endanger species in bangladesh, some people have helped them survive, but with fishermen increasingly giving up their trade the otter's future looks a little bleak are. al jazerra, bangladesh. you can read more about all of these stories by logging on to our website. the address al jazerra scott al. [♪ music ] >> maybe you've already been feeling that way, but now you've got data. a report that liberals and conservatives are moving further apart it's the inside story.

>> hello, i'm ray suarez. some want answers. the way people look at how congressional districts are map may have different answers. and others may have another set of earns. the share of republicans who call themselves consistently or mostly conservative has risen, and so has the percentage of democrats who have called themselves consistently mostly liberal. in both cases more than half. is that what you see when you look around, when you look at how politics works and doesn't. that's our focus this time.

>> we believe we can seize the future together. because we're not as divided as our politics suggest. we're not as cynical as pundits believe. we are greater than the individual sum of our ambitious, and we are more than a collection of red states and blue states. we will always be and forever be the united states of america. >> president obama used that line in 2004, and it campaign part of both campaigns. the actual governing, and the rhetoric is quite different. >> i want americans to pay attention where their lawmakers loyalty lie. more tax protection for millionaires or lower student loan bills for americans. this should be a no-brainer. >> the president continues to

ignore laws . he did it again with the release of these taliban leaders. >> partisan confrontation led to a government shut down. parties right and left have thinned the ranks of what they used to call moderates. erik caeric cantor was labeled too liberal. a new pole by the pew research center shows on the left and right were more divided than in 20 years. in

1995. >> what does the middle look like? it's shrinking. in 1994 49% had mixed views. today it's 39%. it's important to point out it's still the largest group of americans there in the mixed middle, but remember it's the partisan who is are the most politically active. these numbers show our politics are getting more polarized and as a result nastier. 20 years ago 17% of republicans had unfavorable views of democrats. and 16% of democrats had u unfavorable views of republicans. those numbers are jumped to 43% and 39%. do redder reds and bluer blues

threaten the well-being of the country? the poll used that word threaten. more than one out of three republicans think so. more than one out of four democrats do, too. can the partisans and the applications they support come together to solve problems? the numbers point to why this is so tough. the majority of partisans believe their side should get the better end of the deal. it's the opposite of compromise. it's called gridlock. >> a country that's making it tough for make a deal. joining us for that conversation michael dimmick, the lead author of the new pew study. alan bromow iwiz. author. and political science at stanford university and author

of "culture war, the myth of a polarized america." we heard the president say, and the quote is our country is not as divided as our politics suggest. >> was i right? >> the majority of americans are not caught up in this kind of ideological, straight-line thinking. that's the view or the perspective of a minority of americans, but it is a growing minority, and a very vocal minority of the american public. when you layer on top of that the partisan antipathy, the us creates these logjams that become problematic. >> one of the graphs in your study that was most striking set out the average republican and the average democrat and compared them to where most of the other party is, and now sizable, huge overwhelming

majorities of the other part are to one side of the average member of the other party. >> exactly. 94% of democrats are to the left of the typical republican and median. 92% of republicans to the right of the other party. to be sure democrats ought to be a little bit to the left of republicans to the right. that's nowhere near the separation we see in congress where it's 100%. but there is growing trend with less overlap of values between the two parties. >> has there been sizable increase, one that is statistically significant of the number of people who not only think they disagree with people on the other side, but actually assign thei bad faith, bad motives, treat them with antipathy, not that they're mistaken. >> that's hard to say because getting good measures that go back over time on that kind of

concept is a little bit trickier, but what we're see something this growing sense of distance between the parties, that people see the parties, or better said the people on one side see the other party as farther away from them. and so at that point they--their sense of trust and competence that the other party is going to act in good faith, that the other party isn't really so misguided that it pose as threat to the nation as we said in this survey question, and it becomes more powerful in your mind. >> professor, you've taken a look at the american people and come up with a very different conclusion. how do you get to your place? >> i think there is less difference than you might think. i think the pew report is a very fine report. it's a very good study of public opinion over the past two decades, but i think there is confusion about it. i think the title is wrong. it's not political polarization, it's political sorting in the

united states, which is very important. what i've pointed out if you think of polarization in political terms it has not change. moderates, independents are still out there. polarization in ideological terms have not changed since the 70's, moderate is still the major category. what has happened, and al has written about this as well, sorting. increasingly liberals are in the democratic party, and liberals in the republica li, and conservatives in the republican party. the people on the consistent left are not extreme liberals. they're consistent liberals. the same thing on the right. the people in the center are not really the middle. they're people who are mixed of inconsistent attitudes. if you allow me to give an

