Kelsey Donovan
Pol 398
8 May 17
When investigating partisan polarization in the congress and its effects on policy gridlock, the widened gap between ideologies has expanded since 1970s. “Political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal have developed a widely accepted metric, DW-NOMINATE that places every senator and representative on the same set of ideological scales. Using their data, it’s clear that the congressional parties, after decades of relatively little polarization, began pulling apart in the mid-1970s. Today, they say, “Congress is now more polarized than at any time since the end of Reconstruction” (Desilver). This scale examines members of congress and how much they have leaned right or left through the years. The DW-Nominate scale is showing more polarization and less moderate members since the 1970s (Desilver). The extent of polarization is fairly high. Although the root cause of this gap can be blame put on many dynamics, the increased polarization of congress correlates with polarization of the public. Congressmen want to be reelected and keep their jobs; and they rely on votes and financial contributions ultimately leading them to approach polarized voters in order to completely align with their party’s views in order to maintain voter’s trust and keep their seats in power. There is not a single root cause to blame for the increase in congressional polarization however, there are still contributing factors that have contributed to the increase in radicalization of parties, polarization of congress, and policy gridlock in government decision making.
Although the partisanship levels have grown, the amount of new people running for congress and being elected has not (McCarty). This correlation between heightened congressional polarization and depreciated congressional competition explains the increase in party polarization. “Given the conjunction of these two patterns, it seems natural to draw a link. A very common link drawn by scholars and pundits alike is that the increased polarization of Congress is a direct result of the increasing ease of reelection. Presumably in an era of declining competition politicians no longer feel the need to reach out to moderate and independent voters to win elections. Instead politicians are free to pander to their ideological and partisan base. Politicians who do not pander may face primary challenges by ideologically purer candidates” (McCarty). Increase in congressional polarization is linked to lack of congressional competition in elections. New runners do not want to go up against, or fund an election against, an incumbent. With a polarized public, voters are unlikely to vote for new faces, and this leads to lack of encouragement to get new competition to run against the incumbents.
There is a decrease in moderates in congress. Voters are content with incumbents despite low approval ratings (Iniguez). Satisfaction with incumbents and people in office leads to lack of moderates and lack of, “bridge builders.” “Bridge builders are the men and women in Congress with incentives that transcend partisan politics, voting on an issue regardless of affiliation. However, with today’s almost evenly-split electorate and congressional terms primarily focused on reelection, there is little to no cause to vote across party lines” (Iniguez). With a lack of members of congress seeking to depolarize and move from gridlock, no policies can be passed or proposed without being crucified by radical members. Lack of bridge builders, moderates, and members seeking to integrate ideologies within congress, results to decision-making being prolonged and ultimately inefficient.
The media has its share to blame in contribution to polarization of congress. Media news sources are more biased than ever, but so are the viewers watching the news. However, polarization was on the rise in 1970, around the same time that cable television and internet usage and ownage began to skyrocket. “Beginning in the 1970s, the growth of cable television and later the Internet created an es-cape for this inadvertent and no ideological audience segment: more entertainment options that were now easily available when broadcast networks offered newscasts. With greater media choice, individual content preference became increasingly important in determining who would watch the news and who would abandon it. Without their inadvertent news exposure, entertainment fans lacked the occasional push to the polls. The turnout gap between news and entertainment fans widened and because entertainment fans are not as partisan, their dropping turnout rates led to more partisan elections. The stronger partisan preferences of remaining voters reduced the volatility of election outcomes and raised the aggregate impact of partisanship. Greater media choice polarized elections even before choices began to include more partisan news and opinion formats” (Prior). With less partisan viewers not watching the popular news media sources, voter turnout rates dropped due to lack of informed voters and ultimately led to partisan voters only turning out to vote.
A solution to fixing the polarized congress dilemma is not a simple solution, but many factors that can contribute to an overall change. An idea presented by Markus Prior and Natalie Jonini Storud includes changing the media to curve the way voters think in order to influence who is selected into congress. The media is capable in generating more partisan voting behavior (Prior). Before mass media outlets, broadcast news was what people watched. “News exposure motivated some of these less educated, less interested viewers to go to the polls and because their political views were not particularly ideological or partisan, their votes reduced the aggregate impact of party ID, so elections were less partisan in the broadcast era“ (Prior). In the midst of a technological age, it is no revelation that major news sources and media outlets are biased. However, to moderate voters, it discourages them from voting for a third party or from swaying to one polarized ideology. Moderate voters do not want to watch heavily swayed news sources. In order to motivate moderate voters they need a media source that provides good information that motivates them to go out an vote for third party candidates, or moderate candidates to get the polarized members out and the bridge builders in. Fixing congress starts with fixing the public and the partisan within the system. In order to change American’s viewpoint to resolutions through compromise, not an idea of competition among the ideologies, the way they gain access to politics and news needs to be changed. “Political scientists debate whether polarization in Congress preceded or followed polarization among the wider public, and our data (which begins in 1994) won’t resolve that. One thing is clear, though: When a polarized Congress represents a polarized public, not much gets done legislatively” (Desilver). Congress reflect public opinion and in order to have a congress more willing to compromise, the public needs to be informed and willing to compromise as well. When the public is polarized they elect and identify with their party members who are also heavily divided. It becomes a sense of identity in one’s party with their partisan attitude. In order to reform the ideas of the public and in turn who is elected into congress, there needs to be a reform in the media and how news is presented. “Polarization without persuasion—through technology-induced compositional change of the voting public and elite-induced clarification of electoral choices—is sufficient to explain why elections have become more partisan and moderates have all but disappeared in Congress” (Prior). Changing the media by introducing a popular broadcast that could encourage people to vote, not just the people who think their votes count: partisan voters.
Depolarizing congress starts with depolarizing the public. This can be achieved through revamping the media and the way media news is presented. Although the extent of polarization within congress is pretty high, congress is a reflection of the constituents that have voted for members to represent them. The way to fix congress is to fix the public mindset and getting nonpartisan voters informed and believing that their voice matters. If major news sources start encouraging more flow of information, less entertainment for ratings, and encourage voters to go out and secure spots for new third party or moderate candidates, a new wave of bridge builders can be introduced into the system. Moderates and bridge builders need to be elected into congress and that starts with the public being informed. If the minds of the public are changed, the minds of those representing them will be changed.
Citations
The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s
Drew DeSilver – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/
McCarty, Nolan. “Reducing Polarization: Some Facts for Reformers.” Http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2016. Web. 7 May 2017.
Prior, Markus. “Media and Political Polarization .” https://www.princeton.edu/~mprior/Prior%20MediaPolarization.pdf. Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Politics,, 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 7 May 2017.
Barber, Michael, and Nolan McCarty. “Causes and Consequences of Polarization.” Http://www.apsanet.org/portals/54/Files/Task%20Force%20Reports/Chapter2Mansbridge.pdf. American Political Science Association, n.d. Web. 7 May 2017.