were asked together with the rest of the survey. None of the questions used to create the segmentation related to current political issues or demographic indicators such as race, gender, age or income, yet the responses that each segment gives to questions on current political issues are remarkably predictable and show a very clear pattern.

According to the above report, the US is politically made up of seven tribes:  

     i.    Progressive Activists - eight percent (8.0%);

     ii.  Traditional Liberals - eleven percent (11.0%);

     iii.  Passive Liberals - fifteen percent (15.0%);

     iv.  Politically Disengaged - twenty-six percent (26.0%);

     v.    Moderates - fifteen percent (15.0%);

     vi.  Traditional Conservatives - nineteen percent (19.0%); and\

     vii.  Devoted Conservatives  - six percent (6.0%);

The NYT article provide real life vignettes of Dems who voted for Trump or support some of DJT's policies and why.  I have not gotten through the entire report.  At least an attempt is being made to look at the causes and consequences of hyper-partisanship

Link to Exhausted Majority Article of Miami Herald Dated October 10, 2018:  https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article219787295.html

Link to Exhausted Majority Article of NYT Dated October 10, 2018:  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/17/sunday-review/elections-partisanship-exhausted-majority.html

Link to report entitled "Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape":

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

I wonder what can bring us back together short of an existential crisis.  The relative political unity following WW II was the product, I think, of:  

1.  A generally shared view of the Communist threat, 

2.  The fact that most Americans had a common experience together (service during WW II) 

3.  Generally favorable view of government perhaps due to efforts during the Great Depression.  Of course, winning a big war helps too.

tjohn said:
I wonder what can bring us back together short of an existential crisis.  The relative political unity following WW II was the product, I think, of:  
1.  A generally shared view of the Communist threat, 
2.  The fact that most Americans had a common experience together (service during WW II) 
3.  Generally favorable view of government perhaps due to efforts during the Great Depression.  Of course, winning a big war helps too.

 Agreed as to your comments.  When I have time later today, I will try to plow through the report and see if there are any helpful nuggets.

I don't know that we were ever "together." Everything is louder today because of TV and the internet, but I don't think political opinions are all that different than any other time.

tjohn said:
I wonder what can bring us back together short of an existential crisis.  The relative political unity following WW II was the product, I think, of:  
1.  A generally shared view of the Communist threat, 
2.  The fact that most Americans had a common experience together (service during WW II) 
3.  Generally favorable view of government perhaps due to efforts during the Great Depression.  Of course, winning a big war helps too.

 McCarthyism and never, ever, admitting you were gay, or speaking up if you were black, were also a significant part of the post war culture.  The internet allows the revelation of information that never saw light back then.

RealityForAll said:



===========================================================
According to the above report, the US is politically made up of seven tribes:  
     i.    Progressive Activists - eight percent (8.0%);
     ii.  Traditional Liberals - eleven percent (11.0%);
     iii.  Passive Liberals - fifteen percent (15.0%);
     iv.  Politically Disengaged - twenty-six percent (26.0%);
     v.    Moderates - fifteen percent (15.0%);
     vi.  Traditional Conservatives - nineteen percent (19.0%); and\
     vii.  Devoted Conservatives  - six percent (6.0%);

 I wonder why they use the word "tribes". That seems to imply permanency, but can't a "moderate"  become "politically disengaged" or vice versa? Can't a "traditional conservative" become "devoted" or a "passive liberal" become an activist?

I'm not sure I want to read what is proposed as the solution.  Nine times out of ten the "solution" is to lecture progressives that they need to give up and "move to the center."  I'd be happy to find out that I'm wrong and the solution is to lecture conservatives about the need to start paying attention to objective facts and science, and stop spending so much of their effort on owning the libs.  But it's probably more likely that I'll be playing center for the Golden State Warriors before that happens.

ml1 said:
I'm not sure I want to read what is proposed as the solution.  Nine times out of ten the "solution" is to lecture progressives that they need to give up and "move to the center."  I'd be happy to find out that I'm wrong and the solution is to lecture conservatives about the need to start paying attention to objective facts and science, and stop spending so much of their effort on owning the libs.  But it's probably more likely that I'll be playing center for the Golden State Warriors before that happens.

 In sum, it suggests: Don’t lecture.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
I'm not sure I want to read what is proposed as the solution.  Nine times out of ten the "solution" is to lecture progressives that they need to give up and "move to the center."  I'd be happy to find out that I'm wrong and the solution is to lecture conservatives about the need to start paying attention to objective facts and science, and stop spending so much of their effort on owning the libs.  But it's probably more likely that I'll be playing center for the Golden State Warriors before that happens.

