Prius Or Pickup?: How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide

by Marc Hetherington, Jonathan Weiler

Two award-winning political scientists provide the psychological key to America’s deadlocked politics, showing that we are divided not by ideologies but something  personality differences that appear in everything from politics to parenting to the workplace to TV preferences, and which would be innocuous if only we could decouple them from our noxious political debate.

What’s in your a Prius or a pickup? What’s in your coffee Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts? What about your cat or dog? As award-winning political scholars Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler explain, even our smallest choices speak volumes about us—especially when it comes to our personalities and our politics. Liberals and conservatives seem to occupy different worlds because we have fundamentally different worldviews : systems of values that can be quickly diagnosed with a handful of simple parenting questions, but which shape our lives and decisions in the most elemental ways. If we're to overcome our seemingly intractable differences, Hetherington and Weiler show, we must first learn to master the psychological impulses that give rise to them, and to understand how politicians manipulate our mindsets for their own benefit.

Drawing on groundbreaking original research, Prius or Pickup? is an incisive, illuminating study of the fracturing of the American mind.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Audiobook, Cultural

288 pages, Hardcover

Published October 9, 2018

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Prius or Pickup?, published in 2018, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler suggest that people are well sorted as either fixed or fluid.

"Fixed," in this case, "describes people who are warier of social and cultural change and hence more set in their ways, more suspicious of outsiders, and more comfortable with the familiar and predictable." The more "fixed" the worldview, the more likely to vote for DT. "Fluid," in this case, suggests enthusiasm for "changing social and cultural norms, are excited by things that are new and novel, and are open to, and welcoming of, people who look and sound different." Hetherington and Weiler suggest that people with a fixed mindset drive trucks and SUVs because it's only sensible to be prepared for emergencies, they are more likely to eat in familiar chain restaurants, and they prefer open spaces. The fluid mindset values a Prius because it is environmentally sustainable, these people want to eat at quirky hole in the wall restaurants, and they don't value space as much as they do access to variety. The former goes to Dunkin' Donuts for trustworthy simple coffee and the latter goes to Starbucks for the variety.

My first thought is way to go Neal Stephenson! In 1995, Neal Stephenson published The Diamond Age, a novel about a future in which the world has divided into cultural enclaves rather than geographic nations. When I read it, the cultural enclaves seemed a ridiculous but fascinating idea, but now it seems that people are increasingly sorting by culture. Curiously, people are not always explicitly choosing to live in enclaves, but the mindsets are so wary of one another that they appear to be forming anyway. They move to different places. And even if they live side by side, they end up avoiding one another like in China Mieville's The City and The City. Those with a fixed mindset are more likely to bond with their community on Sunday morning at church and those with a fluid mindset are more likely to bond their community over a Sunday morning brunch. I find it interesting that the needs and desires are often not so different, but they express themselves distinctly. We can see the divide in some university populations as well, though it's not clear how many or what the margins are...

IMHO, the most important takeaway from Prius or Pickup is that we overestimate the ease and efficacy of empathy and we undervalue its importance. Both Democrats and Republicans will increasingly report that they hate the opposing party, and in roughly equal numbers. But I wonder if the problem isn't just "hating" something in a poll but rather a real inability to understand others. Speaking personally, many conservative critiques of President Obama make little sense to my fluid mindset. At one point, Hetherington and Weiler quote a Democrat who's defending Obama against charges that he's not decisive enough in his speech; to the Democrat's fluid worldview, the ability to speak eloquently and with nuance is a strength--why would that be a problem? I am often baffled by conservatives to the point that I read books about them.

Apparently, that's not so uncommon for fluid mindsets, as Hetherington suggests in an interview with Ezra Klein: "You express a concern about being seen as 'insulting and biased' to conservatives, a concern we share. But it seems an asymmetric one. When did you last observe conservatives worrying that about exaggerating liberal pathologies?" Is there an equivalent Hillbilly Elegy that conservatives read in 2012 to better understand what drives liberals? Perhaps Democratic candidates are mostly boring and there's less need to interrogate their support--it would fit the theory that the cultural left has become in some ways a defender of the status quo and that the right has become transgressive. Regardless, we exist within bubbles that we are hardly aware of and that is one reason it's so hard to escape them.

Or do we? People are complex and I'd resent my conservative friends seeing a "fluid mindset" box rather than me. Here are some other quibbles... First, Hetherington and Weiler suggest that the worldview precedes politically charged motivated motivated reasoning. But I wonder, for example, if people who seem to have a fixed mindset actually report their preference for living in open spaces because they see through the question and want to support the American "heartland." Everything is politically coded, so I struggle to accept survey data. Second, they suggest that Democrats and Republicans used to be equally susceptible to conspiracy theories. I didn't find their "left" leaning conspiracy theories very "left," to be honest. But I also wonder if conspiracy theories have become "Republican." Democrats value facts while Republicans value "alternative facts." Even as conservatives eschew Alex Jones' Sandy Hook theories, they will still report his other conspiracy theories to me in the same conversation. Third, they suggest that people with a fluid mindset are less driven by cable news. Actually, this one probably does make sense as a fluid viewer's preference for variety will lead them to more than one source of news and analysis. The ratings for Fox are consistently high. Fourth, they suggest that liberals are likely prejudiced against someone driving a pickup while wearing a MAGA hat in the same way that a Trump supporter might be prejudiced against a person of color. Sorry, but isn't there a slight difference between judging someone by the color of their skin and judging someone by their political declarations and consumer choices?

Hetherington and Weiler should be more up front with their data here. At the extreme ends of the continuum, there are more fixed people than fluid people. The average American is probably also more fixed than fluid. The charts that represent this information are inadequate and there is no appendix containing this data, either. I'd also be curious to know to what extent an aging population would explain the prevalence of fixed mindsets. An aging population might look at social change and, at some margin, become reactionary. There is also little consideration of why Democrats so often have won the popular vote but lost elections due to gerrymandering or electoral college. At the end of the book, there is some speculation of whether this fixed/ fluid dynamic explains the rise of nationalism internationally, but again the data seems inadequate.

I came to Prius or Pickup? a bit skeptical of biology or the Big 5 personality traits driving political choices. By the end of the book, however, Hetherington and Weiler had convinced me to take these ideas more seriously, even if I still take them with a grain of salt. I found the second half often better than the opening chapters. I'd recommend Haidt's Righteous Mind ahead of Prius or Pickup?, but it's otherwise better than most of the "what happened" books I've read.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 2 out of 5]

I participated in the Georgia Academic Decathlon in High School, during which we had to give an impromptu 5 minute speech after 2 minutes of preparation. Mrs. Garner taught us to “bridge and sparkle” - hook the listener with an introduction that relates to the topic you’ve been asked to speak on, and then subtly shift the focus of the speech to a topic you’re more comfortable with. Great strategy for a 10th grader giving an impromptu speech, but an unfortunate strategy for a published book. Needless to say, the latter 2/3 of this book was not about political sociology and party culture or whatever you think the title and summary insinuate. It was about how bad the political right is. Big whoop! Other people have written good books about the faults of the political right, but at least they’re transparent with their aims.

