It’s 40 years later, and some claim the sentiment of a culture war is still alive and well. But can the progressive/orthodox chasm in America really be that wide? Have we always been so divided in cultural issues from gender to race, war, abortion, and free speech? Could there be truth to the “polarization”, or have fringe voices in media politics painted a false picture?

In a 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, conservative presidential candidate and former Crossfire host Pat Buchanan cited a wide cultural divide. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America”, he said. “It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, [Bill] Clinton & [Hillary]Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side”. Buchanan’s cry drew the battle lines very clearly. To save the nation from ultimate demise, conservatives needed to unite against the policies of the liberals who intended to destroy it.

Of course, the divisive sentiment is just as powerful on the other side of the political spectrum.

Former Clinton advisor Paul Begala demonized red states in a 2000 Boston Heraldarticle. “You see the state where James Byrd was lynch-dragged behind a pickup truck until his body came apart- it’s red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified on a split-rail fence for the crime of being gay-it’s red”, he said. Begala abided closely to the lines Buchanan had drawn, suggesting that hate was limited to the geographical regions of “the others”.

Pundits in the news media realm have only fanned the flames. Voices from the right and left have either given direct credence to the idea of a culture war, or simply presented views that would make the gap seem wider than it really is.

On a November 11th, 2007 broadcast of The Chris Matthews Show, admittedly liberal host Chris Matthews shared his perception of America’s attitude toward presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, drawing obvious cultural lines over gender and race.
“Women and men [are] going to be part of this issue”, he said, describing Clinton’s candidacy. “Women, overwhelmingly with Hillary, is the gender unity. The sisterhood, if you will- more powerful than the “who do you want to hang out with” question.”

Matthew’s analysis of race in the Obama campaign was more divisive still. “I’m a white guy, obviously- but I think that a lot of white votes do not want to see an angry face, a black face, coming at them politically because they feel guilty maybe, right?”

While Matthews never directly used the term “culture war”, there may have been something implicitly polarizing in his descriptions of sisterhood and white fear. Will women really unite behind Clinton as strongly as Matthews claims? Will it be based on gender identity politics? If so, will men unite against an “opponent” of a different gender? Could a racial divide really be that wide regarding Obama? Does a nation of white voters live in fear and angst over an angry black face? With black and female presidential candidates rising to prominence for the first time in American history, race and gender will undoubtedly play a role. Does it constitute a battle between men and “sisterhoods”, or “guilty” white voters and African American candidates?

On the other side of the political spectrum, Bill O’Reilly, political commentator and host of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor has thrown his hat into the ring. In his 2006 novel Culture Warrior, O’Reilly had this to say:

“I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America. And war is exactly the right term. On one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically: mold it in the image of Western Europe.”
Commentary from both ends of the media landscape has drawn the same picture: there’s a war in progress- or a vast cultural divide, to say the least. White voters have guilt and fear of black candidates. Women unite on the opposite side of the gap from men under female candidates. Orthodox traditionalists scrap for ground against progressive secularists.

It would be a dire, exciting portrait of American life- if any of it were true.

In fact, data reflects a national sense of homogeny. While fringe voices shout from books or TV sets, the majority of America seems to sit moderately in the middle.

Both Buchanan and Begala’s divisive claims are put to rest when measured against this data. A nationwide poll conducted by political analyst Morris P. Fiorina found very little disparity between citizens of red and blue states* in terms of political affiliation. In the survey, 32% of red state citizens and 36% of blue state citizens identified with the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, 31% of red state citizens and 25% of blue state citizens identified with the Republican Party. Some may claim that party affiliation does not point directly to political ideology. Fortunately, Fiorina’s poll found the same absence of disparity along ideological lines. 18% of red state citizens and 22% of blue state citizens identified themselves as liberal, while 41% of red state citizens and 33% of blue state citizens identified themselves as conservative. (Fiorina, 37).

Where are the sharply divided secularists and traditionalists that Buchanan alleged in 1992? Where are the anti-gay, anti-black radicals that entirely characterize what it means to be a “red state”, as preached by Begala?

Fiorina’s findings further debunk the concept of religious divide. His studies revealed that Evangelical Christians received just as many positive evaluations in the red states as in the blue. The same applied to both Jews and Catholics. (Fiorina, 37). Furthermore, 43% of red state citizens and 46 % of blue state citizens believe the church should keep out of politics entirely (Fiorina, 41). Similar numbers in both states believed that the moral state of America had dissolved since 1992, while identical proportions showed tolerance for the moral views of others(Fiorina, 45). Has the sharp theological divide that waged Buchanan’s “religious war” simply disappeared?

O’Reilly’s claims are equally discredited. Often, liberal candidates will forsake the term “liberal” in favor of “progressive”, while conservative candidates will identify themselves as “traditionalists”, rather than “conservatives”. Both linguistic preferences suggest the desired guise of a less partisan “everyman”. Fiorina’s polls show that similar numbers in both states (both majorities) outright reject the notion. In other words, Americans are not fooled by the diatribe of progressives and traditionalists (Fiorina, 39). Is there really a war at stake when the majority of the nation, regardless of geography, does not subscribe to the terms O’Reilly assigns them?

Data tracking America attitude towards race and gender has gone a long way in discrediting Matthews’ analysis. Pew Research polls have found that, since 1987, both black and white citizens have grown increasingly tolerant of one another, and the number of Americans who claim they have something in common with people of other races have increased( Fiorina, 65). Is this the social landscape that reflects white guilt and fear towards an “angry” black candidate? The idea of women uniting behind a female candidate seems quite obvious, but Matthews’ take is not quite so sweeping. A recent Pew poll has shown that, if the 2008 Presidential Election were held today between Clinton and Rudy Guliani, 57% of women would vote for Clinton, and 37% would vote for Guliani. A 20% divide may not constitute a sweeping gender alliance.

If the culture war is indeed a myth, then why do media pundits on both sides continue to fan its flames? The answer is twofold: the excitement of perceived conflict, and the fringe positions and lifestyles of the purveyors. It’s no secret that in news, conflict sells. The idea of a dire war for the “hearts and minds” of the American people will undoubtedly attract viewers, regardless of it’s truth. The Moral Fate of America Hangs in the Balance! makes a better headline than Everything’s Cool. Secondly, viewers need to take a look at the voices perpetrating these views. Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews are not political moderates. The voices screaming from the fringes are the ones who care the most, while attempting to define the “middle American” (a person whose life does not revolve around politics) with whom they may not have forged a close relationship.

The voice of the common, yet politically educated man might say something different.

Bill Phillips is a professor of media critique at New York University, as well as a former staff member at Time Inc. While Phillips does not outright dismiss the notion of a culture war, his views are far more benign than the typical pundit’s.

“It seems to me that for a nation of some 300 million, we generally get along pretty well, and the general principles of "liberal" democracy (in the John Stewart Mills sense) of "live and let live" are pretty healthy. A critical question to think about, then, might be to what extent there might be groups and individuals, on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum, who have vested interests in stirring up the perception of such a war. That is, it might be useful to look at who speaks of this war? What do they advocate in the face of it? And what might they have to gain by stirring up the troops?”, he said.

In a media news landscape dominated by fringe pundits, the answer may be right in front of our eyes.

* “red state” and “blue state” labels based on 2000 Presidential Election results.