When it comes to social economy, partisan political differences may be more bark than bite. News flash: Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans would like to see a more egalitarian society. I'm talking distribution of wealth here; that's what's so surprising.

In a study published in August in The Atlantic, a Duke University research team surveyed 5,522 American adults of both genders, all income levels, and varying political persuasions. Each was asked to distribute a hypothetical society's wealth among five different groups, from the richest 20 percent to the poorest 20 percent. Respondents could choose all, none, an even five-way split, or any combination.

The results may shock the pundits on both sides. Ninety-two percent voted for a much more egalitarian scenario than currently exists in the U.S. Responses were consistent regardless of gender, income, and even political affiliation (90.2 percent of Republicans and 93.5 percent of Democrats surveyed preferred the most egalitarian option).

"There were no appreciable differences," study author and Duke behavioral economics professor Dan Ariely told The Atlantic.

OK, so most Americans regardless of personal wealth or party affiliation would rather see all of us faring better, or at least closer together financially than we already are. Of course the survey questions didn't address how to get there, only what the respondents preferred to see. Nor is this a Robin Hood scenario, but rather a vision of an ideal outcome by a cross-section of Americans.

So where are we now along the historical income gap? Again a surprise, at least by another study's measure: Farther apart than those terrible days of slavery in 1774, even considering the little-to-no income of slaves. At least if you value the perspective of historical economic and census data, recently updated by a pair of professors - Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard and Peter Lindert of University of California.

For example, at the start of the Civil War the top 1 percent of households held 10 percent of the country's wealth. In 2011, the same group held 19 percent. Of course, that's not a full picture. While the gap between rich and poor was narrower, most of us are also far more comfortable than those in the 18th century. Back then people were relatively poorer than are we, but they were relatively poor together - a more middle class society, even though middle meant less stuff and more work hours.

Taking the two studies together in social context, perhaps this signifies a shift in thinking about the idea of balance between income inequality and reward-based, upward mobility. We are less segregated by class now, rich and poor interacting together, more engaged. As standard of living increases across the board, perceptions of wealth and target economic health are shifting beyond (or despite) the political rhetoric.

Sholeh Patrick, J.D., is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.