I must add the disclaimer that the two authors are obviously geniuses. I don’t think my opinion of their book is reflective of their academic abilities on the whole.

That being said, what irked me about this book was that it felt like the authors have never actually met a conservative (or someone with a “fixed worldview” - their clever proxy used to soften their blows against half the US population)... and studying a group of people or a person does not equate to actually knowing them. An incredibly large component of their thesis is that conservatives are essentially driven by fear in all of their decision making. They buy big dogs to protect them. They buy big trucks so they come out on top in a car accident. They eat at Cracker Barrel so they avoid an unexpectedly disgusting meal. And they vote for politicians who will protect them from immigrants. My distaste for this opinion is shaped by my experience, but I think my experience is telling. I grew up in Forsyth county, but I’ve lived the last 6 years in Clarke county. My two social clubs are my church and rock climbers. My own family is politically diverse. I kinda have my foot in both camps. And if you even had your foot a tiny bit in the right side of the camp, I think you’d know that fear does not motivate every lifestyle choice of the old white man driving his truck to church in Forsyth county.

The best part of this book was its discussion of “Partyism” (like racism or sexism), and its discussion of how the left and the right’s lives no longer intersect at all (which creates the misunderstanding that begets partyism). The left and the right live in different places (or just don’t talk to their neighbors with whom they disagree politically), watch different news, eat at different restaurants, buy different pets, name their children differently, pick different careers, buy their morning coffee at different places, vacation in different places, etc etc. Thus, they generally know nothing about each other and view one another’s choices as completely incomprehensible.

The worst part about this book (in my humble opinion) is that the authors fell victim to the very disease they researched and diagnosed.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A interesting social science look at contemporary politics. Two political scientists explain what really causes the extreme political polarization seen today. They conclude that, for white Americans, it is not political ideology but underlying “worldviews” (expressed by where they live and work, which cars they buy, and even which styles of coffee they prefer) that determine their political affiliations. They find evidence of two opposing worldviews, which they call “fixed” and “fluid”: the first is more fearful of outsiders, change, and uncertainty and favors hierarchy. The second is more welcoming of complexity, nuance, and unfamiliarity. They argue that a “marriage of worldview and party” in American politics began in the 1970s as party leaders reorganized their platforms around issues, like race, that touched voters’ worldviews—a sharp departure from the mixed-worldview political parties of the past, when the overriding American political issues were taxation and government size. The authors convincingly argue that the consequences of this polarization are deep and “toxic." If you like social science research and a political junkie it's a book that will interest you.

[Rebecca Wilkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was recommended by my former California History professor. I used to love these things that try to show what we are like by what we choose to buy, i.e. YOUR VOLKSWAGEN IS A SEX SYMBOL or some such book long ago. So I thought it would be a fun romp. However it is written by 2 professors from the University of North Carolina in global studies and political science. They use studies done over the years on the worldview of people (mostly USA but also there is a chapter about the UK, Germany, France and Denmark). They then connect our worldview to our political choices. They say that 4 questions about parenting can tell whether a person has a "fixed" world view or a "fluid" worldview. Here are the questions about what you expect from your children:
1. Independence versus respect for elders, 2. obedience versus self reliance, 3. curiosity versus good manners and 4. being considerate versus well behaved."

"A central theme runs through these questions in people's orientation toward HIERARCHY: respect for elders, obedience, good manners and good behavior." "Following the lead of those at the top of hierarchy provides people COGNITIVE CLOSURE: clear-cut answers to life's many questions."

People who are comfortable with hierarchy have a "fixed" worldview and people who are more comfortable with looser structure are "fluid." In the USA 42% are purely or mostly Fixed while 32% are purely or mostly Fluid. 26% are mixed. Hence the fluid (Democrats) will need to draw from the Mixed group to win elections over the fixed (Republicans).

The authors state that our worldview and politics have become entwined in the last 25 years and because our worldview comes out of our basic psychology and morality, it involves our emotions and is causing the partisan politics and separation within the country (and in Europe as well). Populism and nationalism have played to those emotions in vulnerable rural, lower educated white males hit hardest by the economic problems in this century. But contributing to the need to feel part of a group and to feel secure in a world that has begun to feel more unsafe, all people with a fixed outlook who feel "fear" and a need for safety more than the more adventuresome fluids have found a hero in Trump who promises that only he will keep them safe and fight off the bandits in the outside world. He will build walls and keep out those nasty non-English speaking immigrants with their terrorist religion and desires to do us in. "When people feel their well-being is threatened, they lapse into survival mode. At best people take protective action, at worst they panic."

The authors do go to some length to show how fixed and fluids buy different things, big vehicles for protection because they are afraid on the highways for fixed and vehicles that help the environment for fluids who have less fears and more concerns for the environment. They also point out that fixed and fluids choose different places to live (city for fluids and rural for fixed). They also watch different TV stations and get their news from different outlets. There is "residential polarization" and "residential segregation" such that often the fluids and fixed never talk to each other and without communication there can be no understanding of similarities outside of politics.

The biggest fear is that this partisan political situation is splitting apart the country and will bring down our democracy. Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Trump is kind of the antithesis of Lincoln since he seems to try to keep the antagonism between the 2 parties at a feverish pitch.

The authors hope that the American institutions are robust enough to withstand this president's onslaught but that is yet to be seen. They also think that "transnationally oriented CEOs (businesses can't maximize profits with mostly white customers) and Mother Nature (natural disasters could make for an unavoidable reckoning with climate change) could reconfigure the political map and submerge the worldview divide."

"In a perfect world, partisans would try to understand why their opponents believe what they do, and would explore places where they might find common ground." I keep reading books like this one and THE RIGHTEOUS MIND and WHO WE BE in order to understand these people on the other side. "When politics was centrally about the size of government and how much to tax, the resulting disagreements were about the fundamentals of governing, which, frankly most Americans care little about."

[Colette Jaeger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting perspective, but grossly generalized conclusions for much bigger concept/problem/issues. It’s entertaining and intriguing though.

