It is no secret that the educated American people are frustrated with Congress. Polling data, voter turnout, and general inquiries all point to a public fed up with the gridlock and partisanship they see occurring in the US Capitol. And the strangest thing is that they are right. Studies have shown that over time, there has been an increase in partisanship and a decrease in compromise within Congress. What are the effects on society of an increasing “us vs. them” mentality? Does it impact perception of those in power from the ground up? This case study will examine this growing split within the legislative bodies of the United States, as well as the public reaction to it, in an effort to highlight the disconnect between those in power and those who put them there.

 

            Five days after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush spoke at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC and evoked Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first inaugural address. On March 4, 1933, Roosevelt, as he was being sworn into the Presidency, remarked “we face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity.”[1] 68 years later, Bush recalled that phrase as what the American people as a whole were feeling. He also pointed out that the attacks “joined together political parties and both houses of Congress.”[2] While the sentiment was nice and patriotic, it was just that, sentiment, not representative of reality. Jordan Ellenberg reports for Slate in December 2001:

 

The bipartisan era didn't last long. Three months after 9/11, the unity that Congress promised has evaporated. Should we be surprised? Political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal are not. According to their research, there's no evidence that a national crisis—Pearl Harbor, World War I, the Kennedy assassination—can produce even a short spike in legislative fellow-feeling, let alone a lasting change in political culture. So it's to be expected that the shockwave of September, while big enough to upend a tyranny on another continent, will not create a ripple—statistically speaking—in the business of Washington. Poole and Rosenthal found that the House and Senate grew steadily less polarized from around 1900 to 1980. Then something happened; polarization has been sharply increasing ever since.[3]

 

America as a two-party system might provide ideological clues for the American people to latch on to, but when compromise is completely off the table, only the population is hurt. The abuse of political power is negligent and Congress should work harder to come together and make change, rather than remain apart and bicker. The American people gave Congress the political power it possesses, but in return are they receiving as much as they could be?

 

           The polarization of Congress has drastic effects on the potential progress for this country, specifically that there is none. The gridlock in Congress makes it infinitely harder for either side to enact real, tangible change because there is no compromise. Rather than come together across the aisle, politicians are content to simply maintain the status quo and hurl accusations at ideological counterparts. According to a report from the RAND Corporation, polarization of the elites in Congress can have dramatic effects on bills and legislation passed:

 

Studies of lawmaking productivity find that Congress enacted more significant pieces of legislation when it was less polarized. For example, one study found that the least polarized congressional term produced between 60 percent and 166 percent more legislation than did the most polarized terms, depending on how the statistical model is specified (McCarty et al., 2006).[4]

 

Even the bills that are passed typically do not have much effect on the status quo because they cannot be too controversial without raising the ire of one party or the other. In addition to gridlock, polarization has another dramatic effect regarding moderate politicians. Thanks to the increased polarization of those in power, the number of moderate politicians has shrunk too. While that might be true, at the same time, the number of moderate Americans has risen:

 

Stanford University political scientist Morris Fiorina, on the other hand, argues that most Americans sit in the political center and only the political class has become polarized. Ordinary Americans are more moderate and civil than their elected officials, Fiorina insists. But even if Fiorina is correct, for the moment that doesn’t much matter. Our current system is producing ideological politicians who are sensitive to their most ideological constituents and to the heavily ideological media, not to the political center.[5]

 

If the American people are more moderate, then why are those with political power so ideologically divided? The answer is simple, those with passions are more likely to speak up and voice their opinion. When talking about this problem, the Pew Research Center recognizes this phenomenon:

 

[Radically ideological] sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want. Yet many of those in the center remain on the edges of the political playing field, relatively distant and disengaged, while the most ideologically oriented and politically rancorous Americans make their voices heard through greater participation in every stage of the political process.[6]

 

It is obvious that those with political power are only interested in representing those of their constituents who share their beliefs, or more specifically, those who voted for them. While that is a typical response to defeating the opposition in an election, it is an irresponsible way to govern. Elected officials have an obligation to represent all members of their constituency, no matter what their beliefs are or for whom they voted. It is imperative that a change is made in Congress because this country is on a road to destruction if the current trend toward polarization continues.

 

            I think that this country has gone too far down a dangerous path and it is important to not only call for change, but also offer tangible suggestions for implementing that change. Multiple studies and academic papers have pointed to a dearth of moderates and centrists in power as a key representation of increasing polarization. According to a study from the RAND Corporation, “historically, centrists bridged the gap between the parties and negotiated essential compromises. Inducing more centrists to serve in Congress might help to mitigate—and perhaps even begin to reverse—polarization.”[7] The method that many suggest is the way to achieve this is to change the primary election process. If the primary system were overhauled, more moderate candidates would be able to win and move on to general elections. Epstein and Graham from RAND have the motivation behind this:

 

Reform the primary process to encourage moderate candidates. Methods for doing this could include holding more open, semi-open, or semi-closed primaries. (Semi-open means all voters may choose which primary to vote in but must declare their choice of party before voting; semi-closed means unaffiliated voters may participate.) In sum, if independents were allowed to vote in all primary elections, more centrist candidates might prevail; if more moderates were on the ballot, more moderates might be elected; and the forces that often dominate primaries and produce more-extreme candidates—such as “issue” advocates (i.e., activists concerned with policies pertaining to polarizing issues such as abortion, immigration, or gay marriage), strong partisans, and large campaign donors—might exert less influence.[8]

 

The ideological starkness of the current primary system leads to radical candidates making it through to the general election, leading to the polarized America we have today. There are some who say that changing the primary system would not have much effect on the polarization of America, but there is only so much speculation that can be done before a decision needs to be made and action needs to be taken.

 

            American politics have descended into a partisan mess. One side attacks the other, followed by reciprocation; meanwhile no progress is made for the American people. The people who gave politicians their political power receive nothing in return other than gridlock and arguments over ideology. Moderate and centrist Americans tend to not voice their opinions in an increasingly divided country, effectively silenced by pressures from both the left and the right. Compromise is how to move forward, but neither side seems to be very interested in that either, viewing it as a sign of weakness when strength and resoluteness is important. Changing the way primary elections are conducted in this country is one way to try and reverse the polarization in politics that plagues America. Regardless whether it is the best way, it is one way, and if there is agreement that a change is needed, a change needs to be made.

 

 

 

[1] Roosevelt, Franklin D. “First Inaugural Address” American Rhetoric. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrfirstinaugural.html

 

[2] Bush, George W. “Remarks on September 16, 2001” http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916bushtext0916p9.asp

 

[3] Ellenberg, Jordan “Growing Apart” Slate. 26 December 2001. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/do_the_math/2001/12/growing_apart.single.html

 

[4] Epstein, Diana and John D. Graham. “Polarized Politics and Policy Consequences” RAND Corporation. 2007. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP197.pdf

 

[5] Rothenberg, Stuart. “Political Unity Peaked After Attacks” Roll Call. 7 September 2011. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_24/Political_Unity_Peaked_After_September_11_Attacks-208507-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion

 

[6] Pew Research Center. “Political Polarization in the American Public”.  12 June 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-4-political-compromise-and-divisive-policy-debates/

 

[7] Epstein and Graham.

 

[8] Ibid.