12.17.2004
Strategic Extremism (NYTimes.com)
By PAUL TOUGH
Published: December 12, 2004
It may be hard to believe these days, but in fact, Americans are pretty moderate people, politically. Even on deeply emotional issues like abortion, public opinion tends to coalesce around a mushy compromise position somewhere close to the middle of the road. So why do party platforms and campaign rhetoric tend toward extreme positions?
According to a paper in the October issue of the Harvard Institute of Economic Research, there may be a calculated reason behind the nation's current political divide. The lead author, Edward L. Glaeser, a Harvard economist, argues that the parties are employing a tactic that he calls strategic extremism. When the political landscape is balanced in a very particular way, he writes -- the way it is right now -- ''extreme political platforms that deviate sharply from the median voter's preferences can be vote-maximizing.''
There are two main conditions that have to be met before strategic extremism can work. The first is the presence of a lot of voters with relatively extreme positions who don't vote regularly. This was the idea behind Karl Rove's ''base'' strategy this year: target the four million evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000, as well as other reluctant voters with similar positions. If you fire them up enough, you can afford to lose a few voters in the middle.
The second condition is what Glaeser calls informational asymmetry. Strategic extremism works only if you are able to target your extreme messages solely at your own base. The polarization of the media has made this easier -- an interview on Fox News will reach more right-leaning voters; an interview on Air America will reach more left-leaning voters. Direct mail (the field in which Karl Rove got his start in politics) is probably the most effective narrow-casting strategy of all.
But at the same time, there are other emerging technologies that make this approach risky. Blogs, ''oppo'' researchers and even the mainstream media can reveal a candidate's red-meat rhetoric to the other side, thus firing up his opponent's base. It is anyone's guess, Glaeser says, which set of tools will be more effective in the future. ''Everything depends upon whether changes in technology increase the ability to target faster than they increase the ability to reveal,'' Glaeser says. ''It's direct mailing versus Drudge, and reducing extremism depends on the Drudges expanding faster than the direct mailers.''
The New York Times > Magazine > Strategic Extremism ¶ 09:24
Published: December 12, 2004
It may be hard to believe these days, but in fact, Americans are pretty moderate people, politically. Even on deeply emotional issues like abortion, public opinion tends to coalesce around a mushy compromise position somewhere close to the middle of the road. So why do party platforms and campaign rhetoric tend toward extreme positions?
According to a paper in the October issue of the Harvard Institute of Economic Research, there may be a calculated reason behind the nation's current political divide. The lead author, Edward L. Glaeser, a Harvard economist, argues that the parties are employing a tactic that he calls strategic extremism. When the political landscape is balanced in a very particular way, he writes -- the way it is right now -- ''extreme political platforms that deviate sharply from the median voter's preferences can be vote-maximizing.''
There are two main conditions that have to be met before strategic extremism can work. The first is the presence of a lot of voters with relatively extreme positions who don't vote regularly. This was the idea behind Karl Rove's ''base'' strategy this year: target the four million evangelicals who didn't vote in 2000, as well as other reluctant voters with similar positions. If you fire them up enough, you can afford to lose a few voters in the middle.
The second condition is what Glaeser calls informational asymmetry. Strategic extremism works only if you are able to target your extreme messages solely at your own base. The polarization of the media has made this easier -- an interview on Fox News will reach more right-leaning voters; an interview on Air America will reach more left-leaning voters. Direct mail (the field in which Karl Rove got his start in politics) is probably the most effective narrow-casting strategy of all.
But at the same time, there are other emerging technologies that make this approach risky. Blogs, ''oppo'' researchers and even the mainstream media can reveal a candidate's red-meat rhetoric to the other side, thus firing up his opponent's base. It is anyone's guess, Glaeser says, which set of tools will be more effective in the future. ''Everything depends upon whether changes in technology increase the ability to target faster than they increase the ability to reveal,'' Glaeser says. ''It's direct mailing versus Drudge, and reducing extremism depends on the Drudges expanding faster than the direct mailers.''
The New York Times > Magazine > Strategic Extremism ¶ 09:24