example, the index that under lies these graphs is based on ten questions, like do you favor military strength or diplomacy? do you favor programs for the poor or not? most people don't feel 100% on one side or the other of those dichotomies. 65% military strength, 35% diplomacy. if every question were like that, i'm not going to be in the extreme liberal but consistent liberal even though i'm fairly moderate on those issues. in the news lately the right wing populist. this person may have extreme views, cut off all social programs, deport all immigrants, heavily tax. there is a tendency for people to look at these graphs and determine them to be extreme,

center and extreme right when they're consistent liberals, consistent conservatives, and people in the middle are mixed. >> with the larger number of people identified as independents in 21st century america was it inevitable that the republican and democratic party membership self identified would be more refined, more consistently committed to a certain set of party ideals? >> well, what we've actually seen is that the parties have been falling apart, and independents are actually split the same way democrats and republicans are split. one of the things that the pew report shows very clearly is that independent democrats think very similarly to other democrats, and independent republicans think very similarly to other republicans. when you include those independent leaners in with the

partisan you're left with only 10% or less of the actual electorate who are truly independent, who have no preference for a party. so in fact, we've had analect rate today that is very strongly partisan, and the results of elections show that same thing. i would also like to somewhat take exception to a point that was made about growing consistency and extremism. i think that this increase in consistency over time is very significant politically, and, in fact, it's the same thing that we see in congress. the reason democrats and republicans in congress are pulling apart is because they're voting more consistently. now they get a lot of cues of how to vote, and voters will be asked survey questions don't. the consistency within the electorate is actually very significant, and it's precisely

those consistent democrats and consistent republicans or consistent conservatives and consistent liberal who is intensely dislike the other party. so this growing consistency is very closely related to this growing antipathy towards the opposing party, towards the opposing party's candidates, and even to some extent other americans who oppose th their party. >> we don't have 150 independent members of congress. you have one party or the other for the most part. we'll take a short break. >> al jazeera america presents a breakthrough television event. >> borderland long held beliefs... >> im really pissed off at the mexican government... >> give way to compassion... >> if you feel tired, would you turn around and come back? >> our teams find out first hand

how treacherous the migrants journey can be. >> we make them take a trip of death >> it is heartbreaking when you see the families on top of the rail car borderland continues only on al jazeera america

>> now available, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for survivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now >> welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera. among the issues that saw changes in public opinion,

driving the numbers in the pew study on political polarization is the acceptance ofhomo sexuality and the openness. as the battle conditions in the courts on gay marriage and civil right, and a battle royale shapes up, which side of the debate has the momentum. given not only where things are today as a snapshot, but the movement in the trend, are there demographic forces pushing the numbers that bode well for one questions? >> absolutely. we pointed out in culture, 10 years ago that the attitudes to homosexuality were liberalizing because of the introduction of cohorts no the electorate drove this. gay marriage is not an issue with the younger generation, and in another 10 years we probably

will not be talking about it. imgrags is tough -- immigration is tougher. with the influx of immigrants into the political system, i think the momentum is on that side. the republicans are in a tough place and need to figure out a way to deal with the issue. >> isn't some of that predicated on the idea that once political ideas are hardened, you'll get older. i thought that wasn't true. when people took on mortgages, car payment, husbands and wives, some of their political sentiments changed. >> to some extent that is true. the argument that everything is determines when you are 18 goes too far. we do experience various forms of event. if i'm a mexican immigrant and republicans are badmouthing me, that sticks with me for a long time. it will take a while to make community.

alan, when you look at demographics and the changes in political sentiment - who has the wind at their back? >> i think clearly on the social issues and especially on gay rights issues, that the public is trending in a liberal drcked. we have seen dramatic -- direction. we have seen dramatic change. there's still, however, a big divide between democrats and republicans on the issue. republicans have not trended very much on the issue, not as much as democrats and independence, creating a problem for the republican party because their base, which consists heavily of evangelicals, is on the minority side of this issue, increasingly on the minority side of this issue. on immigration the growing hispanic population and share of the electorate is of benefit to

democrats. unless and until republicans figure out a way to reach out to the growing hispanic group of voters, i think the party will find it difficult to win presidential elections. the problem again is a large part of the base is resistant to the idea of any sort of legalize ace or -- legalisation or path to citizenship for immigrants. >> michael, do you see these as dynamic questions, ones that are moving and shifting or do we reach a dwell point. much the way the country is reaching one with a patchwork of states and different marriage laws. is there a dwell point where everyone will be where they are. to a certain extent. some of the issues have so much momentum behind them generationally, that the balance is cleerp tipping -- clearly

tipping and they'll move. homosexuality is moving that way. some level of reform on immigration is moving that way. our country is more accepting of diversity, less threatened by the idea of people coming to our country and what risk that may pose to our society or economy. i think other issues like the role of government in the economy, the breadth of the social safety net, those are the issues that we have been debating in this nation for 200 years. they are really fundamental. they'll shift a little with the times. different sides will have the advantage at different moments. i don't see the debates away. we'll take a short break. when we come back we'll talk about how people choose to live

real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.

welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. we are talking about political polarization in the united states. the new pew poll examines how polarization impacts the way we choose to live. michael, if you leave a place like michigan or wisconsin, and look for a place to go, you could go to california or choices. >> yes, we are finding that people's preferences about neighbours and environment is linked to political thinking. it doesn't mean they choose explicitly because of the people they want to live with idea logically. broader preferences are coordinated with politics. we asked people if you could choose, would you like to work in a bigger house. or would you rather trade off a smaller house in a neighbourhood where you could walk to those

things. 75% of the liberals say they want the walkable community, closed in neighbourhood. 75% of the consistent conservatives we have been talking about prefer the tradeoff of the larger house, even if it meant driving further. conservatives prefer to live in rural areas and small towns. the liberrals tell us they'd like to live in cities or suburbs. there are a lot of ways in which the preferences - that's not caused by the ideology, but it's associated with the ideology. >> the numbers tell us that when you talk to consistent partisans, they prefer to live with people like themselves, in a neighbourhood made up of people like themselves. what does that tell you? >> i think that's a reflection of this growing polarization that we see in american politics, and people prefer to

talk to other people who agree with themselves, to watch media, where they'll get the views reinforced. they go on social media and if they are politically active, they'll interact mainly there with people who agree with themselves. it's not true of everyone. that's true mainly of people who are the post interested and politically active. the result is that the diverging views are getting reinforced and makes and harder to bring people toot. >> when i looked at the numbers, it occurred to me that that was a luxury, that neighbourhoods 50, 60, 70 years ago weren't shaped by being able to choose who your neighbours were. when i was a kid i lived where we could afford to live, and in a burrow, a county of ethnic burrows.

there were no checks of a potty registration before deciding into. >> i think the evidence that they are is weak. i have been using surveys for 40 years, but we are realising that what people say on surveys doesn't predict behaviour. a couple of colleagues have done a nice study in which they asked people about the neighbourhoods and people say in the surveys they'd like to live with like-minded people. when they studied moves they were dominated by other considerations, like crime rates, schools, safe property values and so forth. in the abstract we'd like to think we would like to live with other people, there are factors move. >> but where people have moved has shifted the political axis in the country. millions moved to texas, arizona, florida, north carolina. have those places changed the

people who moved in, or have the people moving in changed the politics of those places? >> both. i think there are studies showing that the influx of northerners in particular changed the political complexion of the south. also, let's remember that there are other actors out there. there are strategic politicians changing positions in order to take advantage of new possibilities, so we have to bear in mind here that there's two sides of the changes going on. it's what the parties and the candidates are doing and the voters doing. alan, if it was all other considerations, places that are affordable in creating jobs, i guess it would attract a lot of people and maybe that would change their politics. we are not seeing people rushing into certain states in the union, are we? >> we are seeing different rates of growth across different parts of the country, that has more to

do with factors such as immigration. where immigrants come to live, where the job opportunities are. you know, those other factors are very important. nevertheless, there's no question that we are seeing growing geographic pallarisation, we are seeing a growing divide between certain states, counties and congressional districts dominated by one party and those dominated by the other. the percentage of states and congressional districts dominated by one party is great area than it was 20-30 years ago. it means that the senators and representatives and state legislators have really no incentive to worry about the voters who support the other party. they need to be concerned primarily or almost exclusively

with voters in their own party and the primary election becomes a significant election it's not the general, but the primary. >> what are the take aways for rub cans and/or democrats -- republicans and/or democrats as they sit and read the surveys, the graphs - what can they conclut about the teen, the 20s and behind, michael. >> there is a great deal more ideological thinking. it's not a surprise. we are more educated, we have more access to information, the ability to choose from a range of information that may or may not reinforce our views. that combines into a society where the left and the right are more consistent in the way they look at things, and find less middle. it's important to remember that the bulk of the country is not there. the bulk of the country offers the mixed views. >> good to talk to you all.

thanks for joining me. that brings us to the edition of "inside story." thank you for being us with. in washington, i'm ray suarez. . >> an "america tonight" special report from the scene in ferguson, missouri, where an unarmed young man died gunned down by local police. new details about the police officer who shot michael brown and why. >> he's been a police officer for six years. has had no disciplinary action taken against him. >> they ain't never going to do anything about it. >> and the videotape, new questions tonight about what happened inside this convenience store just before the deadly shooting. but will this apply the er