In the book Culture War? The myth of a polarized America, Fiorina argues that this idea of ​​“culture war” is propagated by the media and that there is no war going on at all. His thoughts on this topic are that political candidates themselves are becoming more polarized and giving the false impression that the public as a whole is more polarized. In the first chapter of the book Fiorina begins by referencing numerous quotes from politicians and the media stating that there is a culture war going on in this country. These quotes aim to show a deepening rift among the American people. After presenting these quotes he states that there is no culture war in this country. He argues that this idea of ​​culture war stems from selective media coverage and misinterpretation of data such as election results. I think Fiorina's ideas in this chapter are quite solid and form a good basis for arguing her points in the rest of the book. The second chapter is really the meat and bread of Fiorina's argument. In this chapter Fiorina addresses the most difficult question against her idea of ​​culture war: “If there is no culture war, why do so many people think there is one?”. The first part of his answer is that Americans confuse the closely divided with the deeply divided. He mentions the statistic that in national elections the winning party wins with only 9% of the vote. Which at first glance seems to be quite indicative of a very divided country. The way Fiorina explains that these close elections are actually due to a normal population distribution. This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. We have a primarily two-party system in this country and this two-party system makes it very easy to skew the data so... middle of paper... also demonstrates that acceptance of homosexuality is on the rise and even suggests that one day the issue will not it will no longer even be considered a controversial issue. While I think this chapter is a strong point that the author can hit on, I found it a bit repetitive. I understand that he is trying to take another “controversial” issue and make it seem less controversial. I think the author would have done better to combine the last two chapters and perhaps address a different type of issue, such as a foreign policy issue or an economic policy issue. Addressing a different type of issue would demonstrate that this normality of opinion does not only exist on social issues. I think demonstrating this would solidify his case much better. Chapter eight concerns Bush's re-election to office. Much of the speculation surrounding the 2004 election was that Bush won the election because people agreed with his moral positions..