William McGuire, developer of the Model of Persuasion, says people who are exposed to information that they want to pay attention to, want to comprehend, want to accept, and want to retain, then take action on that exposure. What the model fails to represent is the looping effect; that people then act on finding more information that corresponds with their beliefs. This is the method used by political candidates. Could “actions” also consist of surrounding oneself with other likeminded people, other people who vote the same? Bill Bishop would say yes.
Bishop says that despite how diverse and polarized America has become, the places we live are crowded with people who live, think, and most importantly vote like we do. He goes on to say how the second half of the twentieth century brought social specialization, the displacement of mass culture by media, organizations, and associations that were both segmented and more homogenous. Combine this with historical efforts of gerrymandering, it’s no wonder people live in communities where others have similar views – especially on politics, the hottest button of all beliefs.
The largest turn of trends comes post-materialism. There are two parts to this which Bishop covers. The first is that materialism is viewed as a value-system. Given the industrial revolution and consumerist society, people no longer have to worry as much about survival. As a result, attention is turned toward post-materialistic movements (civic political ideas). The second part of post-materialism is the idea that “every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay.”
In the end, Bishop notes that, “homogeneity may be a perk of the unprecedented choice our society offers – but it also breeds economic inequality, cultural misunderstanding, political extremism, and legislative gridlock.” Arguing for the middle ground in politics is like trying to write a completely objective article; it’s been pursued but never accomplished. Dare I suggest that Bishop is taking a similar outlook on The Big Sort as does the news on any topic: negative. I believe there is a route that Bishop could take that could exploit The Big Sort in a way that it benefits, not only the community, but the entire nation – despite polarization, despite the changing/declining economy, despite the inequality.
Americans are prone to move forward and construct lifestyles – as well as political realms – that work off their polarizing beliefs. While I’m no economist, I think Bishop copped out. There are two routes of further research and foresight he could make to support (or counter) his theory of The Big Sort. First, if The Big Sort is making a large enough impact as he states, then why not seek ways that America can leverage it? Secondly, if The Big Sort is leading to such turmoil, then what’s next? Sure, Bishop does a brilliant job of explaining The Big Sort, supporting it with endless research, but if I held the cure to cancer, just holding it doesn’t do much good.
