American University Professor James Thurber contributed to the new book American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization. The multisource work provides a full diagnosis of the gridlock in Congress that has had a ripple effect of impacts throughout our democracy and our nation. Thurber’s book thoroughly discusses partisanship, the impact of media, the commotion on Capitol Hill, and how gridlock is a reflection of societal choices and the environment we live in.
The world of academia has turned its scope and began to study how Americans have become so divided only recently. American University Professor James Thurber made his contribution to the complicated and complex issue with his work on American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization. The book is powerful on the discussion of American divide because it fosters many areas of academic research and packages it into one work.
With almost any decision made today, in Congress, elections, and even just political discussion in the media, there is always an example of gridlock. Public officials touting their desired policy against each other with their corresponding news outlet airing the positive or negative coverage. There are many examples of gridlock and hyper-partisanship that is even demonstrated during family dinners that often result in a shouting match. What has most clearly brought this issue into the spotlight has been the 2016 presidential campaign and election, much of the electorate focused on two of the points later discussed, the media and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Congress remains deeply divided with few officials prone to reasonableness. The issue of gridlock could not be more prominent especially on large issues like healthcare. Thurber stated “[T]he two parties are really in two different universes, totally talking about different things. No one is coming together in dialogue.” We have witnessed Thurber’s point during confirmation hearings, testimonies and ample amount of policy debates.
The commotion on Capitol Hill and as Thurber in a relatively recent interview discussed the “contemporary partisan rancor.” Thurber discussed one way he measures the partisanship is through congressional voting. Thurber stated how members of opposing parties are voting together about as infrequently as they did just before the Civil War. These stark contrasts in voting are most prominent in the recent cabinet confirmation hearings we have witnessed.
Throughout the 1960’s and early 1970’s there was plenty of bipartisanship and cross-party cooperation. Thurber states how around one-third of the members in the House and the Senate were moderates voting together. The current situation is much different from that of 40, 50 years ago. “From the early 1980’s to present, every year we’ve lost more and more people voting together, and fewer and fewer competitive congressional races in the general election,” Thurber stated.
Thurber believes that a primary factor for this transition from bipartisanship to hyper-partisanship is the result of the declining number of conservative Southern Democrats. Thurber stated, the entire South became reliably Republican, and the blueprint for the eventual “red” and “blue” America was born.
We first began to see this transition with President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960’s with the enactment of civil rights legislation. The transition has only recently neared completion. Thurber stated, “just to put it in perspective: in 2008, we had 58 moderate-to-conservative Democrats, and now, if they’re willing to even say they are, its about six Democrats. And there are no moderate or liberal republicans.”
Thurber and co-editor Antoine Yoshinaka began American Gridlock explaining how partisanship in Congress has caused grave issues for the budgetary process. They write, “Partisan battles over the federal budget over the last 20 years are a prime example of the fundamental policy differences between the parties. Bipartisanship is rare if not nonexistent in Washington when it comes to tax increases and cuts in popular domestic programs. Both are needed to reduce the deficit and the debt, but the parties have taken increasingly extreme positions on their willingness to compromise on taxes and means testing in social programs.”
Looking at our nation’s gridlock, it is difficult to size the problem because there are so many issues at hand. Thurber and Yoshinaka break down gridlock into five parts: polarization among voters and activists; polarization in national institutions; polarization in the states; polarization in the media; and a final section with implications and conclusions.
A topic discussed by Alan Abramowitz, the new American electorate, receives a thorough elaboration and its effect on gridlock. Straight ticket voting has reached record levels, and the 2012 presidential campaign saw the highest level of party loyalty of any race since exit polls started in 1972. It will be interesting to see how the 2016 data, once collected and formalized is compared to 2012 and elections since 1972. Abramowitz stated, “according to the national exit poll, 93 percent of Republican identifiers voted for Mitt Romney and 92 percent of Democratic identifiers voted for Barack Obama.”
As Gridlock progresses, Samuel Abrams and Morris Fiorina debate that the number of nonpartisan voters in the middle has not actually shrunk, rather, the electorate has “sorted.” This meaning that the two political parties are more ideologically distinct from each other. Abrams and Fiorina state, “party sorting increases inter-party conflict and makes cross-party compromise more difficult.”
