2004 election shows increasing political division

Personal disputes, silence on issues cause polarization among voters in race for presidency

By Laban Pelz

As the Nov. 2 presidential election approaches, many Americans believe the United States is more politically divided now than it has been in most voters’ lives, said chairs for both presidential campaigns in Fresno County.

With issues taking a back seat to personal disputes and the number of undecided voters the lowest in history, the campaigns of both presidential candidates have directed their energies toward their respective bases while paying less attention to those still undecided, a group political science professor David Schecter estimated to be 6 to 10 percent of registered voters.

Vincent Lavery, co-chair for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Fresno County, said he believes the nation is very polarized politically, and he believes he knows why.

“George Bush’s four years (in office) has pushed the country to greater division,” Lavery said.

Fresno County Bush campaign chair Doris Dingle said she also sees unusually strong division in this year’s election, for which she finds the Democrats at fault. She said she does not see the divisiveness as giving either side any clear advantage, though she believes it is more likely to send people to the right.
“[Divisiveness] turns people off,” Dingle said, “and keeps them from being in the middle.”

One politician, known for ignoring the more partisan elements of his own party, believes the United States is going through a political polarization.

“We have a more bitterly partisan Congress and nation than I’ve ever seen,” Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) told ABC’s Peter Jennings in an Aug. 31 “World News Tonight” interview.

When asked whether Bush has been the “uniter” he had promised to be during the 2000 campaign, McCain said that he has not, though he did not place all of the fault on Bush.

Experts agree, and polls show, that much of the 2004 campaign centers on the dislike of Bush by many Democrats.

Fresno State sociology professor Timothy Kubal said many who intend to vote for Democratic candidate John Kerry will do so out of “pretty clear hatred of Bush, not love of Kerry,” even though “Kerry hasn’t proclaimed anything different than Bush.”

Kubal said Kerry simply represents the alternative to Bush for many voters.

A recent USA Today poll showed that much of what is driving this campaign is voters’ focus on Bush.
The Sept. 3-5 poll found that out of a group of registered voters who already had plans to vote for Kerry, 55 percent intend to do so because it would be a vote against Bush.

By contrast, out of a group of registered voters who had already decided to vote for Bush, only 17 percent said they would do so because the vote would go against Kerry.

As the poll demonstrates, voters’ like or dislike of Bush has surfaced as an important factor in this year’s campaign. This is further highlighted by the lack of discussion of issues, other than those centered on either candidates’ personality or history.

The 2000 presidential race between Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore featured debates on such issues as Medicare, Social Security, energy, the economy, foreign policy and strategic defense.

Issues in this year’s campaign have been limited mostly to the war in Iraq and economic concerns, and arguments over the candidates’ respective abilities and military records now occupy the space where issues once stood.

“The only issue is George Bush,” said Lavery, the co-chair for the Kerry campaign in Fresno County. Lavery conceded there are issues in this year’s election, though he said they are mentioned only to a very small degree among Democrats.

“In the last year,” he said, “Democrats have not, even in water fountain conversation, discussed those issues.”

Voters shying away from thinking about issues is nothing new, said Dingle, Fresno County’s Bush campaign chair. She said the charisma and appearance of candidates have always usurped time otherwise devoted to issues.

“I’ve been involved in a lot of elections,” she said. “ ‘He sweats,’ or ‘His ears are too big.’ People go by looks all the time.”

Dingle said Democrats in this campaign don’t want to discuss issues “simply because they don’t like the issues,” while the Republicans, she said, are trying to campaign on issues.

“That’s the way the Liberals want it,” she said of the reluctance to discuss issues. “The race card, poor against rich, it’s the same old things.”

One of Lavery’s concerns is Bush’s approach to the Democratic Party.

“‘You’re either for us or against us,’” Lavery said, rephrasing the Bush administration’s stance on the war. “I mean, you’re almost either a patriot or a traitor.”

Lavery said one result of Bush’s actions and words has been a loyalty among Democrats that is far higher than it has been in the past 20 years. He noted the existence in years past of Democrats campaigning for Republican candidates and of anti-Clinton Democrats, but he said he sees no recognized state- or nationwide movement headed by Democrats who support the president.

“There were Reagan Democrats, there were Democrats for Bush the father, but I haven’t seen any giant Democrat movement this year for Bush,” Lavery said. He said there may be small movements of this sort, but nothing that would amount to any “significant factor.”

Though so few voters are sitting on the fence while so many have seemingly embraced one side of the American ideological spectrum, one observer at Fresno State doesn’t believe the nation to be more polarized than it was four years ago.

“The only thing that may seem partisan is the incumbency of president,” said Schecter, the Fresno State political science professor, who explained that this year’s campaign seems heated because “we know the incumbent’s track record.”

Schecter predicted this year’s election would not be any closer than the race four years ago.
“What’s more polarized than 50-50?” he asked, referring to the result of the 2000 election.