Building Consensus, Not Partisanship

It has become conventional wisdom that the United States is a polarized, deeply divided nation, with the red states and the blue states on either side of a growing chasm. But that notion is problematic. Politicians, nonprofit leaders, the news media, and others who endorse the polarization image legitimize a winner-take-all political combat that rejects consensus building. Seeing the nation only in “red” and “blue” blinds leaders to compromise and makes it seem all right to push an ideological agenda without seeking wider public support. Strident advocacy has replaced attempts to build consensus and compromise.

It is especially disturbing that many of those charged with the responsibility of promoting the common good — in government and at nonprofit organizations — are doing the exact opposite: relentlessly advancing points of view held by extremes of public opinion. Even more troubling, many nonprofit advocates are falsely invoking the public’s voice in so doing. Really listening to the public and seeking out people’s nuanced understanding of issues seem to have become a lost art, disappearing along with respectful dialogue.

Nonprofit and foundation leaders could make a very positive contribution to improving dialogue. Rather than partisan debate, America needs more nonpartisan dialogue focusing on common ground, not differences. Nonprofit groups have to avoid falling prey to partisanship and instead seek out compromises that break these deadlocks. Of course, to be effective in taking this approach, advocacy groups, foundations, their boards, and others in the nonprofit world need to be much better informed about what the public thinks.

Sadly, much of the information about what public-opinion polls have found is greatly distorted. While the most committed people on the two far ends of the political spectrum are more sharply divided than in the past, a majority or near majority of voters still cleaves to the center when given the option to do so.

Abortion is a classic example of what political pundits call a “50-50″ issue, yet polls suggest that the majority of voters seek a centrist position on this divisive question, as on most issues. In April, a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll showed Americans split evenly on abortion, with 44 percent saying they were “pro-choice” and 47 percent “pro-life.” (The rest said they were unsure or believed in a mix of the two views.) But given the choice of taking one of the two extreme positions or occupying a middle ground on abortion, most Americans gravitate to the center. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a year ago asked Americans whether abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances. A majority (55 percent) of those polled picked the middle option, while just 26 percent said abortion should always be legal and 17 percent said it should always be illegal.

Evidence of a similar gravitation to the center is apparent from the high percentage of people taking “undecided” or “don’t know” positions on especially controversial questions.

Gay marriage is a significant example. In March, the Pew Center asked Americans whether they “favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.”

A near majority — 49 percent — of those polled said they favored such arrangements. The second-largest group was made up of people who said they were not sure about the issue (44 percent), while 7 percent said they opposed the idea.

That same thing happens again and again on a range of issues — not a sharp polarization but a large percentage of voters remaining somewhere in the middle. What’s more, polling data show that the public’s allegiances on many issues are not fully formed and are susceptible to change based on new information and new circumstances. Throughout our history, American public opinion has always been more dynamic and fluid than the polarization myth suggests.

To be sure, a political realignment is under way in the United States, but it is not the polarization of voters that has been written of so voluminously. Rather, the new polarization is within the parties themselves. The Democrats and Republicans once were “big tent” parties that could accommodate the views of a range of conservative, moderate, and liberal viewpoints within the party leadership. Today the two major parties have much less room for political centrists. Ironically, vast numbers of Americans remain in the middle, but the right versus left debate marginalizes political leaders who advocate dialogue rather than partisan advocacy.

Nonprofit, foundation, and government leaders ought to know intuitively if not factually that the red state versus blue state image is overstated. It is impossible to work in the messy, complicated, ever-evolving realm of public service and not notice that in every corner of the nation the public thinks in ways that confound and challenge political boundaries. But nonprofit leaders need to ask themselves whether their public positions are developed by truly listening to what the public believes, or whether they are just taking views that fit easily into the blue versus red script.

Nonprofit leaders should be engaging the public on issues and developing policy positions that reflect the concerns, priorities, and complexities of Americans from all walks of life. The values that unite Americans are many of the values that are central to the missions of nonprofit organizations. Through extensive public-opinion research, we have identified many of them — patriotism, self-confidence, pragmatism, community, acceptance of diversity, belief in hard work, and the hunger for common ground. Leaders who can tap into those values and help put in place policies that reflect them can unleash a powerful force for good.

While sharp-edged political partisanship prevails among elected officials, the public hungers for more consensus building. Charity and foundation leaders cannot in good conscience continue to perpetuate the red state versus blue state thinking that deepens divisions and prevents our nation from making progress in dealing with the tough challenges we face. It’s time for leaders who have the vision to see beyond the red and blue divide to step up and put their resources into efforts that promote dialogue, exploration, sound judgment, and finding practical solutions.

Ruth A. Wooden is president of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan organization in New York that conducts public-opinion research and seeks to get Americans more involved in influencing public policy. It is also the publisher of the First Choice 2004 voters’ guides.