tend to be more republican voter, more supportive of donald trump, more opposed to issues like immigration, more supportive of less gun restrictions and things like that. >> and then you have what you've labeled as the exhausted majority. these are traditional liberals that make up 11%, passive liberals 15%, the politically disengaged at 26%, moderates make up about 15% of this group. what do you mean by the exhausted majority? >> the exhausted majority is 67% of the american population. the exhausted majority has three main qualities, number one, they're frustrated with polarization, so they're fed up with the system as a whole, they're fed up with both sides arguing at each other and they don't necessarily identify with the most extreme views of either the left or the right.

they're also more flexible in their views, so they don't necessarily answer the exact same way down the line from issue to issue. they vary their responses from issue to issue. finally, they're forgotten. these are people who don't necessarily have as much of a voice in the american political discourse. partly because they are not necessarily as loud or as engaged in social media. now, this doesn't mean they are not paying attention to what's going on in american politics, some of them, in particular the moderates and the traditional liberals, are very much paying attention, but they also feel disillusioned and not necessarily represented by the political process that's going on in america as a whole right now. >> did you ask these groups if they vote and, if so, what did they tell you? >> yeah, so of the four groups, the traditional liberals and the moderates are more inclined to vote. the middle groups, passive liberals and the politically disengaged, those two groups are much less likely to vote, much less likely to be active in

their communities. some of them don't even know, for instance, who the vice president of the united states is. they're not necessarily very much engaged about what's going on. they hear people talking about politics but this doesn't concern their daily lives so they don't pay much attention. >> david brooks looked at the survey that he did and he wrote, a smarter look at america's give vied. he said we sometimes think of this as a populous moment, he said, but that's not true. my first big take away from hidden tribes is that our political conflict is primarily a rich, white civil war. it's between privileged progressives and privileged conservatives. >> that's right. >> well, explain. >> yeah, so what we have essential on the wings on the two most -- on the most extremes of the ideological spectrum, the progressive activists on the left and devoted conservatives on the right are both more

likely to be white than the other groups and they are also higher income than the other groups. as well, they are more engaged in the political process, so they are more likely to vote than any other segment and they're also more likely to be active in social media, their voices are more likely to be heard. so what we ultimately see, and this is sort of one of the core insights of our study, is that there's this perception in america right now that america is deeply, deeply polarized. for instance, nine out of ten americans right now say that america is the most polarized it's ever been in their entire lifetimes. so we have this idea of a 50/50 divide, red versus blue, cosmopolitan versus rural, liberal versus conservative. what we're suggesting here is that actually that perception is mostly driven by the extremely loud voices at the very, very most extreme ends, only about 15% of the population. whereas the rest of america doesn't actually subscribe to

this intense sense of hatred of the other side and strong identity with their own political views, they're far more interested in compromising and finding common ground. >> david brooks also wrote that, unfortunately people in the exhausted majority have no narrative. they have no coherent fill sof if i can world view. when they get one i suspect it will look totally unlike the two dominant narratives today. >> yeah, that's right. so unfortunately what we have generally the narrative that gets put forward so often is conservatives, very, very, you know, strong conservative values, religious values on the right, and on the left issues of social justice, issues regarding those sorts of things. so what david brooks is suggesting, and i think that this is very much true, is what we need in america is a new

narrative, a new opportunity to unite americans around common values. so -- and this may require a sense of inclusion of people that both sides often see as the enemy, but what our study suggests is that there may be an opportunity if you have -- if you appreciate what the core beliefs that are driving people's views. so, for instance, we asked people how much do you think that people's circumstances are responsible for personal success versus their own hard work and discipline. conservatives are far more likely to say that hard work and effort and discipline are a key to individual success, whereas, people on the left are far more likely to say that luck and circumstance is responsible for individual success. a narrative that engages the exhausted majority may have to acknowledge the complexity of both of those and to not argue one side or the other but to say that both are responsible and to acknowledge both the role of