[Wendelle]

This book says the political party one abides with can be predicted by one's level of openness, level of conscientiousness, and cultural choices. It's an interesting book, I would have to examine more closely the factual buttress for some of the remarkable claims, such as the assertion that political affiliation can be associated with, among other things, particular vegetable choices in the supermarket

Accdg. to the authors, some indicators of one's political stripe include:
physiology
early parenting experiences
names of children
types of pet
choice of city or country
choice of food
level of gag or fear reflex
outlook and level of fear and mistrust of the world (strongest indicator)
preference for clarity or nuance
choice of career
level of education
feelings about universities and colleges
feelings about the media
choice of music
choice of vegetable in the supermarket
and, as the title suggests, type of car

[Geo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting thesis by two UNC professors based on their 15 years of study. Answers to four questions about how you see raising kids results in a “worldview “ that is either fixed or fluid on a sliding scale. As with any generalization, the premise perhaps pushes a bit too far, but the argument does provide some foundation for making sense of a bizarre change in this world moment. (Also, see this BBC Report https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45902454)

[R. · Rating 1 out of 5]

The thesis - that American political parties now align along divergent cultural axes that can be divined based on answers to four child-rearing questions - is an interesting one, and may be true. But the authors do precious little to prove the thesis.
They provide a lot of anecdote and a lot of supposition, but not much data or fact. Perhaps that's to be expected if this is the pop culture version of an earlier academic work.
More significantly, the authors are victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Apparently, the President is "authoritarian" and "anti-immigrant" even though they provide no evidence of either assertion. They mischaracterize the motives of most Trump supporters - confusing a desire to see existing immigration laws followed with a fear of immigrants. For example, Trump's moratorium on immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries that have been identified as exporters of terrorism is called "anti-Muslim" when it clearly is not. And they ignore evidence that doesn't support their preferred political positions - is Trump's anti-press tweeting more authoritarian than Obama's "I've got a pen and a phone" bypassing of the legislative branch? Apparently the authors would say "yes" even though reasonable minds would differ.
I had hoped for something even-handed, but was disappointed.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some generalizations but the concepts in this book are sound, when showing the difference between Trump and Clinton voters. A message like "Make America Great Again" resonates with folks with a fixed worldview while those with a fluid worldview are open to more change and progress and aren't mired in the past or the concept of what "the good old days" consists of.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

#PriusOrPickup #NetGalley

A very creative way to illustrate the two political poles among the American population. The authors explore the deepest factors resulting in this bipolar political division. The two profiles are explained by study cases and statistics. The book contains an extended bibliography that makes possible to use the book in the classroom.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

Given to me by a friend political science professor, I think I only kept reading this book to argue with it.

My overwhelming response to it was… duh!

Republicans like country music and Cracker Barrel and are resistant to change… duh!

Democrats like hip hop and Starbucks and are more likely to smile when they hear a foreign language being spoken… duh!

Nationalistic tendencies have existed, do exist, and will exist... duh.

Mob mentality is a thing... duh.

Of course there is no permanent defeating of racism and xenophobia... there’s just kicking at the darkness till it bleeds daylight.



To be fair, there is something here… Just not 224 pages of something. (And I counted each and every one of them as they slowly turned.)

The main idea of the book is that by asking people 4 questions about desirable qualities in children, you can assign them a worldview (“fixed” or “fluid”) and make statistically dependable predictions in a wide variety of areas based on that assigned worldview.

The questions (as asked on surveys):
Although there are a number of qualities that people feel children should have, every person* thinks that some are more important than others. I am going to read your pairs of desirable qualities. Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have.
1. independence versus respect for elders
2. obedience versus self reliance
3. curiosity versus good manners
4. being considerate versus being well behaved

*not this person

I personally refuse to answer the questions because I think that it is important and possible for children to have both. No surprise that I am a moderate (or used to be, until one party started locking up children in cages and eating democratic norms for breakfast.) Nor much surprise that I hate taking surveys. My answers are never on them, and I hate picking ones that do not represent me accurately.

Side note: I really think that instead they could just ask “Who is the hero of the movie “Footloose?”

Problems with the book:

1. I think it goes to far, frequently basing too much conclusion on too little data. Its interpretations lack historical context and oversimplify what are incredibly complex (in a non-linear dynamics sort of way) systems.

2. I dislike the view that physiological predispositions cannot be overcome and that we do not have agency. They pay this lip service, but then treat it as unchanging. Even when they themselves have found evidence that opinions DO change, and significantly.

“For example in 2012 before Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage, only about 40% of African-Americans expressed support, well below the national average. This was in keeping with the groups more fixed worldview. After Obama’s endorsement, however, support from African-Americans jumped dramatically. These rapid ships and political attitudes are a testament to the powerful influence that partisanship has come to have in politics.”

And the fact that views have changed so much - on college, on where to live - doesn’t offer a lot of support for the worldview hypothesis. Gag reflexes, startle reflexes, and innate fearfulness haven’t changed, but opinions have.

3. This is tangential to the book’s theme, but the more I think about the four questions, the more I see a big difference between how I look at childrearing and how others may. When others were complaining about having their kids home all the time for Covid, I was (mostly) enjoying my well-behaved, creative kids. I’ve put a lot of work into raising them, and obviously all kids are different, but I think that the idea that you have to choose rigidity or self-expression is one that is fatally flawed.

As it relates to the book, I think it’s important to distinguish between the qualities of children and those of adults. I don’t expect adults to behave in the same ways as kids (and I am someone who treats children like adults) - but their relationships to those in authority are very different at that time in their lives and for good reason. What I am saying is that there may be important distinctions not found by their surveys amongst those who favor a progression from more authoritarian to less as kids grow up.

4. The book routinely says things like this and doesn’t back them up: “At its root, someone's worldview is a reflection of their primal alertness to the relative safety or danger of their environment.”

5. This isn’t just a problem with this book, but a problem with studying anything using surveys - People lie on surveys. Even though they are anonymous, even though there’s no reason to, people lie. And in a softer sense they, shall we say, answer aspirationally. I have done it myself. And I am a very introspective person who tends toward honesty.

A great example from the book is that, when asked about their willingness to have a relative marry a person of a different race, only 16 percent opposed it in 2016. I don’t buy it – we have seen more racism than this. Even more saliently, 8 percent supported white nationalism, but only 5 percent wouldn’t vote black president. So 3% of people are very confused about what being a white nationalist means.

I am keeping in mind for myself, 20% is a big number here. As in, 20% of respondents who answer fluidly behave like the fixed. This isn’t like a policy opinion poll. I of every 5 fluid people differing from the norm is big. And even more fixed people differ from their norms.

To put it in context, that means that statistically, 1 of 5 allegedly fluid people sitting around talking thinks that blacks and whites would be equal if blacks just worked harder. Those people are not just a little different from the norm.

6. “But because people’s identification with a party and an ideology today is so strongly driven by their worldview, we can safely assume that people’s worldviews are pointing them towards certain life decisions, even if it is not possible to link findings directly to them.“

I call handwaving. You know what they say about safely assuming.

