The Causes of Party Polarization in America - Term Paper Example

The Causes of Party Polarization in America Introduction Politics just like other phenomena like economic and social is dynamic. History is awash with incidences of gradual and sometime radical changes within the political sphere across the world. United States as a country has witnessed numerous political developments especially after it gained independence. Among many political developments in the United States, political polarization has been critical in defining the country’s politics in recent past and current patterns indicate that it will continue going into the future. Polarization is defined in politics as the process through which public opinions are divided and go to extremes (Baumer and Howard 22). Party polarization is defined as the process through which extreme factions within a political party gain some form of dominance within the party. In such a case, the moderate factions tend to lose influence and power. In recent years, the United States political system has witnessed increased polarization. Party polarization has had consequences in the United States especially in respect to policy- making. Whereas the parties tend to go to the extremes, the public opinion does not really go to the extreme. That notwithstanding, party polarization greatly shape public opinion especially in regard to policy. Party polarization is very evident in both the Congress and the Senate (Ura and Christopher 280). The state of American politics is increasingly colored by partisan polarization: the two major political parties have grown ideologically more unified internally and farther apart from each other. As the two parties’ policy preferences diverge further from each other at the elite level, it naturally becomes more difficult for the two to work together. With the shrinking rank of ideological moderates, “the possibilities of bipartisan negotiation and compromise diminish.” Today the two parties clash with each other more often and more strenuously and vigorously than recent history in Washington and in state capitals. Party-based conflicts, policy stagnation, and paralysis inspired by party competition seem to have become the norm in the early twenty-first century. It is against the above background that it is important to understand party polarization in the United States. To achieve this, this paper will seek to respond to the following questions: What are the roots of partisan polarization? What specific developments in the emergence of the political parties led to party polarization? What are the main contributing factors to the re-emergence of party polarization? How is partisan polarization linked to deeper cultural divisions within American society? What have been the policy consequences of partisan polarization for the policy process? Roots of Partisan Polarization Partisan polarization in American politics traces its roots from the period of the Civil War. However, it became more apparent after the attainment of the American independence. Over the past century and half, American political system has been dominated by two main parties. Third parties that have emerged from that time achieved some measured success, but at the end, they have usually been absorbed by one of the dominant parties (Frymer 336). Partisan polarization has been as a result of ideological differences that can be traced throughout the American political history; it has emanated from the ideological divide of liberalists versus conservatives. It is also important to note that there are other factors apart from ideology that have been critical in creating partisan polarization; for example, geographical divisions have been so evident as parties have taken the dimensions of the “Southern” or “Northern” wings (Pearson 1). While the rapid rise in partisan polarization is relatively recent, the origins of party polarization are not; in fact, much of what we see today can be traced back to the early twentieth century. Throughout the twentieth century, the constituency bases of both parties have been gradually but thoroughly reorganized. The major changes in American society and electoral politics have combined to help create this restructuring. 1. Increased Powers of the Party Leaders Over the last period of the American independence, the Senate and the Congress have served as the central point of partisan polarization to an extent that some political pundits and political scientists have argued that it has literally consumed the House (Theriault and David 1012). Kathryn Pearson agrees with this assertion and notes that partisan polarization in recent times can be attributed majorly to the immense power that party leaders wield (Pearson 1). Former speaker Newt Gingrich has been cited as to have extended the roots of partisan polarization deeper. Most political scientists argue that under the leadership of Gingrich, Republicans adopted reform agendas that centralized the control of the party at the expense of the committee power. Actions of Gingrich made parties to embrace extreme party positions. During his leadership, he selected committee chairs solely and he bypassed the most senior GOP committee members on some critical committees. To prove that indeed party leaders were in control and not the committees, the Republicans set six-year period limit for the chairs of committees and sub-committees. Gingrich personally set a requirement that the incoming members of the Appropriations Committee were to sign a pledge regarding the Contract with America support (Baumer and Howard 48). Consolidation of power by Gingrich became successful because of the following reasons: Republicans greatly disagreed with most Democrats and agreed with each other; Democrats had adopted reforms that empowered its party leaders and reduced the powers of committee chairs; Republicans were grateful to Gingrich for their majority status which was unexpected. It is no doubt that during Gingrich’s tenure as speaker Democrats and the Republicans were extremely polarized (Stonecash, et al 64). It is important to point out that Party leaders obtained their most significant tools under the reforms that were undertaken in the Democratic Party in the early 1970s where the Democrats empowered party leaders by taking away power from the committees (Jones 327). Other political developments led to the empowering of speaker, a situation that further contributed to the entrenchment of partisan polarization within the American political system. It is argued that subsequent developments in regard to the House Speakers further contributed to party polarization (Ura and Christopher 285). It is argued that subsequent speakers after Gingrich apart from Tip O’Neill sought to maximize the party leaders influence, thereby further entrenching party polarization. 