luck in people's lives and the role of personal responsibility. >> another example that david brooks gives is of this exhausted majority, 80% say political correctness is a problem and 82% say the same about hate speech. >> that's right. we do see a sort of consensus among americans that there are -- that there are issues that they feel don't represent them at both extremes. the idea that people think that hate speech is a problem suggests that people do think that people should be more sensitive about certain issues in america. there are topics that are still very much important, there are aspects of injustice that are happening to underrepresented minorities in america today. at the same time they think that sometimes the idea that 80% of americans think that political correctness is a problem suggests that at times they think that this hypersensitivity to even just saying the wrong thing may ultimately be

counterproductive to making progress on these issues because it stops people from having the kinds of important conversations that they need to have to move the country forward. >> so, then, what do you do with this survey? what are your recommendations? >> yeah, so our recommendations are kind of different depending on who we are talking to. so if we are talking to the average news consumer, the important thing for someone who reads the news ask to make sure that you have at least some voice in your daily news feed or whatever it is that you use to read the news, that you don't necessarily agree with. if you are just getting news and you are reading the news all the time that only confirms your own point of view, then you are not engaging with the important ideas on the other side. you have to find a voice or a news source that you might disagree with, but you nevertheless respect. there's also -- we also need to encourage a sense of more respect, good faith and dialogue in the -- among the people in

the exhausted majority. just by knowing that there are 67% of the majority that feels this way, that doesn't feel like they subscribe to these extreme views on the wings, it's an opportunity 230r people to look around and say, oh, i'm not the only one who feels as though this intense polarization doesn't represent me, and that might be an opportunity to create more conversation and more awareness. finally for political leaders, knowing that there is a group of americans that really want to see instead of this incredibly divisive rhetoric, an opportunity for people -- for political leaders to say there is a whole group of americans here who just don't feel as though their story is being told, that they are being seen and spoken to in the american conversation. so for political leaders there is an opportunity to create and put forward a narrative and a dialogue that engages this exhausted majority and that might be the key ultimately to political success and moving the country forward. >> we are talking about

polarization in this country, tribalism, a new survey done by more in common. we will take your questions and comments on this. let's go to cy who is in akron, ohio, a democrat. >> hi. democrats and republicans are united about the love and protection of animals, but this isn't reflected in the senate and house. 51 republican senators voted to allow trophy hunters into our national wildlife refuge to murder bear cubs in their dense and shoot mammals from planes. not a single democrat senator voted for that and in the house 220 republicans voted for the murder and only five democrats did. in addition, 12 republican attorneys general have filed a lawsuit to oppose giving bigger cages to factory harmed hens. i guess i'm saying anyone who is

planning on voting for an incumbent congressman or woman, should know that 90% of them have voted for bear cub murders. >> okay. we will go to john who is in grand forest, north dakota, a democrat. hi, john. >> hi. all this tribalism stuff and polarization is fine and dandy, but on this bombing stuff, the only people that are going to benefit from that -- this are the russians. they're still in it because trump let's them be in it. >> what are you referring to, john? >> the bombings. >> what do you mean, though? the only people that benefit is the russians? >> well, they are still in our elections. they even said, yeah, they are still there. >> okay. >> right? >> okay. all right. john in north dakota there, a

democrat. you talked a little bit about what your survey means for political leaders. i want to show our viewers and have you respond to brookings institution. in may they had an event at the state of american democracy and brookings thomas mann discussed the difficulty of governing in this multi-cultural society. take a listen. >> it's really hard governing a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society in which a portion of that society feels itself outnumbered, at least in the future, and suffering, whether true or not, as a consequence of that. we don't have examples, i think, around the world of such successes, so it's bound to be difficult, but i would -- i

