Centerfield

Politics as the Great Divider

In the January/February issue of The Atlantic, there is a section called "State of the Union," a series of article examining, obviously, the state of America today. All of the articles are good, but one in particular I thought was especially trenchant for centrists, called "Bipolar Disorder" by Jonathan Rauch, who people on this blog have mentioned as a centrist.

Rauch's argument, which has been advanced by people here before, is essentially that the American people are actually less polarized on basic values than ever, but that politics and politicians are more polarized. He notes that

we do not live in a two-party universe. The fastest-growing group in American politics is independents, many of them centrists who identify with neither party and can tip the balance in close elections. According to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, since the Iraq War 30 percent of Americans have identified themselves as Republicans, 31 percent as Democrats, and 39 percent as independents (or "other"). Registered voters split into even thirds.

Nothing particularly new here, but he presents some ideas as to why this is the case, which I think are quite cogent. He argues that

A divide has opened, but not in the way most people assume. The divide is not within American culture but between politics and culture. At a time when the culture is notably calm, politics is notably shrill.

Thus, to understand why American politics seems to have become less and less civil, we need to look at how and why politics has changed. Rauch posits two fundamental ways that he thinks both politics and politicians have changed. First, politicians are different because they are now "self-selected." In the past, Rauch argues that candidates were selected by party machines and bosses. They were often ordinary people that saw politics more as a career than as an ideological crusade. Thus, they regarded politicians from the other party as other professionals, in the way that athletes consider players on other teams as their peers rather than their enemies. With the fall of machines and the rise of primaries to select candidates rather than caucuses and "smoke-filled rooms, people entering politics became those who were often committed to a cause or agenda, essentially ideologues.

Second, the parties have changed. As Rauch notes,

Whereas they used to be loose coalitions of interests and regions, they are now ideological clubs. Northeastern Republicans were once much more liberal than Southern Democrats. Today more or less all conservatives are Republicans and more or less all liberals are Democrats.

In the past, parties were concerned about mobilizing masses of voters, many of whom had conflicting interests. Today, the parties target specific groups with what Rauch calls "inflammatory" appeals. "

In addition, redistricting has creating lots of safe districts where candidates need only appeal to their base to win. According to Rauch,

Today House members choose their voters rather than the other way around, with the result that only a few dozen districts are competitive. In many districts House members are much less worried about the general election than they are about being challenged in the primary by a rival from their own party. Partisans in today's one-party districts feel at liberty to support right-wing or left-wing candidates, and the candidates feel free (or obliged) to cater to the right-wing or left-wing partisans.

As a result, the parties have moved farther and farther apart and relationships between elected officials from the two parties are more acrimonious. As a result, he argues that

"the extremes are overrepresented in the political arena and the center underrepresented." The party system, he says, creates or inflames conflicts that are dear to the hearts of relatively small numbers of activists.

But, interestingly, Rauch does not think this is all bad. He notes that the polarized parties present start alternatives and these alternatives give elections a sense of direction. The party polarization also, he claims, brings the left and right wingers under the party umbrellas rather than leaving them to roam the political fringes, which he thinks is overall a positive. Rauch concludes by arguing that

In the end what may matter most is not that the parties be moderate but that they be competitive—which America's parties are, in spades. Politically speaking, our fifty-fifty America is a divisive, rancorous place. The rest of the world should be so lucky.

It's an interesting article, although I'm not sure I agree that the degree of polarization between parties is healthy. It seems to me that this polarization has the effect of making it more difficult to come up with solutions. Sure, there is no doubt that we know how the parties stand on abortion or social security and the contrasts are stark. But what if you don't want to vote for extremes? What if you think the solution to at least some problems lies in the middle?

But I think he is right about how the parties have changed. The Founding Fathers were always concerned about the influence of "faction", which they took to mean competing ideologies that would not compromise. Madison preferred a republic of "interests" rather than principles. I think it's ironic that party primaries came into vogue in response to complaints that the parties were not diverse or democratic enough. I would argue (and it's obviously not an original argument) that the primaries have actually made the parties less representative of their own voters, much less the population.

Posted by Marc W. Schneider at February 24, 2005 08:20 PM