Democrats and Republicans increasingly view the other party as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.” In her home state — where she also teaches — University of Wisconsin political science professor Katherine Cramer notes that “people, in casual conversation, are treating each other as enemies.” Scholars continue to debate whether today’s polarization is rooted in…
The Anthony Davis saga has me confused. On the one hand, I’m mad that he requested a trade. I don’t want him to go to the Lakers, I don’t want LeBron to manipulate the whole league, I don’t want the Pelicans to have to give up their best player in franchise history, and I don’t want AD to give up on the Pelicans. On the other, it’s about damn time. Since the year after they drafted him, the Pels have consistently made short-sighted, risky moves that lowered the ceiling and didn’t even make them that good in the present. They have given no indication to anyone that they will build a championship-caliber team around Davis and Jrue Holiday (who, by the way, is the biggest victim here). Should Davis waste his prime hoping that they get lucky and stumble into a Western Conference Finals appearance? No. He shouldn’t. Davis is the product of a new era of player control and player movement, an era that is changing how teams build their rosters and how fans think about their teams. This new age of player movement is killing league parity and – here’s the fun part – can also explain the political polarization of our country. Let’s begin.
Stanford-affiliated policy experts and political science professors gathered in the Hoover Institution on Thursday to discuss the 2018 midterm elections.
In the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, I’ve found it increasingly difficult to stay quiet about my observations of politics through a psychological lens. I watched the hearings with other members of my dorm community. I remember the tension in the room. I felt it thousands of miles from where Ford and Kavanaugh sat to…
Research from Wendt Family Professor of Political Science Morris Fiorina shows that the American public is not more politically polarized than it was in 1976, despite the apparent polarization of party candidates.
The pattern here is that the more controversial something is, the more it gets talked about. Informedness, careful analysis, worthwhile subject matter and charitable or constructive engagement with different views is less important for getting your article attention than dividing people.
Consider that every election you yourself have and will continue to vote against someone’s vital interests. No policy comes without some moral cost. We live in a country of 300 million people, all with different values and a stake in the election.
Stanford economist Matthew Gentzkow and his team have developed an algorithm that revealed a drastic change in American political speech, which, according to their research, is becoming increasingly polarized.