Polarization: Causes and Conflict in an Increasingly Divided Nation
If you live in the United States, polarization is a term you may have heard often regarding American politics. In politics, polarization refers to the large divide between American voters that puts them on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This divide reflects voters’ values and affects how voters perceive the opposing party, as well as how they are represented in Congress (Fiorina, Abrams, 2008). With the rift between Democrats and Republicans being bigger than it’s ever been, it can be difficult for democracy in the United States to function correctly, bringing consequences to policymakers and the American people. Polarization is a reality in American society today, that is caused by internal and external factors influencing Congressional decisions and American voting habits. These factors include characteristics of Congressional and political processes, the pressure to conform to partisan demands from both voters and legislatures, media presence, monetary support, and economic inequalities that hinder policymaking, social cohesion, and the accurate representation of American voters in Congress. Despite the many causes of polarization and the resulting hindrance to democracy, polarization can be diminished through the recognition of harmful partisan attitudes, and corrective action through governmental processes that encourage cooperation and compromise between parties.
In order to measure polarization, political scientists have a set of procedures that measure both qualitative and quantitative factors in Congressional voting behaviors. The first method used is called party conflict dimension and it is used by political scientists to record Representatives’ responses during roll-call voting (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Through observations of responses in which representatives respond affirmatively or negatively to a piece of legislation, political scientists are able to pinpoint where members of Congress stand on the political spectrum by finding the difference in averages between parties. The larger the gap on the spectrum, the more polarization is present in Congress (Barber, McCarty, 2016). The qualitative method that is used to measure polarization is called the “Primary Scale” and it examines the variability in Congressional voting behaviors through a variety of factors such as ideological positioning, constituency interest, party loyalty, discipline, etc (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Although this is a reliable way to observe polarization and changes in voting behavior, political scientists are still debating the weight of each factor when using this method of inquiry (Barber, McCarty, 2016).
Although political scientists can measure how polarized the United States is today, it can be hard to identify the causes of polarization and how it will progress. Despite this, political scientists have a variety of working hypotheses that rely on both internal and external factors that affect Congressional voting behaviors (Barber, McCarty, 2016). One of the most visible causes of polarization is the move of Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. This has led to a variety of outcomes, including a lack of dimensionality in Congress, meaning that legislatures are no longer making decisions based on ideology, but rather are relying on factors such as political and economic interests (Koford, 1989). This causes issues that were originally independent of party conflict to be absorbed into it (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Another external factor that could contribute to polarization is the relationship between Congress and American voters. If voters are extremely polarized, this would ultimately be reflected in Congressional patterns (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Legislators that are seeking re-election may be more inclined to represent the ideology of voters despite personal ideology or affiliations. This can lead to party sorting, which describes the phenomenon in which liberal voters support the Democratic Party while conservative voters tend to support the Republican Party (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Party sorting encourages voters to believe that there is a “correct” party for their particular political views. For example, a pro-life Democrat may be inclined to change their partisan affiliation, as they believe that the Republican party unanimously holds their pro-life views (Hetherington, 2009). Furthermore, a study by Layman and Carsey (2002) and Levendusky (2009) showed that voters have increasingly held views that reflected party ideals and policy positions over time. Socially, this has led to the terms “Democrat” and “Republican” to signify vastly different political views, so American citizens tend to believe that the opposing party has completely different views and policy positions (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This is an inaccurate perception however because studies have shown that at least 39% of Americans hold moderate views (Pew Research Center, 2015).
Another theory that political scientists use to explain polarization is Southern Realignment. This refers to the switch from a mostly moderate South to an overwhelmingly conservative one (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Since the majority of the South is increasingly Republican-dominated, this has drastically changed voting behavior in Congress throughout the past few decades (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Gerrymandering is also a factor that political scientists use to explain the polarization in American politics. Scholars theorize that allowing state legislatures to draw congressional districts has led to so-called safe districts where a candidate of the same affiliation can be positive that they will win (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Although gerrymandering has contributed to polarization, a study by McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (2009) in which randomly generated congressional districts resulted in a similarly polarized legislature, suggested that polarization relates more to a lack of representation for moderate districts by Democrats and Republicans (Barber, McCarty, 2016).