would submit if the economic conditions were different that the pressure on the cultural would be vastly diminished. >> what's your reaction to hearing that? >> i think he's absolutely right. i mean, america is a very, very big country, it's one of the most diverse racially and socioeconomically in the world, and so there is an incredible challenge as americans that we have for finding unity. i think that that diversity is both at the same time one of the greatest challenges politically and also one of the greatest strengths. it's an opportunity for people to learn from each other. there is an american exuberance and an interpersonal energy that comes from the fact that people are constantly encountering people that look different from them and that think different from them. so i agree that it is one of those sources of the biggest challenges for america and it's

also an opportunity for america to be different and to move ahead in the world in a way that's unique. >> what causes the polarization, the tribalism? >> there's a bunch of different causes. experts have talked about everything from the influence of money and elections, the hyper polarized essence of social media. so what you have -- this has been talked about in other commentary -- is just the fact that everyone when they log on to social media every day, they are just encountering views in their community that serve to enforce and confirm their own particular views about the world. so what you have -- because people are not encountering something that disconfirms their cher i wished beliefs, they end up becoming more and more convinced that their own world view is the only right one, and

they end up becoming more and more convinced that anyone who holds a different point of view must be either evil or ignorant or even inhuman. so the social media aspect definitely plays a role. and then finally, even in traditional media, you have an incentive to have voices that are extremely -- that are on the most extreme sides, that are outraged, that are angry, because this is what's more entertaining. people watch the news as much for entertainment. so people are encountering these voices on media that tend to confirm their views. what we need instead of five second sound bites is longer conversations with people don't have to see each other as the en knee, but as people that maybe have different approaches to accomplishing a common goal. >> lisa is in shreveport, louisiana, a republican. hi, lisa. >> hi, greta. daniel, let me ask you

something. i'm 59 years old and what people need to understand is we need a station where there is a middle ground where people could argue like they used to do and also i can tell you something that upsets me is the fact -- i used to watch megyn kelly on fox and i really enjoyed her because she argued with a lot of people. she went on nbc and made that remark about blackface. i am from the south. that is terrible. that made me sick at my stomach. she should -- she should -- i don't know if she didn't know it, but that's ignorant if she didn't know it, but i have black friends down here and it really hurt their feelings. that's wrong. see, that gets people stirred up, daniel. also, young people like you being young, do you know about that? i mean, have you heard about it before? a lot of young people, like my son, he said, mom, i have never heard about that, you know, and

he said i'm glad i know now. i said never should you say something like that. do you understand what i'm saying? >> thank you. yes. thank you so much for that comment. first of all, i agree with you 100% that what we need -- the first part of your comment, this idea that we need an opportunity for people to have debates in a respectful way when it's not necessarily -- when the goal is not taking down humility in the other person, which is so often the case on news these days, but instead coming -- having a reasonable debate about not people's character, but about their ideas. having a good faith opportunity to say, look, we want the same thing and we just disagree about the best way to accomplish it. so, yes, that's a fantastic point. in terms of the -- megyn kelly's comments the other day, i am aware of those comments. i do think that that was, you know, not a sensitive thing for her to say and she needs to take an opportunity to listen to the people around her and to really

see that while she may have the best of intentions, but there is a sense where she doesn't seem to underlying views is that the context in which her comments are being heard. i agree with you, it's absolutely wrong. >> mark in new york, a democrat. >> yes, hello. >> good morning. >> i was wondering if the guest could comment on if he has seen any part of his study where either side had looked at both sides of the news. >> i'm sorry, i'm not sure if i understood your question. if either side has looked at both sides of the news. >> yeah, either side -- instead of just sticking with one narrative, do they bounce back and forth and try to understand both sides? >> do one of these groups that you've identified -- >> i see. so the people on the extremes tend to be very, very siloed in the news that they get. people -- devoted conservatives, traditional conservatives have a huge viewership and listenship

