The notable increase in immigration in the U.S. over the past half century, coupled with its recent geographic dispersion into new communities nationwide, has fueled contact between immigrants and the native-born across a wider front than ever before. However, the consequences of contact within this context of ethnic diversity, particularly for key social outcomes such as trust and civic engagement, are far from clear.
In a democratic system, elected officials are expected to represent their constituents’ interests and preferences when shaping public policy. But in a diverse society such as the U.S., where people often have divergent or conflicting views, a question arises about whose preferences actually prevail when lawmakers shape policy.
Data from several national surveys suggests that while economic inequality has been on the rise, public support for redistributive policy has remained constant or declined. This is puzzling because the long-standing median voter theory suggests that the general response to increasing inequality will be a greater demand for redistribution.
Political equality is one of the basic tenants of democracy. However, although it may never be possible to achieve complete political equality, rising economic inequality in the U.S. threatens to create a political system in which the voices of the wealthy drown out those of the poor and middle class. Martin Gilens explored this phenomenon in his 2012 RSF/Princeton book Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Gilens found that policy outcomes are more strongly related to the preferences of the wealthy than the poor or middle class.