Two major external factors that political scientists believe have a strong connection to polarization are primary elections and economic inequality. In the past few decades, primary election results have suggested that only conservative candidates can win Republican primaries while only liberal candidates can win nomination in Democratic primaries (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Once again, this leads to a lack of representation for the vast majority of Americans who hold moderate ideological stances, since many Americans’ political values do not align with some of the increasingly extreme policy positions of both parties. This factor along with the growing amount of economic inequality in the United States reflects how polarization was made possible in the United States today. McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (2006) found that economic inequality is a strong contributor to polarization in the U.S. This hypothesis would explain the decline of polarization in the early 20th century with the decline of economic inequality between social classes (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This study also argued that polarization and economic inequality are linked in a cycle in which increased inequality is created by top salaries earning even more, which rallies electoral support for conservative economic policies. Since upper classes are earning more, they are more likely to hold conservative fiscal views, encouraging increased movement to the right by those who affiliate with the Republican party. This results in a restricted policy response, which in turn perpetuates inequality and polarization (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This polarization among American voters can therefore predict state polarization and Senate voting behavior (Barber, McCarty, 2016).
Money in politics is another exacerbating external factor of polarization, as scholars argue that polarization and private financing of campaigns could be linked (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This argument is based on the idea that politicians promote more extreme policy goals to appeal to major special-interest donors. Since the cost of running for Congressional office has steadily increased in the past few decades, politicians have been more inclined to take on viewpoints that appeal to major donors to increase their chances of election (Barber, McCarty, 2016). A final external factor that contributes to polarization is the media environment in the United States. Many observers have stated that media coverage changed the way it covered news after the Watergate scandal (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Media coverage became more confrontational and heavily partisan news outlets sought to portray the opposing party in a negative way. This has given media outlets to be catalysts for polarization through cable television and the internet (Barber, McCarty, 2016). A study by Prior (2007) concluded that voters increasingly choose to engage with media that confirms their partisan ideology and individual biases. This change resulted in elected officials having less incentive to deviate from party norms and ideals for fear of being called out by party advocates (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Another result of this change is that media outlets have increasingly given extremists a platform to spread misinformation on partisan policy objectives (Barber, McCarty,2016). Many cable news networks, such as Fox News and MSNBC, have faced allegations of heavy bias and providing a safe space for the expression of extremist views (Roscini, 2022). For example, Fox News has been criticized for hosting Tucker Carlson’s show, which millions of Americans tune into every day, and was named the most-watched show on cable news in 2021 (Nawaz, 2022). With millions of Americans consuming biased media that fosters extremism, it can be difficult to prevent polarization among voters, as this polarization is reflected in Congress it can disrupt the legislative process and create a lack of urgency when developing policy.
Even though many exacerbating factors to polarization lie outside of Capitol Hill, there are still factors within Congress that contribute to polarization and vast differences in Congressional voting behavior. One of these internal factors is the rule changes that have taken place in Congress in the last few decades. One of these changes in the House of Representatives was the way that votes were recorded in the Committee of the Whole. This change was called the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and it prevented committee meetings from being closed and required roll call votes to be made public, which encouraged transparency within Congress (Roberts, Smith, 2003). These changes made it easier for amendments to be proposed when debating a piece of legislation (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This led to amendments being proposed that often had little to do with the bill at hand and were used to make the opposing party cast an unpopular vote just to be able to carry on with the consideration of the bill (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Even though this rule change had a dramatic effect on the way that bills are considered, scholars are wary to suggest that this one-time rule change has a direct impact on polarization, as it only explains the polarization in the House and does not consider Senate polarization (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Another internal factor that increases polarization in Congress is agenda control by the majority party. Scholars have hypothesized that majority party leaders have increasingly used their power to control the legislative agenda in their respective chambers (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This behavior encourages an increased number of party-line votes and a higher level of polarization. Similarly, party pressure plays a role as an exacerbating factor to polarization through the ability of party leaders to use their power to influence the votes of party members to align with partisan agenda (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Theriault (2008) revealed that the House Speaker and the majority leader have increased their institutional reach in the past few decades, making them more likely to coax members with privileges or rewards if they vote in the party’s interest (Barber, McCarty, 2016). A final factor that political scientists theorize contributes to polarization is teamsmanship within Congress. Lee (2009) found that Congressional members often try to separate their party from the other so that their party is viewed more favorably and is given more control over state institutions (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Lee also argued that when parties become close in their respective amount of electoral support and there is an opportunity to reverse partisan fortunes in an upcoming election, the parties are more likely to engage in strategic conflict to highlight different partisan objectives and interfere with the opposing party’s victories (Barber, McCarty, 2016). This fierce competitive nature leads to division and conflict that does not have grounds in legitimate party interests such as economic equality, taxation, and corporate deregulation.
