Democracy in Darkness

Chapter 1 discusses the rise of political secrecy amid intensifying political, social, and geographic polarization. It introduces readers to CWG, the secret political organization at the heart of this book, and the contexts in which this group was formed. The existence of CWG and the prominence of political secrecy evident in national survey data suggest that political polarization and prejudice have driven even mainstream Democrats and Republicans to hide their political beliefs. In turn, this chapter argues that if and how people express their political beliefs depends very much on the context they are in, a phenomenon the author calls “networked silence.” Finally, the chapter details why studying political secrecy is important and how this book will approach this topic.

Migrant Magnets: How Movers Change the Politics of Their New Homes and the Places They Leave: The Case of Whites

Southern movers have both a direct and an indirect impact on the growth of Democratic attachment and support and the increase in geographic polarization within the region. Relatively young, well educated, and progressive, they have a straightforward direct political impact on the places to which they are moving and the places they have left. However, movers also influence the partisan and political orientations of their new neighbors and the neighbors they left behind. Based on “contact hypothesis” dynamics associated with their increased interaction with these progressive newcomers, long-term white residents (stayers) in high-growth areas become more progressive. Conversely, whites in the areas vacated by the young movers respond to the threat facing their declining communities with greater conservatism and an increased attachment to the Republican Party. These migratory effects—both direct and indirect (at least among whites)—undergird the political sea change occurring in present-day southern politics.

Cosmopolitan Immigration Attitudes in Large European Cities: Contextual or Compositional Effects?

Europe is geographically divided on the issue of immigration. Large cities are the home of Cosmopolitan Europe, where immigration is viewed positively. Outside the large cities—and especially in the countryside—is Nationalist Europe, where immigration is a threat. This divide is well documented and much discussed, but there has been scant research onwhypeople in large cities are more likely to have favorable opinions about immigration. Debates about geographic differences generally highlight two explanations: contextual or compositional effects. I evaluate the two with data from the European Social Survey, the Swiss Household Panel, and the German Socio-Economic Panel. Results support compositional effects and highlight the importance of (demographic and cultural) mechanisms that sort pro-immigration people into large cities. This has several implications for our understanding of societal divisions in Europe; most notably that geographic polarization is a second-order manifestation of deeper (demographic and cultural) divides.

Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization?

Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.