2. Redistricting Apart from the above specific developments that led to the party polarization, there are main contributing factors that have led to the re-emergence of party polarization. In recent years, party polarization has re-emerged because of several reasons. The first reason is that of redistricting. Theriault and David explain that by the end of 2001, redistricting throughout the United States implied that constituencies that were more ideologically charged would elect members who are more polarized (Theriault and David 1014). They further argue that redistricting had technically removed most moderates and centrists from both parties. What was evident was that the new districts had a tendency of sending more ideological members to the House compared to the old districts. Another factor that has been cited as having contributed to the re-emergence of party polarization is political segregation (Frymer 340). This factor has been considered to contribute to party polarization in the sense that political parties have become more homogenous. This factor is closely linked to that of redistricting because it has been argued that legislators have been manipulating congressional boundaries in such a way that particular districts are inclined to electing ideologically polarized members. This is evident by the wide gap that candidates lose to the winner; for example, in 2004 some candidates lost by a margin of over 40 percent to the candidate of the other party, a clear indication of party polarization. Such scenario is evident because voter’s counties were becoming more politically homogenized and political jurisdictions more polarized (Baumer and Howard 22). 3. Institutional Factor The other factor that has been cited for the re-emergence of party polarization is the institutional factor. The institutional structure has evolved and has created strong political party leaders who are able to manipulate situations in both the House and the Senate (Jones 330). They are able to provide incentives such as favoured committee assignments and campaign contributions in order to make the members of their respective parties to vote loyally. Similarly, they can deal harshly with members who vote against the interests of the party by dispensing severe punishments. In addition, members of a party can induce party loyalty through the control of the legislative agenda on the House floor. Besides, committees’ leadership and important committee assignments have increasingly come under the party leadership purview (Stonecash et al 101). 4. The Integrated Model Factor The integrated model factor contributes mainly to the re-emergence of party polarization. This model holds that party polarization is as a result of exogenous changes in the constituencies of members. Through political segregation which is geographic-based and the purposive act of redistricting, members of the constituencies become more polarized (Sinclair 117). Members from more ideologically polarized constituents have direct and indirect impact in the Senate and in the House. Additionally, the exogenous effect of constituencies that are polarized has an indirect impact on party polarization particularly through features and structures of the Congress and the House. Members who are more ideological have effected procedures that are more consequential and which has greatly contributed to re-emergence of party polarization. As a result of more consequential procedures, members in both chambers have been forced to be more ideological in their voting especially on substantial matters (Baumer and Howard 22). The rapid increase in ideological voting has given way to deeper partisan polarization based on deeper cultural divisions based on the particular stereotype of the party. Ideological voting Party polarization has created ideological voting based on stereotypes that our society has developed for the parties. This has been very evident in both the Congress and the Senate where members of each party vote based on stereotypes that our society has developed for the parties. A good example is on issues that relate to morality; the Republicans have been voting based on “conservative” ideology, while the Democrats have been voting based on “liberal” ideology. For instance on the issue of abortion, most Republicans tend to take pro-life standpoints while the Democrats take pro-choice standpoints. Whereas this may not be the actual reflection of the respective party’s position, it is a reflection of the stereotypes that our society has developed for the parties (Stonecash et al 105). In other words, Democrats are always expected to vote based on approach that is viewed to be alive to the dynamics of the society; on the other hand, the Republicans should are expected to voted based on approach that reflects the values and morals of the society, emerging trends and dynamism notwithstanding. Political parties, and the stereotypes they carry with them, are so ingrained in the American political rhetoric that they go seemingly disregarded (Baumer 19). As the American party system has become more polarized, ideological orientation has increased tremendously. As parties continue to present coherent issue packages and express their position by referring to general ideological orientations, voters will learn to use such value laden concepts themselves. The impact of ideological orientations should increase with the polarization of the party system for several reasons. If parties present coherent ‘issue packages’ and express their position by referring to general ideological orientations, ‘voters should learn to use such value-laden concepts themselves’ (Knutsen and Kumlin, 2005, 158). This has two consequences. First, as polarization increases ideological concepts should become more easily accessible to voters. As parties and candidates refer more frequently to ideological concepts and as voters do the same, these concepts should become more affectively laden in voters’ minds. Second, ideological concepts should become easier to use. Following the terminology of Zaller’s (1992) model of opinion formation, a polarized party landscape should provide voters with more ‘cueing information’ (Knutsen and Kumlin, 2005). Voters should be better able to relate their ideological preferences to the positions of parties. From this point of view, polarization