View this post on the web at [link removed]

By Lura Forcum and Erin Norman [ [link removed] ]
Today’s Republican and Democratic parties may say they don’t have a lot in common, but there’s something they absolutely share: They drown out and obstruct areas of commonality and mutual understanding, distorting our view of not only the political process, but also our fellow Americans. But despite what the parties, the cable news networks and most talking heads will tell you, the truth is that there are many areas of commonality across members of both political parties, and that the differences that exist should inspire us to talk to one another, not revile each other.
If, as we are told, each political party is formed of voters whose core values are in complete opposition to the values of the other political party, then surveying people about their values should easily reveal clusters that roughly approximate the two parties. We set out to find the truth, and spoiler alert: That’s not at all what we found.
Consistently Inconsistent
One might expect a conservative to champion the original concept of American federalism, where as much governing as possible is left to the individual states. Yet politicians on the right push for federal voter identification laws and limits on abortion that would override the ability of individual states to legislate these issues.
Likewise, liberals traditionally favor a strong federal government, with a preference for policies created in Washington, D.C., that apply to the nation as a whole, rather than state-based action. Yet, when the country was still significantly skeptical of recreational marijuana use, the blue states of Washington and Colorado took it upon themselves to legalize use of the drug. Similarly, instead of working to persuade federal lawmakers to adopt preferred policies on immigration, California, New York and other deep blue states passed their own laws.
Like many arguments made in policy debates, the above positions aren’t based in or consistent with an underlying political philosophy. Today, political parties often stake out their positions simply to oppose what the other side declares. In other cases, it's to coalesce around a popular party figure’s opinions, or to meet the needs of big donors or supporting coalitions. Often, parties will take stances that best satisfy the delicate balance of keeping their loyal base happy and attracting a targeted set of voters, rather than upholding an underlying philosophy.
For example, Republicans are shifting toward populism but focusing on anti-elitist sentiments. They ignore classic populist concerns such as raising the minimum wage and expanding labor union power, perhaps because those issues run counter to their donors’ interests. Democrats are similarly inconsistent: They consider theirs to be the party of the common man, yet their focus on cultural issues that run counter to national opinion is driven by the niche views of their core supporters.
On both sides, the only ideological consistency is advancing the party and its politicians. Partisans look at power as an end, not as a means to enacting a wider philosophy of government or society.
Given that the core belief system of each party involves maximizing its own power, positions can change dramatically and with little warning, such as President Donald Trump’s declaration during his candidacy [ [link removed] ] that abortion restrictions should be left to the states, in contrast to the Republican Party’s 40-year history of calling for a nationwide ban as part of its presidential platform. On the left, President Bill Clinton announced that “welfare as we know it [ [link removed] ]” is over, departing from the Democratic approach to social safety nets that had been in place since the New Deal.
In both these examples, there was no subtle shift. Instead, the rapid party platform change was brought about by one person seeking to maximize his own political standing.
Not as Different as We Think
The truth of the matter is that a great deal of data shows that voters on the left and right have more in common with one another than the media, politicians and cultural observers want us to believe. In a surprising number of areas, voters from both parties share remarkably similar views:
While there is often a difference in the degree of magnitude of support on issues, a majority of Republicans and Democrats agree [ [link removed] ] on reducing the influence of money in politics, improving education, improving the job situation and improving the energy system.
Republicans and Democrats agree that there is a massive disconnect between the profits drug companies make and the difficulties many Americans face in affording their medication, and they want to see an end to the rising costs of prescription drugs [ [link removed] ].
Americans have consistent views about how democracy is working (or not) in this country, according to recent data from Gallup [ [link removed] ]. Across the political spectrum, satisfaction levels are low but consistent: 35% of Democrats are satisfied, as are 33% of Republicans and 34% of independents. Similarly, Republicans and Democrats have equally low opinions of Congress [ [link removed] ].
The Siena College Research Institute’s American Values Study [ [link removed] ] highlights that on underlying values, Americans across the political spectrum strongly agree that each of us should have an equal chance to be successful, that we should try to understand each other before passing judgment, that no one—not even the government—should be able to restrict our pursuit of happiness, and that we should all work to serve one another.
The picture’s pretty clear: While we hear a lot about how different Republicans and Democrats are from each other, we’re really not as different as we’ve been led to think. And therefore, seeking to understand the electorate based on political party affiliations doesn’t really capture the divides in how Americans think. We can do better.