Throughout the book, I repeatedly thought, “It’s way more complicated than that. This is hand-wavy flim-flam.” For instance, many people don’t really choose where to live – they simply stay where they have grown up. So we shouldn’t attach full agency to that statistic. There are a LOT of democrats in the suburbs. This is not as black and white as presented.

7. A total side note, but why are we quoting Rick Santorum? Does anyone respect Rick Santorum?

8. It was hard to tell how often they were ignoring areas of agreement between “sides” without more detailed numbers. But the discussion of vehicle choices is a good illustration of how it bothered me.

There WERE consensus top sellers – let’s not ignore those, gentlemen.

Car preferences have functionality! If you live in the country it makes more sense of a truck. If you have to park in the city it makes more sense to have a Prius (they are correlating these with population density). (They do acknowledge this later in the book, but that’s not good enough.)

AND it matters to you what your neighbors drive – this is mammoth not worldview.

9. In the chapter “A Day in the Life,” the “Redds” and the “Bleus” both seem liked total tools to me. In a book concerned about political divides, to have a chapter exaggerating them so strongly seems misguided.


Interesting things from the book:

The extremeness of the views matters, as well as the frequency and ease of change. (BLM, for example. And interracial marriage)

The most interesting thing to me in this book is that minorities vote democratic despite falling into the “Fixed” category in greater numbers. Attacking their tribe is driving them away from a party they would likely otherwise support. And republicans have gone all in.

It is interesting to me that Republicans turned against immigration simultaneous with the raise the rise of Fox News. The book does not make this observation, but the dates match.

An interesting experiment exposed Asian-Americans to microaggressions and then assessed their political leanings immediately after – those who had been exposed were more likely to lean fluid. So the take away here is that we should expose Asian-Americans to microagressions right before they enter the voting booth? (That was a joke).

This book does not discuss, but goes hand-in-hand with, the mammoth. People care a lot whether or not people like them and that affects both their political and non-political views and choices. I think the book does not give enough weight to that aspect of political AND cultural inclinations.

Taxi drivers, comedians, and chefs are some of the most democratic professions. I’d like to see a study about whether or not having a sense of humor correlates with being a democrat.


Me yelling at the “Fixed” mindset:

“In addition to driving decisions about the external world, deferring to a leader’s judgment removes what could be crippling uncertainty in the mind. Following directions from established authorities like presidents, parents, and preachers can impose order as well.“ No no no no no no no

Traditions - fergoshsakes - fix the things that are wrong and keep the things that work this doesn’t need to be a thing.

I hate doing things just because that’s the way they always been done. Hate hate hate it.

The group that I put people wearing MAGA hats into is “people willing to be lied to.“

You are bothered when you encounter someone who speaks little English. I agree that those situations can be hard… but do you want everything to be easy? Aren’t you bored?!


Just yelling:

I don’t fit in your categories! Don’t put me in a box! ☺

How much do people judge themselves by their own half-bushel? Is there data about the untrusting being untrustworthy?

I know this is what the other side would say as well, but their policies are “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being“

Questions for the book:

How much is this comes from the tendency of the fixed to watch Fox News? There a bunch of things I would like to know whether correlate… but I don’t want to know badly enough to read their published articles. I can’t take any more of this.


Things about me (and it was interesting to compare myself to the positions, likes, dislikes and everything else they described in the book):

I have what feels like a strong startle reflex but virtually no gag reflex... so again, a moderate? (Talking to other currently flaming liberals they had the same pattern.)

Interestingly the examples they give correlate pretty well with my instinctive attitude. My startle reflex is strong and I would say I have overcome racial disparity (unconscious negative feeling toward other races). My gag reflex is nonexistent and I’ve never had a problem with homosexuality or same sex marriage.

It’s hard to say how much came from extremely limited exposure to other races. As the book points out, fear of the unknown is a human survival trait. But I feel that I am above average at assessing actual vs. perceived risk (as an adult).

Eric - if a person’s nervous system is hardwired to make them more wary rather than less developing an introverted and risk-averse personality can help him to limit the number of stressful situations they have to experience.

I am open and conscientious. Super open AND super conscientious. This explains a lot about me. Especially since my conscientiousness is not mainly based in avoiding danger, but because duty is so important to me.

And to me, there’s a difference between conscientiousness about things that matter - getting to work on time, fulfilling responsibilities, keeping things clean that matter, respecting laws that matter etc. I do not give a flying f*** how tall someone’s mailbox is or what color they paint their house.

Jonathan gives me a 50 of 100 rating on strictness - his words. I really do keep coming up moderate in this book’s eyes.

I sense that part of why I am an independent is definitely that I don’t like to identify with authority structures.

My enjoyment of nuanced and complex thought is completely fluid, as are my enjoyment of the new and different and my rejection of a literal reading of the bible or an originalist interpretation of the constitution. Have they READ the bible? Slavery much. And terrible treatment of women. Or the constitution? Also slavery much. And the women thing too.

Customs are boring boring boring.

I like Cracker Barrel and Chick-fil-A; I shun Whole Foods, and I don’t drink beer or coffee. I am honestly frustrated by small minded people of both parties.

We have a Jonathan and an Alex I am a moderate again.

I don’t feel like I’m neurotic, and to the degree that I am neurotic I don’t feel like having lots of choices helps me. I feel like having a few choices helps me.

Being organized about dinner is way more than important to me than being creative about dinner.

I feel like I don’t judge people who watch Duck Dynasty and certainly not The Amazing Race. I judge people in general who watch a lot of reality television or a lot of television at all.

“Americans don’t really have to think at all to know that someone is either with them, or against them, when it comes to politics, even without any overtly political information.“ This is a TERRIBLE thing to assert, and I don’t feel this way. I guess they would argue that that is because I am a nuanced liberal. But I know that you can enjoy a good steakhouse and drive an SUV and still be somebody I would enjoy spending time with.

“But the degree of bias depends on the strength of their feelings.“ AND the depth of their knowledge… we are cognizant actors!

Just because you hate something it does not automatically follow that you will work as hard as you need to work to see the political world the way you want to see it rather than how it is.“ I can hate Donald Trump with the white hot passion of 1000 suns… that doesn’t make me blind to truth. It’s my biases and my efforts to overcome them that make a difference.

This book just isn’t me. I do confront unpleasant truth (including what’s in this book – and there ARE some unpleasant truths in there). I want to know the truth. I’m just a moderate. It’s just the world won’t let me be any more.

Page 145 - starting to agree with book - Stockholm syndrome?

“When peoples political outlooks and their outlooks on life are intertwined the choice of which side to align with is usually pretty clear.“ I could give a damn what kind of coffee somebody drinks or frankly what kind of music they listen to.