allows voters to make more sophisticated decisions at a lower cognitive cost. Partisan Polarization Link to Deeper Cultural Divisions Partisan polarization does not occur in a vacuum; it is informed by factors such as geographic location of party members, religion, economic ideologies and perspectives, political developments, and the cultural differences of a society. Partisan polarization in the United States is linked to cultural divisions within the American society. It is important to note that the American society is closely divided but is not deeply divided as such. Several surveys have shown that most Americans are moderate in terms of culture (Frymer 341). It has been established that whereas most of the Americans are moderate, some are slightly conservative, while others are slightly liberal. Also, some are extremely liberal and others extremely conservative. In politics, however, some elements of deep cultural divisions are evident. African- Americans, the Latinos, the Whites, and the Asians are the main cultures forming the American society. There has been continuity in regional cultures and its impact on party polarization. However, in places like the New York City, political diversity and tolerance has been dominant to an extent that party polarization is not as evident. This notwithstanding, party polarization among members is evident in both houses as the members decisions are not actually influenced by their cultures but by their parties. Deep cultural divisions in the American society sometimes take the form of some beliefs by the members of the society in past and their geographical locations. For example, the Calvinists feed the public with the faith that the government is able to do good. As such, its members in the House and the Senate tend to take extreme position regarding government’s role on delivering on its obligation to the citizens. On the other hand, the Quakers and the Midlands are often moderate and as such they are left out in the party polarization process because it calls for extreme opinions rather than the moderate opinions (Sinclair 53). Also, the individuals from the “Tidewater” are conservative and as such are staunch Republicans and often take extreme positions on issues that has direct link to the elements of Conservatism. In addition, the “Greater Appalachia” people are considered as individualistic; therefore, they tend to be liberal in their opinions and mostly support the Democrats and hold extreme liberal positions. The positions taken by the “Greater Appalachia” people in Democratic Party are aimed at promoting their personal interests rather than the collective interests. Such a culture are the greatest proponents of the political positions like “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life” among other extreme liberal positions (Jones 326). Consequences of Partisan Polarization for the Policy Process Over the years, party polarization has been at the centre of policy process in the United States. Party polarization has had policy consequences for the policy process (Stonecash et al 72). Party polarization has been influencing voting patterns of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Estimates of the ideal points of the legislators show that the average positions of the Republican and Democratic legislators has markedly diverged from the mid-1970s; this is the same period that witnessed increasing re-emergence of the party polarization which has not slowed down since then. Incidentally, party polarization coincided with the occurrence of issues such as growing income inequality and the full effects of policy liberalization regarding immigration (Ura and Christopher 287). These issues, coupled with other emerging issues are so sentimental and often sensational thereby making party members to take extreme positions. In most cases, these issues involve policy process which requires legislators to take positions based on their beliefs and party’s manifesto. Moreover, the constituency that a party represents or is perceived to represent has led to consequences for the policy process. As has been noted, constituencies represented by both the Democrats and the Republicans are becoming more homogenous (Frymer 344). Trends show that Democrats are representing the poorer with increasing frequency and districts that are more ethnically diverse at an increasing frequency compared to the Republicans. Consequently, policy polarization and disagreement tend to follow this trend; the trend that constituency for each party becomes increasingly homogenous and different from that of the other party. This imagination is captured by Sinclair who notes that legislators who are elected from districts that are considered “solidly safe” have extremists’ tendency, further adding to the political parties’ polarization (Sinclair 129). 2008 Election and moving forward The 2008 election was somewhat significant to the whole phenomenon of party polarization. The election did not only witness the election of the first African- American president, but also witnessed change in the voting ideologies of voters. Voting on some bills in the Congress has witnessed a declined “polarity” in manner in which parties vote; however, such a decline cannot be termed as significant. The extent of the decline in party polarization or potential increase cannot be ascertained comprehensively currently. It is for this reason that it is important to continue focusing on the party polarization trends as we move forward (Baumer). Works Cited Baumer, Donald C, and Howard J. Gold. Parties, Polarization, and Democracy in the United States. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2010. Print. Frymer, Paul. "Debating The Causes Of Party Polarization In America." California Law Review 99.2 (2011): 335-349. Jones, David R. "Partisan Polarization And Congressional Accountability In House Elections." American Journal Of Political Science 54.2 (2010): 323-337. Pearson, Kathyrn. “The Deep Roots of Polarization.” Boston Review. Sinclair, Barbara. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2006. Print. Stonecash, Jeffrey et al. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, Colombia. Westview Press, 2003. Print. Theriault, Sean M., and David W. Rohde. "The Gingrich Senators and Party Polarization In The U.S. Senate." Journal of Politics 73.4 (2011): 1011-1024. Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Christopher R. Ellis. "Partisan Moods: Polarization and The Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences." Journal Of Politics 74.1 (2012): 277-291. Read More