To say that political parties in the United States are polarized is a gross understatement. Perhaps now, more than ever, there is an increasing distinction between what it means to be a Republican versus what it means to be Democrat. In the last 40 years (particularly in the last five to ten years), the Republican Party has developed a stronger embrace of conservative values and the Democrat Party has developed a stronger embrace of liberal values. Why is this? What has led to this phenomenon?
One explanation is increased party unification. In his book, The Politics of Congressional Elections, Gary Jacobson writes, “As the parties became more unified, they also became more polarized along ideological lines. The ideological gap between the parties in both houses has widened appreciably since the 1970’s... Republicans grew, on average, steadily more conservative. Democrats became more liberal… The congressional parties are now more distinct, ideologically, than at any time since the early years of the twentieth century” (Jacobson, 245). Jacobson continues by pointing out a polarizing trend in Presidential support. Since the Nixon administration, congressional members who are of the same party as the current President (of any given time) have been more likely to support that President’s initiatives and preferences. Likewise, congressional members who are of the opposite party of the current President (of any given time) have been more likely to oppose that President’s initiatives and preferences (Jacobson 247).
In this clip, Mike Pence (a Republican) is supporting tax relief legislation that President Bush (also a Republican) supports.
A number of factors have contributed to increased party cohesion and homogeneity. One of the largest contributing factors is the realignment of party loyalty that occurred in the South. “The standard explanation for the rise in party cohesion in Congress since the 1970’s is party realignment in the South, which left both congressional parties with more politically homogeneous electoral coalitions, reducing internal disagreements and making stronger party leadership tolerable… Realignment in the South certainly contributed to the increasingly ideological homogeneity of the parties, but is by no means the whole story” (Jacobson 249).
Though not to the same extreme, this ideological homogeneity occurred outside of the South as well. As time has progressed, being a Republican or a Democrat in one state has become increasingly the same as being a Republican or a Democrat in another state. Certainly, regions of the United States will have specific interests and many states will be more liberal or more conservative than others, but generally speaking, members of the electorate who identify with a particular party in one state will share many of the same values as someone of the same party who lives in another state. A lack of internal disagreements among parties can allow for congressional elections to become truly national.
In this clip, Newt Gingrich opposes President Clinton's budget. Opposition to Clinton/big government won Republicans several seats in 1994.
A great example of this was the Republican Revolution in 1994. Republicans running in every state were able to campaign on many of the same national themes. Jacobson writes, “Republicans succeeded in framing the local choice in national terms, making taxes, social discipline, big government, and the Clinton presidency the dominant issues” (Jacobson, 182). When parties are cohesive, they are able to capitalize on national momentum. Similarly to the Republican takeover in 1994, the Democrats were essentially able to turn the 2006 midterm elections in to a national referendum on the War in Iraq and the George W. Bush presidency. With Democrats in every state campaigning on nearly identical themes, they were able to capitalize on America’s overall public opinion regarding two very controversial matters, and it paid clear electoral dividends.
The ideological cohesion within parties has led many in the electorate to prefer candidates who identify completely (or almost completely) with the respective party’s base. Many Republicans prefer the most conservative candidate in a given race; many Democrats prefer the most liberal candidate in a given race. The most liberal or conservative candidate may not win their respective party’s primary, or they may not win in the general election, but regardless of the election outcome, the excitement that more “radical” candidates bring to their base is unmistakable.
Take the Florida Senate Republican Primary for instance. Florida is a battleground state in terms of Presidential elections. It is certainly not thrown in to the category of very conservative states like Texas or Alabama, nor is it thrown in to the category of very liberal states like California or Massachusetts. In this year’s primary, former Florida Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, is running against current Florida Governor, Charlie Crist. The current RCP Average has Rubio leading Crist by nearly 23 points. Why is this? Marco Rubio is much more conservative than Charlie Crist and he has captured the hearts of conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, etc. not only in Florida, but across the entire country. Voters are looking for someone who is as far away from Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress as possible. In this particular race, that someone is Marco Rubio, hence his 23 point advantage.
There is no question that nationally syndicated media icons have played a role in driving partisans to one extreme or the other. With increased access to radio, the internet, and cable television, Americans can be influenced by all sorts of journalists, commentators, pundits, etc. Today’s average conservative can listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, on the radio, watch Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, read blogs and columns by Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Karl Rove, and check the news on The Drudge Report. With a national audience, these individuals (and their liberal counterparts) can portray respectively appropriate messages to a large base. When literally millions of people across the country draw influence from commentators who are far to the left or right, it makes sense that the American electorate is becoming increasingly polarized.
There is a growing expectation not only from constituents, but from partisans across the country that members of Congress from the same party lean and vote consistently along the ideological lines associated with that party. During general election races, many politicians will “move to the middle” in an attempt to draw wider support. What happens though, when they break rank and move to the middle after being elected? There is subsequent outrage on the part of the respective politician’s partisan base. With the increased national cohesion of parties, this outrage (in Congress’ case) often stretches beyond that politician’s constituency and travels to other districts and states. For instance, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter (a Republican at the time) voted for President Obama’s Stimulus Package in February 2009. Republicans nationwide were outraged that members of their party had voted this way. These three Senators were called “RINOs” (Republican in Name Only). The ideological divide became so great that Senator Specter switched parties in April of the same year.
In this clip, Joe Lieberman shows his support for President Bush's strategy in Iraq. Lieberman's support for Bush's strategy cost him the Democrat Senate nomination in 2006, causing him to run as an Independent.
Senator Joe Lieberman experienced a similar disconnect with his former party. Lieberman was Al Gore’s Democrat running mate for the presidency in 2000. However, during the George W. Bush presidency, Lieberman became a well-known advocate of the War in Iraq. That leaning cost him the Democrat Primary in 2006, so he ran (and won) as an Independent. Despite continuing to caucus with the Democrats, Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President in 2008 and was a speaker at the 2008 Republican National Convention. While the Democrat base was presumably outraged, there was a great deal of excitement and embrace of Lieberman from the Republican base. With the national cohesion of parties and increasingly polarized views, this sort of reaction from voters comes as no surprise. Watching members of the opposite party lean one way is frustrating. What is more frustrating, however, is watching members of your own party lean the opposite way as well.
As was aforementioned, the distinction between the two political parties has never been greater. The ideological divides are unmistakable. In order to establish contrast with one another, the parties must remain divided. While polarized parties might not appeal to some people, they are still important. If the parties believed all of the same things, we would cease to live in a competitive democracy, built on a marketplace of ideas. The polarization of parties is likely to continue well in to the future.
Sources:
Video Clip One: Mike Pence addressing the U.S. House of Representatives on March 27, 2001. Video accessed on April 15, 2010.
Video Clip Two: Newt Gingrich addressing the U.S. House of Representatives on November 14, 1995. Video accessed on April 15, 2010.
Video Clip Three: Joe Lieberman addressing the U.S. Senate on February 16, 2007. Video accessed on April 15, 2010
Book Source: Jacobson, Gary C. The Politics of Congressional Elections: 7th Edition. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print.