Values, Not Affiliation
As we sought to learn more about voters by conducting our own survey [ [link removed] ], we wanted to see what would happen if we grouped people not by their political party affiliation or attitudes on hot-button issues, but instead by the underlying values that are the building blocks of people’s view of the world around them. Data shows that Americans share a core set of values, but is there any agreement between the right and left on some of the more nuanced beliefs that drive our views of politics and the world around us?
We studied people’s views on the most fundamental aspects of our daily human experience, like access to resources, feelings of connection and community, and beliefs about what constitutes harm. We purposefully left political variables out of our model, knowing the tribal views associated with political parties tend to overshadow other values and associations.
What we found were seven segments [ [link removed] ] into which the electorate can be divided. Only one of these has a strong political leaning, while the rest of the segments are split—nearly evenly in most cases—across the two parties. The data clearly shows that although the similarities are hidden by divisive political rhetoric, many Americans share more in common, in both their life situations and outlooks, with their across-the-aisle counterparts than they do with members of their current political party.
Bridge-Building Traditionalists. The Bridge-Building Traditionalists segment is largely older than 55 years old, with half over 65, and predominantly white. The segment has higher levels of income and education than other segments, in part because of the high average age. Members of this segment are significantly more likely to be politically active, have a sense of community, find personal fulfillment in work and attend church.
Though they are nationalist and conservative, Bridge-Building Traditionalists lean to the right but not toward Trumpism. They are patriotic, believe in hard work, want a leader who follows the rules and highly value bipartisan compromise. Virtually no member of this segment says they couldn’t be friends with someone with whom they disagree politically.
Scattered Middle Class. 14% of voters are Scattered Middle Class, a segment made up of working, middle-class parents who feel the stress of getting by. Two-thirds of this group are between the ages of 25 and 54, and 70% are female. Two-thirds have children, and half still have those children at home. Despite being more likely to have children than other segments, they are less likely to be married. They have average income levels and are more likely to have some college education, but not a degree. Three out of 10 live in a rural area.
Scattered Middle Class segment members are significantly less likely to say they feel they belong to a community and agree there is a rising number of people being “left out.” They skew to the left politically but are not overly concerned with politics, although they say they would like to be more involved in it. This group feels financially squeezed. The Scattered Middle Class are more likely to say that some people’s situations are too challenging to overcome with hard work and that the American Dream is not what it used to be—or dead. They are less likely to believe that America has the highest quality of life in the world.
Polarized Patriots. Polarized Patriots are more likely to be women, have below-average levels of education and skew toward lower incomes. Most Polarized Patriots feel they belong to a community, perhaps because they are more likely to attend church than the average voter. However, they are also the segment most likely to say there are an increasing number of Americans being left out.
Polarized Patriots get their name from their split political identity. They split evenly between Republican and Democratic affiliation, and they are more likely to identify as strong members of their respective parties. They are most likely to find nationalist and populist ideologies appealing. They are more likely to believe the quality of life in America is the best in the world and are proud of America’s history.
Tribal Left. Just under 1 in 10 voters is part of the Tribal Left. This is the only segment that has a complete preference for one of the major political parties: They are completely devoted to the Democratic Party and progressive ideals; just 1% identify as Republican. This group is two-thirds women, white, slightly more likely to be millennials (ages 25-34) than other segments, and have higher education levels but lower income.
Three-quarters of this segment say their political ideology is important to their personal identity. Members of the Tribal Left are the least likely to say they respect the opinion of those who disagree with them and are more likely to say they will confront people they think are wrong on issues important to them. One-quarter say they could never be friends with someone who disagrees with them politically. They are one of the most politically active segments, but this does not bring them a sense of community. Instead, the people they engage with around politics may reinforce a sense that a growing group of the population is being excluded.
Showy Youth. In some ways, the Showy Youth are the counterpart to the heavily female Tribal Left. Where the Tribal Left are predominantly women and skew millennial, the Showy Youth are two-thirds men and even more likely to be millennials. However, whereas the Tribal Left are predominantly white, the Showy Youth are racially diverse with the highest proportion of Black and Hispanic voters.
Their name comes from their high degree of success, such as achieving high levels of education and income, and their generally bold attitude that things are good for them. This segment endorses a range of different identities, which may indicate that they see their identity as flexible rather than fixed. They have a strong work ethic, believing that anyone can get ahead financially with hard work. They are also hopeful for the future of America, and nearly half believe the American Dream is stronger than ever.