I f***ing love challenging existing norms

[Susanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one is an eye opener: a pair of political scientists present a theory about how our basic world view ("The world is a dangerous place and we must be continually on our guard, " or "The world is a beautiful place and most people are good.") affects every part of our social and political lives. Much to think about here. I thought at first that it was too simplistic to have merit, but in the end it made perfect sense.

[Leonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book explorers the habits and characteristics of conservatives and liberals, fixed or fluids, reds or blues, Republicans, and Democrats, and reminds us of how large the divide is that separates us. It includes a lot of statistics and other somewhat technical information. It took me longer to read it than I thought it would.

[Jo Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a complex, depressing book for complex, depressing times. It is obvious to all that these are extremely polarized times and the authors try to give some insight into the degree of polarization and the evolution of our divisions since the 1960s in the United States.

The premise by two political scientists/authors is that our world view drives all our choices, including political parties. What is meant by world view is explored throughout the book. The authors divide people into two groups: fluid or fixed. Of course, there are many gray areas and no one is 100% either or. Also, race is a factor. The bulk of the book is based on Caucasian answers and the authors freely admit that more research is needed in order to make generalizations about people of color in the US.

In addition to fierce tribalism, Americans have an appalling lack of knowledge of government and politics. Therefore, they do not have coherent philosophies on governing.

The current heightened divisions affect every sphere of our lives to the point we are having less and less contact with those of differing beliefs. Hence, we are not building understanding of other perspectives and our prejudices are continuing. We are isolating ourselves residentially, professionally, educationally, politically, and religiously to the point commonalities are not being found with "the other side" which is regarded as the mortal enemy who must be beat whatever the cost.

The result is that "truth and objectivity are being sacrificed on the altar of partisanship." The role of the media is explored in promoting the divisions, lack of understanding and perspectives of others, and outright lies. Also, the human ability to rationalize and interpret information to fit their beliefs is strong to the point that when confronted with facts, people use "mental gymnastics" to avoid admitting they are wrong. So, biased media, rationalization, and "cherrypicking" facts has led both opposing sides to firmly believe they are right. There is no room for middle ground and/or compromise.

The rise of the current US president is explored to some extent towards the end of the book. A few hypothesis are made about the future.

All in all, a book that provides insight into current events but not necessarily comfort!

[Kelly Staten · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little heavy and geared more toward academics. At times, my eyes got a little glassy when reading. The data was interesting to look at - people were grouped by political party depending on what TV they watched, where they got their coffee and what car they were likely to drive. But like many others who may read this book, found some of that science to be wrong when applied to my own political leanings.

[Georgette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Admittedly, this is the first and only book on politics I have read thus far. Having said that, the worldview hypothesis presented by the authors really resonates with my own observations and conversations with a close relative whose worldview and politics are different from my own.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

A big grand theory of all politics type of book that largely succeeds. Their thesis is that the dysfunction and polarization of US politics today is a product of the increasing alignment of worldview and party. Worldview is a deeper and in many ways more useful metric for moral/political/social views, instincts and behavior, especially when compared to ideology, which is a poor predictor of people's behavior (plus, most people just don't pay that much attention to ideology).

This book breaks people's worldviews, using a variety of survey data, into fixed and fluid. Fixed people desire "cognitive closure" in that they generally prefer with tradition, routine, and familiar experiences and are skeptical of the new. FLuid people love newness and complexity and get bored/skeptical with tradition. The key cause of this difference that Heatherington identifies is how dangerous each side sees the world as. This is both reductive and very interesting. The argument is that fixed people see a dangerous world, making them want to stick to the tried and true and to fear the foreign and unfamiliar. Fluid people, by contrast, don't see the world that way and are more open to new experiences. I didn't see how this would relate to risk taking (I sure am fluid and I sure am not a risk-taking guy), but overall I can see how this would map onto politics.

One of the weaknesses of this book, however, is explaining how these worldviews come into existence in the first place and how they relate to historical change. I think the authors would admit that A. why people are the way they are is the great mystery of existence, and we can only approximate answer to it and B. Their argument is somewhat ahistorical. They do acknowledge that certain changes in context (like a terrorist attack or surge of immigrants) can lead to a shift of some people between worldviews or an intensification of worldviews. Obviously, more people in the 21st century would be fluid given the rise of liberalism, globalization, etc. This might be a slightly unfair criticism given that change over time isn't exactly what these guys are trying to explain, but as a historian I obviously think that's important. I think they could be more specific about where "fluidity" comes from.

Probably the most important insight in this book is that the fluid are a minority in the US and everywhere. Even the "mixed" (people in survey data who land between poles) tend to lean toward the fixed, especially in times of stress. This is something incredibly important for liberals/Democrats to consider when they embrace certain forms of progressivism and/or identity politics; the right may be playing ID politics as well, but they do so in a way that appeals to fixed identities, which has a wider appeal.

THis is a very rich, well-written, and well-argued book that tackles some big questions and makes a real contribution to my understanding of modern politics. Take this gem: Why do evangelicals support Trump so much when he isn't a Christian in any meaningful sense? The answer (or part of it): Evangelicals are highly likely to have fixed worldviews, and Trump projects an almost radically fixed worldview. Looking at politics through worldview, like Haidt's moral foundations theory, gets you underneath the surface of things, even if the answers have their own problems. Recommended for people who have enjoyed writers like Klein, Haidt, and Joshua Greene.

[Brittany · Rating 4 out of 5]

There wasn't a lot in this book that I haven't read before, but it is a pretty succinct summary of high-level issues affecting American politics right now.

"You're making an insidious attempt to replace our periods with your question marks."

"Former vice president Dick Cheney, the proud father of a lesbian daughter, springs to mind as real-world evidence. Rob Portman, Republican senator from Ohio, had a similar "conversion" on the issue after one of his sons came out." I find it rather annoying that people keep using people who begin accepting (or claim to accept) gay people once a close family member comes out as evidence for this sort of thing. The Coddling of the American Mind mentioned it as well.

"Maybe it shouldn't be that surprising. Americans romanticize the amount of support black civil rights enjoyed during the heyday of the civil rights movement. While it would be nice to believe most whites favored change, while only an intense minority of dead-enders blocked the poplar will, the truth is that most Americans at the time were unenthusiastic about the idea of fully extending civil rights to African Americans. A May 1961 poll asked people whether they approved of the Freedom Riders' efforts. Only 22 percent did. The same poll asked whether sit-ins and other demonstrations would help or hurt blacks' chances of integration. Twice as many said these efforts would hurt: 57 percent, compared to 28 percent who said they would help."

"My grandmother heard what she wanted from a leader who promised simple answers to complicated questions. She chose not to hear and see the monstrous sum those answers added up to."