With all these factors contributing to polarization, bridging the gaps between different American ideologies can be difficult. A healthy American democracy is meant to accurately represent voters through intricate political processes in a system of equally distributed power among the branches of government. These high levels of polarization do not allow democracy to function in the way that it is meant to, causing deep institutional and sociological divides in society. With the rise in polarization, the U.S. has also seen a rise in the representation of extreme viewpoints within the parties, which can hinder compromises that are necessary for a fully functioning democracy (McCoy, 2019). This has resulted in a gridlock in Congress which diminishes policy innovation (Barber, McCarty, 2016). With additional factors such as the Senate filibuster and presidential veto hindering majority party procedures, it can be much harder to pass legislation (McCoy, Press, 2022). Furthermore, legislatures are more likely to take on extreme viewpoints which further polarize Congress, creating an inaccurate representation of American voters (Barber, McCarty, 2016). Ultimately, these factors diminish the public’s overall perception and confidence in the government’s ability to carry out the legislative process, dividing citizens further into their binary partisan ideologies.
Even though polarization can be overcome, the United States is the only country that is so severely polarized while also being wealthy and unique in its democratic processes (McCoy, Press, 2022). The United States’ fierce divide makes it difficult for citizens to compromise with opposing partisan ideologies, with partisanship being increasingly tied to identity (McCoy, Press, 2022). With much of the American public adopting a confrontational attitude, it can exacerbate undesirable institutional characteristics, such as binary choice, which is deeply embedded in the two-party system (McCoy, Press, 2022). Like the U.S., most other wealthy, democratic countries have a two-party system. However, most of these countries have systems in place to discourage polarization, such as not assigning members of single-member districts to the national legislature, as well as encouraging the emergence of new political parties (McCoy, Press, 2022). Although the United States faces a unique set of circumstances given its democratic characteristics, the U.S. has taken measures in recent years in an attempt to decrease polarization. For example, reformers have suggested changes to legislative procedures that hinder policy making such as the filibuster, appropriations, and confirmation processes. (McCoy, Press, 2022). Reformers have also suggested that switching from closed to open primaries would diminish polarization, as it would give moderate candidates a chance to win nominations. California has already adopted some of these reforms in its non-partisan primaries where the top two candidates are nominated and progress to general elections (Barber, McCarty, 2016).
Although polarization can never be dismantled in full, it is important for researchers and legislators to identify the factors that divide them and apply appropriate remedies to make compromise possible. If polarization continues to progress, it can be detrimental to the legislative process and destroy democratic processes as a whole. This is why it is important that reform takes place to avoid further polarization and bridge the divide among American voters.
Works Cited
Barber, Michael, McCarty, Nolan (2016) Causes and Consequences of Polarization. Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved April 14, 2023 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7864/j.ctt18z4ggp.6.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A5e19e1ff5604d69fef92dc89bf382173&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J. (June 15, 2008) Political Polarization in the American Public. Annual Reviews. Retrieved April 27, 2023 from https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836#_i39
Hetherington, Mark J. (April, 2009) Putting Polarization in Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved April 27,2023 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27742750.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A267db49376e106e4f371b643eeb5edb3&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=
Koford, Kenneth (September, 1989) Dimensions in Congressional Voting. The American Political Science Association. Retrieved April 27, 2023 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1962068.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A478a584996d72e3a480bac94b497f38b&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=
McCoy, Jennifer (June, 2019) Polarization Harms Democracy and Society. Generalitat de Catalunya. Retrieved April 14, 2023 from polarization-harms-democracy-and-society
McCoy, Jennifer, Press, Benjamin (January 18, 2022) What Happens When Democracy Becomes Perniciously Polarized. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Retrieved April 14, 2023 from https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190
Nawaz, Amna (May 2,2022) Tucker Carlson’s Influence and His Increasingly Extreme Views. PBS NewsHour. Retrieved April 28, 2023 from Tucker-carlsons-influence-and-his-increasingly-extreme-views
Pew Research Center (April 17,2015) A Deep Dive into Party Affiliation. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 28,2023 from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Roberts, Jason M., Smith, Steven S. (April, 2003) Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971-2000. Midwest Political Science Association. Retrieved April 28, 2023 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3186140.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A5647c1c9866958b29a574dcb77aa0473&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
Roscini, Flavia. (2022) How the American Media Landscape is Polarizing the Country. Boston University. Retrieved April 28, 2023 from https://sites.bu.edu/pardeeatlas/back2school/how-the-american-media-landscape-is-polarizing-the-country/