-- listenership of only a few select forces of news, including fox news and rush limbaugh, some conservative commentators. i would encourage them on both sides, conservatives included, to make an effort to listen -- to find someone who doesn't confirm those views and find someone that you respect, that you might disagree with that will be an opportunity to at least hear another side of the story. this goes for both sides as well. i think that liberals sometimes need to get outside of their very closed bubble and they need to take an opportunity to listen to the other side. now, there's some research in social science suggesting that even when people listen to the other side it doesn't necessarily make them change their minds, it makes them -- sometimes can make them even more convinced of their views, but i think that if you find someone that you respect, who is good faith that you respect, who you believe is actually trying to do the best for the country, then there will be over time an

opportunity for people to have a little bit more complex understanding of the different ways that we can approach progress in america. >> you looked at in this survey different issues and how people responded to them. i will give an example, immigration impact. immigration -- 51% said immigration is good for america, helping sectors of our economy to be more successful and competitive. 49% said immigration nowadays is bad for america, costing the welfare system and using resources that could be spent on americans. sexual harassment, the question that you asked split 49/51. white privilege, 52/48. islamaphobia, 51/49. what do the results of these questions that you asked about these issues, what do they tell you? >> what you're pointing out there are some of the issues that are the most idealogically split in america. again, what this suggests is this picture of left versus

right. but if you ask slightly more detailed questions, if you ask questions -- people questions about specific policy issues, you actually see a fair amount of agreement. for example, if you ask people whether illegal immigrants brought here as children should have a pathway to citizenship, over three quarters of americans think that they should. if you ask people whether we should have stricter gun laws to prevent people from -- to prevent murt mass shootings, again, three quarters or more of americans think that there should be stricter gun laws. so there are aspects, there are issues in america that do unite americans, but these issues are often lost because there is this perception of just us versus them. so the key here is to figure out what those issues are and then to -- to overcome those extreme minorities of people that are in the single digits that are often taking over the conversation and

preventing progress from being made on issues that unite americans. >> if there was a political leader out there who wanted to be the head of this exhausted majority, how could they appeal to this group in a nuanced way on very complicated issues, and get people to go along with them and not have their eyes glaze over? >> so it's all about developing a new language and a new narrative for america. what we have right now, and this is what david brooks pointed out, is that we have a narrative that's focused on social justice, we have a narrative that's focused on oppressed people in america that still are not enjoying the same benefits and the same dignity that other people in america are. this is an important issue, right? these continue to be important issues. on the other hand, what you have are conservatives that have in some cases genuine concerns about what it would mean to have

things like open borders or for all gun rights to be taken away, not that democrats are saying that, and these are also people that are, again, very focused on the idea of personal responsibility. these are people that are focused on the idea -- let me give you an example of another thing that conservatives think. conservatives are far more likely when you ask them about parenting, if you ask them a series of questions about parenting, for example, is it more important for a child to be obedient versus creative, conservatives are far more likely to believe that children should be obedient, they should be more respectful of elders, they should have good manners and these sorts of things. these are really important values and i think that liberals often hear what conservatives are saying in terms of these core values and are chalking this up to maybe ignorance or authoritarian views or even racism or a sense of a desire to sort of maintain the status quo

and maintain white power and continue to -- continue social and structural injustice. this may sometimes be the case, but the point here is that when someone mentions the idea of a child being obedient or the idea of a person being responsible and having control in some sense of their outcomes, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are a terrible person. so to answer your question, greta, a leader who is capable of joining these two narratives and saying, look, as americans it's in everyone's interest, first of all, to ensure that everyone has equal dignity in america. this does not matter what side of the political spectrum you are in. at the same time we can acknowledge that there are opportunities for people to make their own way and to have a sense of control in their environment. so someone that joined -- that makes both people see that the issues on both sides you are talking about are issues that if we can get rid of the sort of caricature that we have of each