Politically, the Showy Youth skew toward the Democratic Party but not as much to progressive liberalism as a political ideology. In fact, they are only slightly more likely to say they are liberal compared to moderate or conservative. Despite a preference for Democrats, they are skeptical of heavy regulation of business.
Rooted Achievers. The smallest segment in our study, Rooted Achievers don’t skew toward any particular age, sex or race. However, they have higher levels of education and income. They are more likely than other segments to attend church frequently, feel like they belong to a community and get fulfillment from their work.
Rooted Achievers are more likely to believe you can trust most people most of the time and are less likely to say there is a segment of the population being left out. They are more hopeful for the future of the country than the average voter. They have the strongest belief among all seven segments that anyone can get ahead financially if they work hard and make sacrifices.
One-quarter of Rooted Achievers believe the American Dream is stronger than it used to be. Politically, they favor a nationalist ideology and are slightly more likely to identify as Republican and conservative.
Politically Unbothered. One of the largest segments of American voters, the Politically Unbothered are individualistic and not engaged in their broader community. They are not civically or politically engaged. This group skews toward those under 35 and has lower levels of education and income than the average voter.
Nationalist and libertarian, they are less concerned about Republicans and Democrats working together or with discussing differences of opinions. Just 1 in 3 say they have close friends or family who disagree with them politically, but that may be because they simply don’t discuss these topics. Only half feel they belong to a community, yet they are the least likely to believe that there is a group of Americans being left out.
The Rationales for This New Approach
Not only do these values-based categories more accurately capture the ways in which the electorate breaks down, but there are important reasons for stepping back from a purely partisan lens when it comes to policy.
Hidden majorities can break political gridlock. It’s possible that, for certain issues, hidden majorities exist that would otherwise be obscured because we assume political parties have a cohesive worldview and set of policy priorities. In our data, voters take more of a cafeteria approach to policies, picking and choosing which of the party positions they agree with and which they do not.
This suggests that coalitions could be built across party lines on a number of issues. For example, school choice, decreased business regulation and child care are areas where most Americans agree. Even on issues that appear hopelessly deadlocked, there is an undercurrent of consensus. For example, Kansas’ 2022 ballot initiative to remove constitutional protection of abortions was opposed by a 59% majority [ [link removed] ], even though in 2022, approximately 44% of registered Kansan voters were Republicans and only 26% were Democrats.
If Republicans were fully unified in supporting an abortion ban, we would expect to see a maximum of 56% of voters opposing the ballot initiative; yet the results in this case suggest that at least 3% of Republicans broke with the party position. It’s possible even more did; exact numbers are obscured by the fact that some Democrats also broke with their party’s position to support the ban.
Intergroup contact can drive progress. What would happen if you started to interact with people because they agreed with you on something rather than because they agreed with you on everything? One of the forces driving toxic polarization is the fact that we increasingly expect people to have perfect adherence with our values and ideas, and we spend less time with people who disagree with us. But being around people with different ideas encourages learning, discovering personal blind spots and empathy, all of which is vital to a healthy political process.
The type of coalition-building our segmentation allows could encourage people to work together with those who share the same end goals, even if they don’t agree completely on the how or why. Coalition approaches would ultimately lead to more progress on solving our hardest challenges and having those solutions survive shifts in political power. This kind of bridge-building would also likely remind people that members of the other party aren’t evil or immoral and that a community doesn’t have to be made up of your closest friends to be healthy and effective.
Our data suggests that this is already happening among regular people but hasn’t made its way up to the political class. Although politicians increasingly avoid being seen with members of the opposite party, our data shows that only 10% of Americans would avoid being friends with someone who doesn’t share their political views.
Talking about policy instead of people is much more constructive. Much of what passes for today’s political discourse sounds more like neighborhood gossip or society rumor-mongering than like a legitimate policy debate. Who dragged whom on X? Who hugged a member of the opposite party? Who can gin up the most outrage on a cable news show? Who can raise the most small-dollar donations through a text message campaign to “help me stop the other side”? It’s toxic—and it’s a key reason increasing numbers of people identify as politically unaffiliated or independent.
But if we could center discussions around what the segments want and need, and how a policy does or doesn’t achieve those ends, more people might be willing to discuss politics with their friends, family and community. Instead of politics being a polarizing topic of conversation to be avoided at all costs, people could talk about what they value and how policies relate to those needs.
