thesis: policy driven increases in inequality galvinize ideological polarization

here's a review
http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2012/07/polarization-of-american-politics.html
of this book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262633612/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=danlithompag-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0262633612

key question :


"Why has the ideological distance between the parties increased so dramatically since the 1970s?

method :


"the authors have applied a comprehensive statistical measure of relative positions on one (or two) dimensions, based on a complete set of roll call votes. Using roll call data, they compute an "ideal point" for each legislator along a scale of -1.0-1.0. This approach is a powerful one that permits calculation of a legislator's score from liberal to conservative. This permits comparison of the liberalness / conservativeness of legislators, including those whose careers did not overlap, and it allows an aggregate assessment of the relative positions of the parties over time. "

 results:

" The most important cause ...over time is degree of income stratification
   present at a point in time (national inequalities)......this is causal:
 politics has become more polarized as the stakes rise for those at the upper part of the distribution."


i'll repeat that last bit

its the take away

"more polarized as the stakes rise
                for those at
                   the upper part of the distribution."


--------------------------------

commentary by reviewer:

" ( the authors)....succeed in cutting through the seemingly crazed rhetoric of conservative extremists in and out of Congress and reveal what it's really all about: protecting the economic interests of the wealthy.

the sizzling rhetoric coming from the right -- personal attacks on the President, anti-gay rants, renewed heat around abortion and contraception -- is just window dressing.

By the evidence of voting records, what the right really cares about is economic issues favoring the affluent -- tax cuts, reduced social spending, reduced regulation of business activity, and estate taxes.


  Maybe the best way of understanding the extremist pundits is as a class of well-paid entertainers, riffing on themes of hatred and cultural fundamentalism that have nothing to do with the real goals of their party."