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A frustrating book. Yes: political polarization by “worldview,” as the authors put it, is a pervasive and important phenomenon, and the authors do a good job presenting the mountains of evidence that all sorts of personal traits cohere along political axes in shockingly rigid ways.

I wish they had stopped there. Those insights could’ve been (and probably were) conveyed in a great political science paper or a few essays. To turn it into a book the authors get lazy and venture well outside what is supportable by rigorous evidence, and beyond their zone of expertise. Issues include lack of serious attention to role of racial appeals in US politics and blind reliance on overgeneralized personality categories.

Maybe this was more compelling when it first came out a few years ago, and the central observations are all now just blasé to people paying attention.

[Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was really thought provoking up until around the fifth chapter where everything started to seem redundant. Beginning of it was great!!! I just started to get bored later on because I felt like nothing new was being presented. Also — the authors’ biases became more apparent the further I read. The validity in the science becomes shaky to readers when bias is strengthened throughout the book. For me, this made me leery to agree with some of the points later on.

[Caleb Lagerwey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic and insightful look into the ways American political opinions have been grafted onto worldviews (Fixed vs. Fluid) and the myriad ways those cultural icons inform our political discourses, or lack thereof, in the contemporary United States. While the authors show their partisan bias toward the end of the book, their analysis rings true throughout all the chapters and presents stentorian calls and challenges for people from all parts of the political spectrum.

[Charles McBryde · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of America’s growing worldview divide that I’ve ever encountered. A frank exploration of the psychological and circumstantial factors that divide liberals from conservatives and, increasingly, Democrats from Republicans.

[David Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was recommended by my good friend and sometime partner in crime in pro bono civil rights litigation battles, Bryan Hetherington. Brian's brother Marc is one of the authors. Knowing Bryan is a genius I figured it must be worthy of attention. Indeed it is.

The authors Hetherington and Weiler are professors at North Carolina. The catchy title implies that if you’re a conservative, you’ll tend to buy an American-made truck and have a dog, whereas if you lean left, you’ll have a cat and a hybrid or foreign car. Ok, my wife drives a Lexus hybrid and I drive a super beater rusted workin' man Ford F-150. So hey we're exhibit A. Not exactly.

The study is heavily data driven in the vein of today's data driven analytics and is absolutely fascinating. There is no moralizing or judgement simply basic explanation of data on how people think about politics based on certain characteristics. The data shows that conservatives tend to be more certain that danger lurks just around the corner and more attuned to survival—thus the big growling vehicle and the big dog. Liberals, conversely, tend to think that people are inherently good and that the world is mostly a safe place. Although it is not quite so binary. Most people are neither wholly conservative nor wholly liberal in their worldviews, though their positions tend to harden when confronted with someone who doesn’t agree with them. Boy, don't we see that play out on social media.

Here is an example of the questions. "Although there are a number of qualities that people feel children should have, every person thinks that some are more important than others. I am going to read you pairs of desirable qualities.

"Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have.

Independence versus respect for elders
Obedience versus self-reliance
Curiosity versus good manners
Being considerate versus being well behaved"

How you answer these questions will better explain your political affiliation than how you think about the government’s role in healthcare or the economy.

Despite the old political maxim "It's the economy stupid", voter behavior is much more nuanced. Voting is not driven by a rational cost/benefit analysis of the issues, and a decision about where one’s self-interests and beliefs best align with a party or a candidate. Rather, we vote on the basis of our worldviews.

We fall into 3 basic categories from left to right - fluid, mixed and fixed. The fixed primary concerns revolve around stability, security, predictability, and definite standards. The fluid prioritize progress and are willing to navigate complexity and embrace nuance. The mixed can lean slightly right fixed or mixed. The fluid tend to like more total information and to see all angles before deciding, the mixed are more receptive to contravening information and adjusting course.

Once the mixed believe they’ve seen sufficient information, they like to make decisions and move onto the next issue. Adjusting course, however, is a little more difficult. They are action oriented.
Times of stress push the mixed to be more like the fixed, outright fear pushes even the fluid rightward. Hence we should be vigilant to the tactic of political machinations for fear mongering.

Now to the piece regarding electability. This gets really interesting. Percentages within populations tend to break down as:

16% - Fixed
26% - Mixed leaning Fixed
26% - Mixed with no bias
19% - Mixed leaning Fluid
13% - Fluid

While considering nothing about the correctness of policy and everything about electoral success, think about this: 58% are either in the Mixed to Fluid range. As the Mixed will favor policy slightly right of center, and a majority of the total electorate are in the Mixed or further right, it seems that Progressives can’t win the masses except through the short term near sighted exclusionary tactics of Republicans. As Republicans use these tactics for geographical advantage, Progressives can’t adequately counter in the Electoral College or Senatorial quests.

Democrats have less room for error, must be more savvy, and need more reach across the spectrum. They need broad appeal. They need to avoid fear inducing speech and issues. They should avoid wedge issues and be ready with robust defenses. They need to appear decisive. They need to show they understand problems, have answers, and are moving on to the next problem. While many claim emotional appeal drives campaigns, having answers drives peace of mind, and peace of mind is an emotion.

This was a fascinating book, maybe we could convince Bryan to bring his brother to Rochester for a one on one session with a group of friends.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

Examining the reasons behind the growing cultural divisions in the western world and United States in particular has become a cottage industry for journalists over the last decade. In Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America's Great Divide sociologists March Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler set out to look at not only the data demonstrating the division of Americans into warring political-cultural camps but also at some of the nefarious results that are happening because of this.

The title of the book provides an impossible to misinterpret preview of its content. Strong correlations are able to be made with political leanings just by looking at the consumer choices of Americans along the lines of what type of vehicle they favor. A more eco-conscious individual would be more likely to buy a Prius and therefore more likely to be supportive of left of center policies, while those purchasing a pickup might be more concerned about protection from harm in the event of an accident and therefore be more prone to have a fearful view of the world, resulting in more likely support for conservative/authoritarian public policy.

The authors divide consumers and voters into two groups--the “fixed” and fluid”--and use numerous examples to demonstrate just how bifurcated American life has become. While the fluid are less likely to be religious and more likely to embrace diversity and the newness in ideas, the fixed are more likely to be comfortable with the known and less willing to go with the novel.

The authors determined from analyzing studies that those with a fixed worldview have a slight numerical superiority over the fluid in the general population, and the roughly forty percent of American who are not fully aligned with either are more likely to identify with the fixed worldview on issues like race and immigration. This also holds true in some European countries, as places like Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Belarus have provided recent examples of how appeals to cultural rigidity can prove a boon for right wing, autocratic leaders.

