And this growing racial divide is contributing to a growing ideological divide between supporters of the two parties. The already deep racial divide between the parties is almost certain to increase in future elections as the nonwhite share of the electorate continues to grow. In 2012, according to data from the national exit poll, both Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress received 45 percent of their votes from nonwhites while Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for Congress received only 11 percent of their votes from nonwhites. This has resulted in a growing racial divide between the Democratic and Republican electoral coalitions. Between 19, the nonwhite share of the presidential electorate more than doubled, from 13 percent to 28 percent. Perhaps the most important change affecting the American party system over the past several decades has been the growing racial and ethnic diversity of the American electorate. Along with actions of political leaders, these societal trends have resulted in dramatic changes in the makeup of the electoral coalitions supporting the Democratic and Republican parties-changes that are driving the parties apart. But one cannot understand the rise of polarization without taking into account important changes in American society such as increasing racial and ethnic diversity, the decline of the traditional family and growing economic inequality. Political elites have certainly contributed to the rise of polarization over the past several decades. Fiorina has even compared them to civilians caught in the crossfire of a guerilla war.Дespite its popularity in some circles, however, the elite theory of polarization is deeply flawed. The American people, according to this theory, are innocent victims of the machinations of the polarized political elite. Its popularity may stem from the fact that it largely absolves the public of any responsibility for the polarized state of our nationвЂ™s politics. This elite theory of polarization has found considerable acceptance among pundits and political commentators in recent years. Meanwhile, those who still vote are limited to the polarized choices presented by the two parties even though most of them would prefer more moderate alternatives. Yet, he says, leaders of both parties continue to ignore the views of the moderate majority and to cater to the extremists who dominate party primaries and caucuses. Not only are ordinary Americans no more polarized than in the past, according to Fiorina, they are turned off by the growing polarization of the political class and therefore less likely to support either party or even to vote. But, according to Fiorina, even this relationship вЂњweakens rapidly as one moves beyond the political class to the larger electorate.вЂќ It is this polarized political class, according to Fiorina, that is responsible for gridlock in Washington and for the failure to address what he views as the main threats to AmericaвЂ™s future: debt and вЂњthe specter of rampant inflation.вЂќДЄccording to Fiorina, ordinary Americans today are no more polarized than they were thirty or forty years ago, although they are better вЂњsorted.вЂќ That is, there is a stronger relationship now between party affiliation and ideology than there was then. The central argument of the essay as well as the earlier books is that polarization in the United States is limited to a вЂњpolitical classвЂќ made up of elected officials and a very small group of activists. In his essay, вЂњAmericaвЂ™s Missing Moderates: Hiding in Plain SightвЂќ, Morris Fiorina reprises many of the claims that he and his co-authors have made in books such as Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, and Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. AmericaвЂ™s Polarized Public: A Reply to Fiorina

Polarized politics definition