Yaeli Bloch-Elkon

DO THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? PARTISAN DISAGREEMENT AS A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE

ABSTRACT The partisan and ideological polarization of American politics since the 1970s appears to have affected pubic opinion in striking ways. The American public has become increasingly partisan and ideological along liberal‐conservative lines on a wide range of issues, including even foreign policy. This has raised questions about how “rational” the public is, in the broad sense of the publics responsiveness to objective conditions. Widespread partisan disagreements over what those conditions are—i.e., disagreements about “the facts”—suggest that large proportions of the public may be perceiving the facts incorrectly. The facts in question are important enough that these partisan disagreements may translate into sub‐optimal policy preferences and electoral decisions.

Free Hand Abroad, Divide and Rule at Home

Under unipolarity, the immediate costs and risks of war are more likely to seem manageable for a militarily dominant power like the U.S. This does not necessarily make the use of force cheap or wise, but it means that the costs and risks attendant on its use are comparatively indirect, long term, and thus highly subject to interpretation. Unipolarity, combined with the opportunity created by September 11, opened a space for interpretation that tempted a highly ideological foreign policy cohort to seize on international terrorism as an issue to transform the balance of power both in the international system and in American party politics. This cohort’s response to the terrorist attack was grounded in ideological sincerity but also in the routine practice of wedge issue politics, which had been honed on domestic issues during three decades of partisan ideological polarization and then extended into foreign policy.

Prevention of Terrorism in Post-9/11 America: News Coverage, Public Perceptions, and the Politics of Homeland Security

This study finds that the issue of preventing terrorist attacks has received surprisingly little attention by decision-makers and the news media, and only sporadic interest by pollsters. When it comes to homeland security, how to protect the nation and its people from actual attacks takes a back seat to press coverage of threats and other aspects of terrorism, particularly the administrations arguments for fighting the “war on terrorism” abroad as a means to prevent further terrorism at home. This inattention to the difficult task of preventing further catastrophic terror attacks by taking measures at home may affect the nations vigilance as time has passed since 9/11.