In times of stress, such as after a terrorist attack or spike in crime rates, even the fluid may be willing to embrace harsh tactics that the fixed were already more likely to back in the first place. This concerns the authors in the realm of civil liberties which can be thrown away by fear-based demagoguery.

Some of the data looked at by Hetherington and Weiler is sort of innocuous. Things like whether one listens to country music (rural and therefore likely to be more conservative-leaning) or rap music (urban and therefore likely to be more liberal) or whether a person is more likely to enjoy experimenting with ethnic cuisine (making them more likely to be open to new things and Democratic-leaning) or is easily disgusted by out-of-the-ordinary foods (resulting in higher odds of being a Republican-leaning voter) or whether they prefer Starbucks (more left-leaning) or Dunkin’ Donuts (more rightward) really are not that big of a deal. Sort of interesting to hear about, but in most cases not really surprising or earth shattering sort of information.

Where the book becomes more serious is in discussion of the ramifications of how twenty-first century Americans are choosing to shop, live, and work. The authors explain that as recently as thirty or forty years ago it was not unusual to see liberal Republicans in the northeast or on the west coast and conservative Democrats in the south and Midwest; in their view this lesser ideological rigidity within parties was actually a good thing. Since it promoted compromise and did not make voters feel they absolutely had to choose between parties, there was less of an all-or-nothing aspect to politics. There is nothing inherently logical between how one feels about an issue like abortion on the one hand or tax, foreign, or environmental policy on the other.

But with the onset of what Hetheringon and Weiler describe as “worldview politics," the increasing willingness of the fixed or fluid to identify with a single party on this basis alone has increased drastically. Warring camps have been created which produce situations where voters end up supporting or opposing policies based solely on whether their party supports or opposes them. This is thanks to “worldview politics” and the silos many Americans live in that are produced by only interacting with people who reinforce what they already think.

The introduction of partisan cable media has worsened this in their view, and they point out the huge growth in Republicans and Democrats who claim they would oppose their children marrying someone from the opposing party (an opposition which barely existed half a century ago). Party-ism has become an unfortunate thing in the United States, as has the willingness to view political opposition less as opponents and more as enemies. That America is one of the only nations in the world where a sizable minority of the population rejects the science of climate change is held out as a prime example of how informational silos have produced disagreements not just over policy but the existence of facts and objective truth.

The growth of authoritarianism movements in the Western world is one negative outcome of this polarization. Since essentially half the country will oppose the other half’s candidate no matter what, unfortunate situations such as that which occurred in the U.S. in 2016 will take place when one side is, under almost no circumstances, unwilling to consider any alternative to their own side’s candidate. Even when one candidate is open about their contempt for international democratic norms and flaunts their disdain for rules-based governance, they might still be narrowly elected (as in 2016) due to one side’s absolute demonization of their political opposition.

Almost anything can and will be overlooked and excused away in this scenario in the ultimate quest to win at all costs.

The president elected that year and the nativist, autocratic nature of his campaign raised particular alarms for the authors about what sort of future the West might be looking at if this sort of bifurcation of party by worldview continues. By preying on fear and engaging in attacks on minority out groups-be they minorities in the racial, religious, or sexual orientation and gender identity sense-designed to demonize and divide in order to gain votes, candidates can fan cultural tensions instead of calming them.

Although this book was written early on in the MAGA movement, its analysis in this realm unfortunately looks like it is going to be correct regarding the near-term future of the right wing party in the United States.

Many readers will appreciate the amount of granular statistics brought to bear on America's division into partisan camps, an unfortunate circumstance which has accelerated since the turn of the century. People's identification of their politics with their very identity and culture has created a combustible situation that is deeply unpleasant to read about but nevertheless one which can no longer be ignored.

The authors seem pessimistic about things in the short term, but they do offer some ways out of this situation. The importance of exposing people to points of view that might contradict their own and of getting to know people who think differently is mentioned. This might not change minds, but it can lower the temperature and humanize opposition as not just some "other" that must be annihilated every election year.

Readers who were fans of the former president will probably not finish the second half of this book. It is in this half that the authors make clear their discomfort with the authoritarian drift of the GOP in particular over the last decade, although they do point out that a network like MSNBC does, like Fox, deserve censure.

But a key distinction is that while nearly half of Republicans list Fox as their top news source, Democratic voters do not have a source that comprises more than 18% of their party's readers or viewers. Studies from 2016 were looked at to show GOP voters were significantly more likely to share (and, it is assumed, fall for) false information on social media than their counterparts in the other party. Having an omnivorous media intake (a mix of local/network TV, cable, and newspapers) is also listed as one way to lower the partisan temperature.

If they do finish Prius or Pickup?, however, those on the right side of the spectrum will also come away informed about just how serious the issue of tribal political partisanship in America is becoming. That is poses threats to democratic governance if allowed to continue unabated is becoming recognized by concerned individuals across the ideological spectrum.

Readers will come away determined solutions are needed for this in the western world sooner rather than later.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Jake M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Prius or Pickup looks at the factors dividing America's public and political apparatus. The authors describe how fixed (security-oriented), mixed and fluid (progressive) worldviews have been fused with politics to create warring conservative and liberal camps. The authors describe the motivations of each camp, how they came to be through polarizing media, and how the mixed camp's alliance with the fixed propelled figures like Donald Trump to power. The authors are successful in untangling the complex history of the American public's relation to politics, and how a traditionally apolitical population now signifies their political loyalties through what they watch, what they buy, where they learn and who they live beside. The book is well organized, fluidly written and applicable to today's political climate. Liberals will learn how support for anti-democratic candidates are not as fringe as they think, and readers outside America can learn of how politicians in any nation can utilize cultural pressure points to access power.

[Brenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

By asking 4 questions about preferred qualities in children, data can generally predict people who have a fixed vs a fluid mindset. The authors are both clear that they fall into the fluid category, and while sometimes their statements about people with a fixed world view seemed harsh, they also show no mercy about the hypocrisies of people with more fluid world views.

Fixed people generally have a more fear-based understanding of the world (i.e. the world is a dangerous place) vs. the fluid who have a brighter outlook (i.e. the world is a beautiful place to explore). Even this general explanation got me thinking about the strong reactions people are having to issues like immigration and helped me to have a bit more empathy for people with more fixed mindsets because they are probably genuinely afraid (though I do not condone xenophobia, hate speech, or racism and do not personally believe there is anything to fear). It helped me to take my immediate gut anger reaction down a notch which seems like a good thing in these polarizing times. Like this morning, I saw someone with a Thin Blue Line sticker on their car. Normally, I mutter something under my breath when I see those stickers because I often immediately interpret them to be inherently racist, but this morning when I saw it, I wondered if the person in that car was living their life from a place of fear.