 In sum, it suggests: Don’t lecture.

sure, that will work.

There is one reason for today's polarization, and that is, as ml1 has pointed out, the republican/conservative promulgation of an alternate reality. There is no place to compromise when one size is essentially crazy.

All of this "tribalism" stuff is nonsense.

and I love that the pundits' idea of a solution is to lecture liberals about not lecturing to conservatives.

ml1 said:
and I love that the pundits' idea of a solution is to lecture liberals about not lecturing to conservatives.

Never saw a comment like that coming.

I know when I’m having a dialogue. I’m pretty sure I also know when I’m being lectured.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
and I love that the pundits' idea of a solution is to lecture liberals about not lecturing to conservatives.

Never saw a comment like that coming.
I know when I’m having a dialogue. I’m pretty sure I also know when I’m being lectured.

I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing anyone.  But there are a lot of "centrist" pundits out there who love to lecture the libs about lecturing.

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
and I love that the pundits' idea of a solution is to lecture liberals about not lecturing to conservatives.

Never saw a comment like that coming.
I know when I’m having a dialogue. I’m pretty sure I also know when I’m being lectured.

I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing anyone.  But there are a lot of "centrist" pundits out there who love to lecture the libs about lecturing.

 Do you agree with authors' premise that the US is, more-or-less, politically comprised of seven ("7") different "tribes"?

PS I hope that you do not believe that I am attempting to lecture to you or anyone else here on MOL.  Instead, my intention is to discuss issues.  If you believe that I am lecturing you (or anyone else) then please let me know (not my intention).

ml1 said:

I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing anyone.  But there are a lot of "centrist" pundits out there who love to lecture the libs about lecturing.

I didn’t take it that way. What I meant is that the “lecture not to lecture” paradox is as worn out a critique as its cousin, the “intolerance of calls for tolerance.” 

drummerboy said:
There is one reason for today's polarization, and that is, as ml1 has pointed out, the republican/conservative promulgation of an alternate reality. There is no place to compromise when one size is essentially crazy.
All of this "tribalism" stuff is nonsense.

 You would fall under the "Progressive Activists" tribe then

drummerboy said:
There is one reason for today's polarization, and that is, as ml1 has pointed out, the republican/conservative promulgation of an alternate reality. There is no place to compromise when one size is essentially crazy.
All of this "tribalism" stuff is nonsense.

According to the report described above:  "Traditional Conservatives" and "Devoted Conservatives" make up about 25% of the US voting age population.   And, the "Politically Disengaged" make up about 26% of the US voting population.   Do you think that engaging with the currently "Politically Disengaged" is not a worthy endeavor (regardless of who attempts engage such persons)?

Finally according to the above report, "Progressive Activists", "Traditional Liberals", and "Passive Liberals"  make up about 34% of the US voting population. 

PS Please tell us all  why you believe the following: [a]ll of this "tribalism" stuff is nonsense.

 ==================================================

According to the above report, the US is politically made up of seven tribes:  

     i.    Progressive Activists - eight percent (8.0%);

     ii.  Traditional Liberals - eleven percent (11.0%);

     iii.  Passive Liberals - fifteen percent (15.0%);

     iv.  Politically Disengaged - twenty-six percent (26.0%);

     v.    Moderates - fifteen percent (15.0%);

     vi.  Traditional Conservatives - nineteen percent (19.0%); and\

     vii.  Devoted Conservatives  - six percent (6.0%);

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said: I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing anyone.  But there are a lot of "centrist" pundits out there who love to lecture the libs about lecturing.

I didn’t take it that way. What I meant is that the “lecture not to lecture” paradox is as worn out a critique as its cousin, the “intolerance of calls for tolerance.” 

as much as I hate to use worn out arguments, if people wouldn't keep using that tired admonishment, I wouldn't have to. 

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
and I love that the pundits' idea of a solution is to lecture liberals about not lecturing to conservatives.

Never saw a comment like that coming.
I know when I’m having a dialogue. I’m pretty sure I also know when I’m being lectured.

I wasn't suggesting you were lecturing anyone.  But there are a lot of "centrist" pundits out there who love to lecture the libs about lecturing.