side and join them together and say these are issues that everyone can care about, those are issues that someone is going to be endorsing. >> let's go down to georgia, we will talk to john, independent. >> yeah, the reason i'm independent is i have major issues with both parties. i can't stand the republicans' stance on gun control, i can't stand the democrats' stance on supporting teachers unions and not allowing free choice, i can't stand the democrats' attitude towards wanting to tax everybody else to wanting to spend money for their political donors and i don't like the republicans' attitude on abortion. so i'm clearly divided and i do try to listen to c-span a lot because i think you do give the balanced view of people from each extreme, as well as people in the middle, but i also see as

the writer points out that the media has to get ratings, has to get attention and so they're going to look for the extreme statement in order to get people to pay attention to them. as much as i like c-span, my wife doesn't, because it's not entertaining. i don't know what the answer is, mr. writer, to get people to be interested in education. like i listen to juan williams on fox, but i won't listen to hannity on fox. i will listen to cnbc very rarely, but once in awhile they have a few people that makes sense. how do we get people to listen to things they don't want to hear from the opposite side? >> great question. thank you. i think that one thing that's happening in the media is there is a perception that what

americans want is hyper polarized extreme argumentative views and what our data suggests is this is just not the case. there is an appetite in america for a more right hand, respectful narrative. i think that media channels are just overlooking this opportunity right now. so i agree with you right now in this environment you often just get very, very polarized opposites on both sides and you have, you know, very little opportunity for longer-form conversation, but americans want this and i think that media channels are often missing this opportunity because they don't know it. >> we will go to laurel, maryland. kumar is a republican. you are on the air. >> thank you for taking my call. daniel yudkin --

>> all right. kumar, you have to turn down that television, okay, just listen and talk through the phone. >> so, daniel yudkin, i wish you can come on tv every station, every channel should put you on for a half an hour and i am sure we can be unified. >> thank you. >> what you have been saying is so very right. i just have a few points to make and that is i grew up in india and those of us that wanted to come and live the american dream, this country is just the most wonderful country to come to. when i first came and settled down here, it was so wonderful, but things have changed so badly

in these many years. i believe one of the reasons is that there is a cultural variation. it is not homogenous like, let's say, denmark or one of those scandinavian countries. we have the whites, the plaqubl the asians, the immigrants. when we come and become the u.s. citizens, we have to think to ourselves we are americans, and we don't resort to, you know, saying that we are being basically -- you know, being put down upon or looked down upon or that we are being pointed out that we don't belong to this country. all of us are americans. one other point is that

anytime -- yesterday i was listening to c-span journal and some of the people that were commenting on trump would say that he is a liar. everything he says is a lie. but, you know, we have to remember he says about the economy, it is doing well. income has gone up. that is true. unemployment has gone down. that is true. jerusalem has become the capital of israel because of what he did. so there are many issues that when he says, i did this, i did this, i did this, you know, they are all true. so across the board, you know, people call in and say that he is lying. so, daniel, i am very appreciative of what you are saying and keep up the good work and i am sure all of us at some point are going to be united and once again, be very proud of being here in the united states.

>> daniel yudkin -- >> thank you. >> daniel yudkin, what are your thoughts listening to that gentleman's comments? >> i hear someone who came to america, has an enormous amount of pride in this country. i hear someone who has more complex views than maybe either of the sides would acknowledge. this is someone who is trying to maybe see a more complex story in donald trump's accomplishments. you know, we can get into donald trump, that's a whole other issue, but, you know, what i hear from the gentleman's comment is someone who is trying to have a more nuanced understanding of our political moment right now and who is really desiring to get back to a place where we can have respectful conversations between both sides and i think that that's exactly the kind of person that we've discovered is far more common in america than

previously understood. >> we will go to sean, our last phone call here in key west, florida. independent. >> a very pleasant good morning. i'm listening to the discussion and you're trying to find a center point that will appeal to both ends of the spectrum and there is such a work out there called a modest proposal. let me give you an example of it. on global warming they say as lay people we cannot answer the confusing question of global warming, however, we are competent to answer the question of good stewardship of our world. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. thank you very mu