tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3124918810808101957..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Why Polarization Happens (or Doesn't)Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-13505860520939188622010-02-19T23:09:00.188-06:002010-02-19T23:09:00.188-06:00AuYup and Jason,
I agree that we haven't done...AuYup and Jason,<br /><br />I agree that we haven't done a very good job, at least to the best of my knowledge, of studying differences in the structure of the two major parties, if any. As far as the effects...well, right now with Dems occupying ~60% of the seats in Congress, it's not surprising that they have control of the middle. That was less true when Dems had 48% (or whatever) of the seats. It's also easier to keep party discipline when you're in the minority. Long term, I do think Dems have more internal diversity than does the GOP, but whether it's more now because of long-term change, or if it's just the effect of the last couple election cycles, I couldn't say. <br /><br />I don't think the timeline is right for demise of local machines -> national polarization. The machines declined in the first half of the 20th century, and polarization peaked in ~1935-1970. I do think that parties have nationalized significantly, but whether that's cause or effect, I don't know.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84583178499601297862010-02-19T20:47:14.940-06:002010-02-19T20:47:14.940-06:00I think this is valid as an assessment of attitude...I think this is valid as an assessment of attitudes and motivations of both voters and political professionals. What this fails to discuss is issues affecting turnout. The author needs to take a look at the varying interests of Republican and Democratic parties in voter turnout. The Republican interest has been made obvious in the US attorney scandal where US attorneys who got confused and concentrated on crime, and failed to make "voter fraud" a priority, were fired.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-53790822216978887882010-02-19T17:33:52.894-06:002010-02-19T17:33:52.894-06:00I agree with AhYup .. it seems that our discipline...I agree with AhYup .. it seems that our discipline (political science) is not doing a very good job of understanding the different reactions to polarization by the Dems and the Repubs. It seems incredibly clear to me that the GOP (internal culture, information flows, political and policy incentives) has become more extreme. The GOP is more coherently and consistently polarized than the Dems.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04207985538284662171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10315208752299698602010-02-19T17:30:50.152-06:002010-02-19T17:30:50.152-06:00I haven't studied it in depth so you probably ...I haven't studied it in depth so you probably have a more informed opinion on this than me, but lately I've been thinking about the polarization in our politics and it occurs to me that, chronologically at least, it seems to coincide with the fading away of local political machines.<br /><br />My evidence is largely anecdotal and historical, so I can't quote any numbers here. However, if we look at, say, the legislative agendas of Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson, which were all far more radical in their own ways to what Mr. Obama has been trying to do, and then compare the support they managed to garner among the other party to the support Mr. Obama has managed to attain, the radicals come away with significantly more cross-isle allies than the moderate. There could be many explanations for this, and likely many different factors that play a role in it, but I hardly find it insignificant that the reform movements to dismantle party machines and "democratize" congressional operation hit its stride in the years after Johnson, and that it is the election of Nixon and the rise of the concept of a "silent" or "moral" majority at the maturation point of this movement which most scholars look to as the beginning of the current period of intense partisanship.<br /><br />It seems to me that, for all the corruption local party machines generate (and they certainly do generate corruption), they also ensure, by keeping the locus of funding for campaigns within the districts which the politician represents, that politicians stay more loyal to the interests of the local party (their machine) than to the national one. For much of our history our politics has been largely about local or regional concerns (The West's siding with the more culturally alien North on slavery and taxation due to their agreement regarding infrastructure development comes to mind), and as a result, for much of our history party affiliation has been much less important that district similarity in determining which politicians work together. When a national party can control funding, however, even at the local level, as the big two can today, and just as importantly when they can control expertise, depriving independent-minded politicians of those professional campaign staffers and propagandists necessary to any modern election, then the national party and its interests naturally become more important to the candidate than those of his constituents, and, considering that national parties can only run on big, cultural issues, then cultural issues (including basic party affiliation) come to dominate campaigns and legislative relationships. This process is only amplified when the constituents often don't even know what is in their own interests which, as you point out above, is often the case.<br /><br />At least that's my feeling on it but, like I said, I haven't done enough in depth research and number crunching to throw out anything scientific. What would your thoughts be on the decline of local party machines and the rise of partisanship?Heronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776242322789918501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-79681425509168912222010-02-19T17:14:34.794-06:002010-02-19T17:14:34.794-06:00It seems to me that this whole conversation by usi...It seems to me that this whole conversation by using the word polarization tends to tiptoe around the big ol' elephant in the room. (Hey! A double metaphor)<br /><br />We are not "polarized" so much as one party in a two party system has become extreme. Overall opinions have the same range they always have and the Democratic coalition is dominated by the roadkill middle. The actual left as apposed to the strawman seen in things like the various right wing screeds on the best seller list is always freaking out because they can't get what they want from the Democratic party like the right can from the Republicans.AhYuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08212187184363588984noreply@blogger.com