Another key issue driving Gridlock is the prominence of interests groups. Interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum are now crucial parts of the political parties and their process. David Karol notes that vitality of the donations that interest groups give to candidates and their desired political party. These interest groups often have a desired resulting effect on policy and the backing candidate’s platform.
There cannot be a discussion of gridlock and partisanship without the mention of the Supreme Court of the United States. Brandon Bartels has a chapter on how the Supreme Court has generally become more polarized over time but really has been occurring since the 1970’s. The history of the Supreme Court of the United States has gone through waves of conservatism and liberalism with Presidents like F.D.R. running on platforms to change the layout of the court. Since the 1970’s, beginning with Nixon but much more so carried out by President Reagan, Clinton, and their predecessors, court packing has now become a political norm. Contrasting from the federal level, Boris Shor discusses the polarization in state legislatures which is often more intense than at the federal level.
Even just turning on the television, we can see polarization; there is a deepening relationship between gridlock and the media. American University Professor Jennifer Lawless and her co-author Danny Hayes determine how polarization affects even local news stations. Lawless and Hayes found that office races with a definitive expected outcome receive substantially less local news coverage than competitive races. Since many Americans live in safe congressional districts, the impact of these portrayed local campaign stories could have deep rooted consequences.
Lawless and Hayes write, “after all, when citizens are exposed to news coverage about politics, they are not only more likely to know about their representatives, communities, and issues facing the nation, but they are also more likely to participate, If polarization diminishes the news environment by making more and more congressional districts uncompetitive, then the foundation of democracy–citizen engagement–may be imperiled.”
Political observers believe that partisan and hyper-partisan media outlets are providing established content that radicalizes their viewers’ beliefs, opinions, and treatment towards government. In American Gridlock, Gary Jacobson believes that partisan media played a contributing factor to the record of polarization in the 2012 election. Johnson also discusses how political issues are covered, as he points out with climate change, which is treated drastically different by both sides of the political spectrum. Jacobson further points out that “it is not surprising to find large residual effects of partisan media attention on beliefs about climate change and that polarization on this issue was unusually high.”
As the progression on media partisanship develops, Kevin Arceneaux and Martin Johnson argue that partisan media outlets stem from polarization and it is not a contributing factor rather a result. Arceneaux and Johnson believe that in terms of the population, only a small number of people consume partisan news outlets and their shows.
Thurber believes that all of the partisanship occurring throughout the media and all the levels of government is a result of American culture, identity, and geography. Thurber states that there is no single formulate that explains these divisions, you have cultural issues like guns and abortion that have created chasms in the American electorate. And the party coalitions are now fragmented by race, with white males increasingly aligned with the GOP and minority populations supporting Democrats.” Thurber further goes on about gridlock being reflective of lifestyle choices and environment, stating people’s beliefs are often influenced by where they live, whether it’s an urban community or a rural town. Even if economic dislocation increases Americans’ mobility–with conservatives moving to liberal areas, or vice versa–it doesn’t necessarily diversify a region’s ideological composition.” Thurber contends this hypothetical: “Let’s say you’re a Detroit United Auto Worker and you retire before Detroit went down. And you move to Phoenix, Arizona, and you’re in a nearby suburb. It’s full of Republicans. Do you go down there and help organize for the Democratic Party? Do you organize for unions? No. You go down there, and you either adapt to the surroundings or you don’t get involved.”
American Gridlock finalizes with a thoughtful conclusion that partisanship is bipartisan. Each party has little desire and motivation to work with their counterpart. Some researchers has blamed the current stalemate on the Republican Party’s rightward drift however Thurber disagrees stating that the left also bears some responsibility for national gridlock and explain why Republicans have an incentive to comprise. Thurber and Yoshinaka write “The fact remains that a vast number of policies (or repeal thereof) advocated by those who generally identify as conservatives still require government to act.” Concluding Thurber states, “both political parties do the voters a disservice. Even with hardball, winner-take-all politics, everyone still finds a way to lose.”