Inviting more people into political conversations would have a depolarizing effect on the country. Right now, the only people willing to stomach the incredibly dehumanizing business of politics are largely those with extreme views. They’re so committed to those views that they find the social and emotional costs of hardcore politics to be worthwhile. Most normal people do not. We can’t exclude the hardliners from politics, so our best option is to temper the mix with moderates. And to do that, we’re going to have to make it less fraught and punishing to talk about political issues. Public policy conversations offer us a means to do that in a way that gossiping about politicians does not.
Which Messages Reach Which Groups?
So how do we get more people involved in these important political conversations? Politicians and campaigns can do it—but they have to use the right messages. And now that we understand that the left-right dichotomy doesn’t capture the way the electorate thinks, it’s easy to see why left vs. right messaging still leaves many feeling alienated from politics as usual and wishing that both sides could lose.
Our study was designed to look beyond shortcuts commonly used in American politics, which is typically structured around party affiliation, race, gender and education level. In that regard, applying this segmentation may require flexing a different marketing muscle. But adjusting to this new approach for political messaging is worth the effort as it provides a way to reach the growing number of Americans wary of the binary Republican-Democrat framework that rarely aligns with anyone’s actual policy preference.
Let’s look at an example. Say you’re running for Congress and you’re trying to convince voters that an “all of the above” energy strategy—encouraging fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.—is the right way to go. How would you go about spreading that message to voters?
Bridge-Building Traditionalists generally prefer compromise solutions, so an “all of the above” energy policy should naturally appeal to them. To gain the attention of this segment on the issue, use messages about the importance of a mix of energy sources to maintain an abundant, cheap and clear source of energy.
The Scattered Middle Class is chiefly focused on making their finances work, so messaging emphasizing how “all of the above” energy prices keep costs for consumers low will generate interest.
Polarized Patriots are hard to target on policy issues, as the segment is made up of equal numbers of strong Republicans and Democrats. Concentrating on a patriotic framing of how this policy encourages American self-reliance and generates innovation will tap into the unifying attitudes of this segment.
Unless the broader American left endorses the message, the Tribal Left is unlikely to support such an energy policy. When approaching this group, the best way to sell a policy that isn’t on the left’s agenda is to tie it closely to something that is. So for a comprehensive energy policy, a starting point might be to focus on how disadvantaged communities suffer the most when energy is scarce or expensive.
Entrepreneurship and building personal success are critically important to the Showy Youth. Creating a link between these goals and access to abundant affordable energy will generate interest in an “all of the above” energy approach.
Rooted Achievers are optimistic and forward-focused. It’s a smart idea to highlight how an “all of the above” energy policy provides the basis for building for the future and for more people to achieve the American Dream.
For most issues, the Politically Unbothered group won’t be a good candidate for targeted messaging. However, because members of the Politically Unbothered segment aren’t counted in most political strategies, they have the ability to produce shock results if effectively activated. One example with a big impact [ [link removed] ] is how Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign courted these voters, who appreciated the attention after years of being ignored.
For the government to produce policy that truly matches what voters need and want, we need as many voters as possible to participate in policy debate. They’re much more likely to do that when the debate is framed in a way that relates to them. Voters will also have more confidence and trust in the political process if they feel heard by their elected officials. One of the benefits of our proposed segmentation is that it offers a roadmap for a much more tailored framing than the left-right divide that characterizes most of American politics. And that will make more people want to get involved in the political process: Rather than feeling alienated, they’ll feel represented.
The need for a new approach to talk about and build support for policy solutions is dire. For the past several election cycles, campaigns have doubled down on turning out the people already on “their side,” often with the most inflammatory rhetoric possible. This has led an increasing number of Americans to disengage from the political process, which critically depends on their participation. In addition to alienating citizens, partisan-based messaging ensures that our country never makes the kinds of progress people are really seeking.
Political parties consolidate power and resources by obstructing the other side, to no one’s benefit but their own. And if the parties continue their current approach of speaking only to their most loyal partisans, the country will remain in a perpetual 51-49 split, with power shifting back and forth on the narrowest of margins. One side advances major policy, and it’s quickly undone when power changes hands. And as a result, America’s progress and prosperity stalls.
Those looking to change American policy—at any level of government—must stop designing campaigns from their partisan playbooks. Instead, they will find success when they look at and speak to Americans as whole people who have some interest in political affairs but more interest in the quality of their own lives.
Lura Forcum is the president of the Independent Center [ [link removed] ]. Erin Norman is a strategic research professional at Purple Strategies [ [link removed] ].

Unsubscribe [link removed]?