Partisan Polarization Essay

Causes and Consequences of Partisan Polarization
While many citizens and pundits can attest to the existence of political polarization, many academics may still ask, does polarization exist? And, if so, what is it? The scholars who define polarization as institutional dysfunction tend to focus on measuring congressional performance and policy positions (Binder 2015, Mayhew 1991). Other scholars tend to differentiate between social polarization and issue polarization (Mason 2014), in which polarization happens not because of issue differentiation, but simply because partisans have inherently conflicting social identities. This essay will detail, first, the sources of polarization which are rooted in demographic change, social dislocation, elite

cues, and social identity. Secondly, I will describe how the sources of polarization have had broad impacts across contemporary American politics. Lastly, I discuss the impacts to try to determine the consequences of increased polarization.
The causes of polarization are attributable to a complex variety of social, institutional, and historical factors. Directionality, however, is particularly problematic. For example, polarization among elites and gridlock in congress sends signals to social partisans, but these are appeals to pre-existing values (Luptan, Smallpage, and Enders 2017). Functionally, parties send signals that make partisan sorting easier, but partisanship is rooted in fundamental value differences among the electorate. Directionality is further complicated in that activists – who are often social partisans themselves – “anchor” parties by moving them away from the median voter in lieu of providing electoral resources (Schlozman 2015; Luptan, Smallpage, and Enders 2017). Thus, we are left to some extent with a chicken-egg causality dilemma, or, perhaps more likely, there exists an interaction effect between elite cues and social movements on polarization throughout this transformation. To provide a more holistic and historical accounting of the sources of polarization, I will discuss both institutional, party, and social change primarily since the 1970’s that have resulted in the current issues in the contemporary period.
The most obvious institutional design exacerbating polarization is America’s two-party system which both limits the ability of parties to be responsive to society, and the ability of agents and movements to maneuver the political system (Schlozman 2015). Given Duverger’s law, voters and movements have few viable options other than to use the existing party system to seek political change. Historically, parties had a great deal of control in limiting which movements could shift party priorities, as the party elites acted as gatekeepers (Cohen et al 2008, Schlozman 2015). However, as Cohen et al note, the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1968 marks a significant turning point in which parties lost a significant amount of control over the presidential nomination process. Consequently, activists and movements both inside and outside of parties have increased political conflict, as “Anchoring groups are, in short, polarizers with troops” (Schlozman 2015).
Meanwhile, beginning in the in the late 1960’s through the contemporary period, white democrats began to defect from the party for a myriad of reasons.

This reasons for this are multivariate, but chief among them were racial prejudices that southern democrats held. As the Democratic party committed to civil rights and racial equality across this period, Nixon and the Republicans committed to the Southern strategy which involved exploiting racial prejudices in the south. The democratic defection of whites was also accelerated by immigration in 1980, as a resurfacing of racial animosities against (particularly Latino) immigrants led to white party realignment (Abrajano and Hajnal 2015). These demographic changes between the parties increased polarization as the parties took clear positions on immigration that were and remain fundamentally dichotomous. Additionally, we know political elites can use messages that trigger this kind of racial anxiety which results in voters seeking protection from perceived racial threat (Albertson and Gadarian

2015).

Furthermore, as electoral competition with Democrats became real prospect for Republicans in the 1980’s, the minority party becomes increasingly uncooperative with the governing party (Lee 2016).

The battle for political control of congressional institutions may displace cooperation on issues even where there is common ground between parties.
Lastly, as mentioned before, social polarization has increased as identities and partisanship have come into alignment. This type of partisanship is highly influenced by social psychology and in group bias. Specifically, as people become more aligned, people are more likely to be active on behalf of the party as well as react more strongly to perceived threats or challenges (Mason 2014).
The Results of Polarization
Polarization has had measurable consequences on the American political system. First and foremost, congress has become an increasingly dysfunctional institution, becoming less capable of passing legislation on salient issues in the modern era (Binder 2015). These issues are exacerbated by the presence of new splits within parties themselves, such as the tea party caucus and later the freedom caucus within the Republican party. This has proved particularly interesting, because from a larger perspective it is not necessarily congruent with the insecure majorities hypothesis – these caucuses will not increase the odds of a majority in the congress. However, they do increase the voice and influence of the caucus in terms of intraparty

power struggles
Secondly, social polarization has resulted in the development of negative partisanship which describes increasingly negative attitudes towards the opposing party, particularly because of both the growing racial and ideological divides (Abramowitz and Webster 2015). Furthermore, Republicans have gained a distinct electoral advantage as formerly competitive districts have increasingly split towards partisan electoral outcomes. This quite obviously disadvantages the democratic party, as there are fewer district that are naturally in their electoral favor.
Lastly, particularly white polarization played a significant role in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Economic dissatisfaction accounted for a 4-point reduction in the voting gap between non-educated and college educated whites, whereas the Racism and Sexism scale reduced the voting gap 11 points during the 2016 elections (Schaffner, MacWilliams and Nteta). Similarly, one analysis finds when instrumenting for Chinese import shocks in US districts, it increases the vote share for far-right candidates, but this is mediated through race as white communities shift right and minority communities tend to shift left. This trend held true in an appendix looking at data after the 2016 election (Autor et al 2016; Autor et al 2017). There is no doubt that there was an intentional campaign that exploited racial and ideological divisions in the last presidential election, in stark contrast to previous messages of national unity from President Obama.
Polarization and the Future of American Politics
The future for polarization in does not appear particularly optimistic. At least for social polarization, some scholars suggest cross pressures reduce the effect of polarization. Unfortunately, we increasingly engage with others of political difference in online spaces, which poses two issues. First, the abstraction of social media does not necessarily encourage cordiality or respect. Secondly, we selectively filter the people we interact with in these environments.
If one party can achieve electoral dominance, it is plausible that congressional polarization may weaken. On the other hand, given the increasingly psychological connection to our partisan dispositions, this may only exacerbate social polarization and political conflict among the out party.
Given both persistent and increasing partisanship, we ought to continue to explore the impact It has on policy makers, parties, and the public. Extended research is needed on the effects of social capital and cross-cutting cleavages, focusing their ability reduce negative social partisanship.
Additionally, it would be worth exploring conflict in congress remains a matter of insecure majorities or if social polarization has had an impact on the elite level. Finally, the current political climate has clearly highlighted the political and social importance of such a research agenda.