Polarized Politics

I have from time to time offered the view that in understanding political controversies, it is helpful to seek the answer to two questions: who benefits? and who pays?

Today I came across a review of a book by political scientists who have studied and sought to explain polarization. Political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal present their findings in Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Walras-Pareto Lectures).

The review summarizes their findings: "[The authors] succeed in cutting through the seemingly crazed rhetoric of conservative extremists in and out of Congress and reveal what it's really all about: protecting the economic interests of the wealthy....
"What is really interesting about this analysis is that it implies that the sizzling rhetoric coming from the right -- personal attacks on the President, anti-gay rants, renewed heat around abortion and contraception -- is just window dressing. By the evidence of voting records, what the right really cares about is economic issues favoring the affluent -- tax cuts, reduced social spending, reduced regulation of business activity, and estate taxes. This isn't to say that the enraged cultural commentators aren't sincere about their personal belief -- who knows? But the policies of their party are very consistent, in the analysis offered here. Maybe the best way of understanding the extremist pundits is as a class of well-paid entertainers, riffing on themes of hatred and cultural fundamentalism that have nothing to do with the real goals of their party."

Who benefits? Who pays?