 Do you agree with authors' premise that the US is, more-or-less, politically comprised of seven ("7") different "tribes"?

the use of the word "tribes" is itself an indication of the authors' bias.  A more neutral term would have been "segments" or "clusters."

that aside, no, I don't necessarily agree that there are 7 of these segments.  Having done many segmentation studies over my career, there's as much art as science to this kind of research.  There were likely good mathematical fits to their data that yielded 4 or 5 or 8 segments.  It's the researchers who decide which number of segments make the most sense to them, and whether or not they feel comfortable that the segments hold together in some sort of coherent, describable way.  It's also their job to make up the titles of the segments.  So in that sense there is no objective truth that is reflected in their results.  If you or I did a similar study we might get a different number of segments, and we'd almost certainly title the segments differently than they did.

MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

paulsurovell said:
MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

 Then why mention it?

Well, if Paul mentions it, it must be because the Russians are falsely accused of meddling in our political process and falsely accused of killing ex-agents and because Syria is falsely accused of using poison gas.

paulsurovell said:
MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

I don't know what MSNBC pushes, but it's not that hard to see a lot of what's happening in our country.  There are real problems of income and wealth inequality and insecurity. People are concerned they'll lose their jobs, they can't afford health care, can't afford to send their kids to college and can't afford to retire.  And there's an awful, awful lot of propaganda out there that is meant to convince Americans that the sources of their problems are: liberals in general, Democrats, immigrants, "secular humanists," LGBTQ activists, and Muslims, metoo, and Black Lives Matter.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:
MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

I don't know what MSNBC pushes, but it's not that hard to see a lot of what's happening in our country.  There are real problems of income and wealth inequality and insecurity. People are concerned they'll lose their jobs, they can't afford health care, can't afford to send their kids to college and can't afford to retire.  And there's an awful, awful lot of propaganda out there that is meant to convince Americans that the sources of their problems are: liberals in general, Democrats, immigrants, "secular humanists," LGBTQ activists, and Muslims, metoo, and Black Lives Matter.

ml1,

Do you see any criticism of liberalism or of the Democratic Party as legitimate or is it all "propaganda"?  

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said: MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

I don't know what MSNBC pushes, but it's not that hard to see a lot of what's happening in our country.  There are real problems of income and wealth inequality and insecurity. People are concerned they'll lose their jobs, they can't afford health care, can't afford to send their kids to college and can't afford to retire.  And there's an awful, awful lot of propaganda out there that is meant to convince Americans that the sources of their problems are: liberals in general, Democrats, immigrants, "secular humanists," LGBTQ activists, and Muslims, metoo, and Black Lives Matter.

 You say "propaganda," I say truth.

Runner_Guy said:

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:
MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

I don't know what MSNBC pushes, but it's not that hard to see a lot of what's happening in our country.  There are real problems of income and wealth inequality and insecurity. People are concerned they'll lose their jobs, they can't afford health care, can't afford to send their kids to college and can't afford to retire.  And there's an awful, awful lot of propaganda out there that is meant to convince Americans that the sources of their problems are: liberals in general, Democrats, immigrants, "secular humanists," LGBTQ activists, and Muslims, metoo, and Black Lives Matter.

ml1,
Do you see any criticism of liberalism or of the Democratic Party as legitimate or is it all "propaganda"?  

 How do you get that from what I wrote? It's a pretty nutty interpretation given that I've posted my own criticisms of Democrats, and none of them are "propaganda."

There's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia. 

And there’s no vowel in MSNBC.

LOST said:

paulsurovell said:
MSNBC pushes an idea of why Americans are so divided, but I won't say it because this thread would have to be moved to the Sub Forum.

 Then why mention it?

It was a sarcastic comment to contrast the rational discussion here on American political divisions with the less-than-rational discussions on MSNBC.

On the matter of activist vs passive progressives, I'm hoping the "passives" will join the "activists" on this existential issue:

https://thinkprogress.org/as-new-green-deal-democrats-cement-their-hold-climate-change-emerges-as-a-top-priority-21d5449b0ec7/

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/11/19/green-new-deal-our-civil-rights-movement-john-lewis-joins

Oh, what confused and conflicted tribes are we:

Furthermore, the wing groups, which often dominate the national conversation, are in fact in considerable isolation in their views on certain topics. For instance, 82 percent of Americans agree that hate speech is a problem in America today, but 80 percent also view political correctness as an issue. By contrast, only 30 percent of Progressive Activists believe political correctness is a problem.

Later:

The segment that reports feeling the most pressure from individuals of their own political ideology is the Progressive Activists, at 42 percent (compared to 29 percent average). Progressive Activists also feel more pressure from their party than others (41 percent v. 30 percent average). Sixty-one percent of Progressive Activists feel that Americans pressure each other to think and talk a certain way about issues, while only 37 percent of Devoted Conservatives felt the same way.