In December, 2008, The New York Times Magazine reported on the emerging science of “genopolitics.” “For years,” Emily Biuso wrote, “scholars have assumed that a voter pulls the lever because she grew up in a voting household or perhaps sat through a lot of civics classes. But this year two political scientists published studies claiming that in addition to environment, genes may be a primary influence on political engagement.”
Biuso was among the first to talk about what has become a bitter dispute within the study of politics, a dispute in which the stakes are high and the potential consequences significant. …
If genopolitical analysis holds up under continued scrutiny, its explanatory potential is enormous. Not only can the field add to the understanding of polarization and the sources of conflicts that have now shut down the federal government, but analyses like these might also shed light on the logic of, say, supporting abortion rights while opposing the death penalty, or opposing food stamps “giveaways” while supporting subsidies to agribusiness.
With so much riding on political outcomes — from default on the national debt to an attack on Syria to attitudes toward climate change — understanding key factors contributing to the thinking of elected officials and voters becomes crucial. [cont.]
Tom Edsall (Columbia U.), New York Times