The authors also pointed out that people who are "mixed" (in between fluid and fixed) are actually a lot closer to the fixed worldview than the fluid and that when tragedies happen (like 9/11) and people become fearful, even the more fluid people become more fixed in their mindsets. This is concerning in a world with ever-increasing instability.

Ultimately, the book made me more curious about people with more fixed world views and showed how world view affects our politics now more than ever. I'm not doing a good job of getting at the heart of this book, but ultimately, it helped me to realize I do extrapolate politics from people's world view (i.e. when I see someone in a pick-up, I do immediately have a bias and think that they are probably more conservative, just like they may have the opposite reaction to me, even though the type of car we drive is not inherently political). I don't want to perpetuate hatred with my own world view, and I think this book was a good reminder to check my gut reactions while also stopping hatred in its tracks when I see it in the world on a personal and political level.

It was a bit taxing at times because of the repetitive nature of the data (I swore they often repeated lines from the previous paragraphs as I listened to it on audio), and while some of the data was "fluffy" (i.e. Democrats generally prefer cats. Republicans prefer big dogs), the central message really got me thinking and will be something that I come back to for a long time. I would say that this is a good read for anyone who is curious about why we are so divided at this point in history.

[Tim Sneath · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strong premise, well-backed up by quantitative research, that builds towards a compelling case that the US political landscape has fundamentally shifted over the last decade. Hetherington and Weiler posit that the spectrum is now split between those who have a "fixed" world-view, who have retreated for the safety and comfort of things they know, and a "fluid" group who are less fearful of the world and more open to assimilating new ideas and cultures. He further posits that these groups are for the first time aligned solidly along partisan lines.

The first half of the book is stronger than the second half: partly because the argument is stretched too thinly over 200 pages, and partly because rather than identifying solutions to the polarization of our system, the authors shift gears to a rather unhelpful polemic against the fixed mindset that swept Trump to power.

Even while I might agree with their argument, it would have been more constructive to identify potential ways in which the divide might be bridged. Those with a progressive / fluid world-view have themselves a role to play in the current climate, as they have failed to address the increasing imbalance between urban America and the "flyover states" and the plight of those in rural parts of the world who feel forgotten. Both sides, it seems, have lost sight of the promise of America that Obama so eloquently described in his 2004 DNC address:

"Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there is the United States of America.

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and yes we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

[Laurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hetherington & Weiler put forth the theory that there are two types of people: fixed, and fluid. The fixed have a world view of danger: people and nature are out to get them. Fluid folks, on the other hand, find the world a delightful place to explore, filled with good people. Fixed people drive giant four wheel drive pickups or Hummers, keep big dogs, and prefer plain coffee from Dunkin Donuts over fancy Starbucks concoctions. Fluid folks drive small cars that are less damaging to the environments, like cats, and love trying new cuisines. Oh, and fixed people tend to live rural, while fluids congregate in the city. Most people are NOT pure forms of either, but land somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Now, there is nothing wrong with being on either end of the spectrum, but… in America, these tendencies are being used by the major parties to divide people and gain support. This is what’s behind the growing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican Party stresses the dangers in the world, and that they are the only candidates that can protect the people of the USA; Democrats try to say they are supporting programs like the ACA that will benefit all classes. Now, this is a broad brush to paint the political/sociological scene with, but it seems, in most cases to be true.

And it’s getting worse- the two sides don’t get together very often. If the fixeds and the fluids worked together, partied together, went to school together, they would learn that the other side isn’t really the bunch of idiots they think they are. Hard to do when the Powers That Be try to demonize the other side.

Are they right about this? Yes, I think- partly. The chasm between sides is getting worse every day. And it’s obvious that the divide is being used by said Powers That Be. Is it quite as simple as that? Well, no, I don’t think so. There are a lot of other things affecting the world. But this book is a great start to understanding the problems. The one problem I see is that the authors are clearly biased towards one side; it happens to be the side I mostly fall into, but it’s going to make it harder for the side they are against to take the book seriously. Four stars.

[Bookphile · Rating 4 out of 5]

What this book did for me: helped me to better understand how Trump got elected, since this is a thing that has baffled me since 2016.

What this book did NOT do for me: make me feel better about the state of the world.

That's a bit tongue in cheek, but it also isn't. I didn't read this book to feel better about the world, I read it to better understand what the hell is going on in American politics. It made me realize that, as someone with a "fluid" worldview, the world maybe doesn't look the way I thought it did. Yeah, it's depressing as hell to wonder if the authors are right and this country isn't making as much progress as I thought it was, but I do think reading it was useful because it helped me understand how different my interpretation of the world is from that of other people. Now I just need to figure out how to apply that knowledge.

Which is, of course, the real question facing most people who are alarmed about the current state of American politics. I read a lot of psychology, and I know how potent a force cognitive dissonance is. What would really be wonderful is if someone could figure out how to get people to not only face their cognitive dissonance, but to really examine it. This would go a long way toward getting people to resist the powerful pull of the politics of fear. I wish people who fall prey to it could see how truly messed up it is that opportunistic politicians and special interests use fear to manipulate them.

Yet I know that the only way for someone to change is for that particular person to decide they want to change. Sadly--and maybe I'm being cynical here--I think most people prefer to make excuses rather than do the hard work of changing themselves. And it is hard, painful work, but if so many people refuse to do it, how else will things get better?

So, yeah, I'll sum this up by saying that while this book did help me reframe things, it did nothing to dispel the pessimism I'm currently feeling about the state of American politics. I really hope I'm wrong, and that Americans are more cognizant of history and what it has to tell us about the dangers of following the path toward nationalism, but only time will tell.

[Michelle Mallette · Rating 4 out of 5]

See my full review at https://mmbookshelf.wordpress.com/201...

Two award-winning professors of political science from the University of North Carolina argue that politics in America has changed over the past 50 years, as voting patterns have slowly shifted to closely align with worldview (one seeing the world and "others" as dangerous, the other seeing diversity as good and the world as generally safe). Each side of this divide sees the other as not only different but dangerous. And the divide is deepening as social connections between the two groups diminish – they live in different places, go to different schools, attend different churches, drink different coffee, and (per the title) buy different cars. With few opportunities to mingle, hopes of bridging of the divide fade. While the bulk of the book focuses on the U.S., a chapter examines the rise of far-right and divisive politics in Europe as well. A short concluding chapter offers some hope for the future, though it would have benefited from more in this area. An interesting and fairly accessible book, it is sometimes heavy reading – I had to put it down frequently for a break. But the overall message is clear: the current American partisanship “is completely out of control”, and the onus is on the people of the United States, not the leaders who simply tap into existing fears and discomforts to get elected, to change things. My thanks to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for the digital reading copy provided through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review.