Andes1

Ryan Andes
Rhetoric and Civic Life
David Maxson
30 November 2015
Political Polarization in the United States
While the fourth Republican debate on November 10th was supposed to focus on the
economic policies of potential presidential candidates, partisanship ended up played a large role
in the debate. Democratic frontrunner Hilary Clinton was criticized over twenty-fives times by
Republican frontrunners for her record as secretary of state, her character, and her economic
policies (Hopkins). As tensions between the Democratic and Republican parties have risen in
recent years, candidates now seek to boost their polling numbers by attacking the other side.
Clinton herself was widely criticized for her comments during the October 13th Democratic
debate, in which she responded that the enemy shes most proud of taking on was the Republican
Party (Gass). As far back as Americas founding, the nation has been steeped in partisan political
battles. The founding fathers designed a three-branch system of government and legislative
system that would prevent an abuse of power by a single faction looking to make sweeping
changes. Political polarization reached an all-time high during the Civil War that split the nation
along regional north-south lines and political Democrat- Republican lines. In 1856 in a breach of
congressional decorum representative of the nations rising tensions, southerner Preston Brooks
savagely beat abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner with a cane right in the middle of the senate
floor for his verbal attacks on slavery and southern congressmen. While fist fights are unlikely to
break out in todays Congress, American political polarization has been growing over the last
few decades and has now reached its highest levels, arguably since the Civil War. The
ideological common ground between modern American liberals and conservatives is shrinking

Andes2

due to partisan media outlets and the formation of ideological silos, which contribute to the
erosion of Americas ability to legislate.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans in Congress has been steadily growing
since the 1970s. Using the Nominate Algorithm developed by political scientists Keith Poole
and Howard Rosenthal, congressional voting records can be used to measure the ideological
positions of politicians (Frisch, and Kelly xvii). In 1973, 29 Senators and 240 House members
overlapped between the most conservative Democrat and most liberal Republican. A decade later
in 1983, this gap had shrunk to just 10 Senators and 66 House members, and by 2011 no
ideological overlap existed in Congress (The Polarized Congress). Rosenthal and Poole note
that Congress is now more polarized than at any time since the end of Reconstruction (The
Polarized Congress). As this overlaps declines, it becomes harder and harder for Congress to
pass bi-partisan legislation. In Parties, Polarization, and Democracy in the United States,
Donald C. Baumer and Howard J. Gold discuss that party unity, another indication of
polarization, has increased right along with the distance between the parties. Party unity is
calculated as the number of votes in which a majority of one party votes against the majority of
another party. Average party unity takes into account the number of times individual
congressmen voted the party line. Recently as 2008, the average unity scores for Democrats and
Republicans hovered around 90%. Members of our contemporary Congress opposed each other
far more than in the 1970s when the average unity score was around 70% for both parties
(Baumer, and Gold 136-140). This becomes apparent in the most recent Congress, the 113th,
which Jonathon Topaz at Politico calls the Worst Congress Ever.
Americas two main political parties have moved farther left and right in Congress, yet
the United States is experiencing widespread political polarization on a much greater scale. From

Andes3

January to April 2014 the Pew Research Center conducted a ten thousand person survey to gauge
the opinions of Americans on a wide range of political issues and assigned each survey
respondent to five categories: consistently conservative, mostly conservative, mixed, mostly
liberal, and consistently liberal. Respondents were asked a series of ten questions and researchers
were then able to create a baseline of the political ideology of the general public. Overall the
survey yielded a total sampling error of just 1.1 percent. Pew concluded that polarization among
the American public has been sharply increasing over the last twenty years leaving plenty of
empty common ground right in the middle of the political spectrum. From 1994 to 2014 the
number of Americans with a consistently liberal or conservative ideology doubled from 10 to
21% while the number of Americans with moderate or mixed views decreased from 49 to 39%.
Today the median or average Republican is more conservative than 94% of Democrats while the
median Democrat is more liberal than 92% of Republicans (Political Polarization). The
emergence of more consistently ideological Americans is important because more ideological
citizens are more politically engaged. This subset of the population votes in elections, donates
and volunteers for campaigns far more than typical Americans and tends to drive political
discussions. According to the Pew Research Center while just 39% of Americans admit to always
voting in elections, 58% and 78% of consistently liberal and conservative Americans always vote
(Political Polarization). When it comes to elections, the far left and the far right comprise a far
greater portion of the electorate than the general population, especially in primary elections that
draw hardline party supporters to the polls. The increased political activity of more ideological
Americans means that polarization has a far greater impact than shown simply through the data.
Before discussing the implications and causes of this trend, it is important to address the
arguments that could be made rejecting the notion of increasing polarization. One observation

Andes4

about Americas current government is that the president and houses of Congress are now
controlled by opposite parties in a situation known as divided government, which can lead to
conflict in the legislative process as both parties attempt to exert their influence. While this
situation may give rise to hostilities between parties, divided government is quite common in
American history. From 1947 to 2007 divided government occurred in 38 out of the last 60 years
(Baumer, and Gold 133). Another explanation for this trend could be simply a rise in party
identification. However, party identification in America has been slowly declining over the last
few decades. According to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans identifying as
independents has been steadily growing as the power of partys declines. Today, 39%
Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans, in what Pew
calls the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling
(Trends in Party Identification). Political polarization is a trend that has been steadily growing
in the modern era for the past few decades. While Americans have been heavily divided in the
past, modern tensions are starting to rival even the most contentious eras of American
government.
This divergence in American political thought has been partly driven by partisan media
outlets and the emergence of ideological silos. The proliferation of modern new sources allows
viewers on the left and the right to select news that matches their political biases. During the
1960s and early 1970s, Americans were limited to getting their news from the three major
broadcast networks and local newspapers. With the invention of the internet and cable television
there is now a wide variety of available political content. As part of the larger political survey
mentioned above, Pew researched the media habits of the American public. Generally, the study
concluded that the left and the right turn to different outlets for political news; 47 % of consistent

Andes5

conservatives responded that Fox News was their main news sources while consistent liberals
preferred CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times the most. Unsurprisingly, around half of the
audience of the two major political channels, MSNBC and Fox News, were made up of liberal
leaning and conservative leaning viewers respectively while the other half of the audience held
mostly mixed views (Mitchell et al.). Both of these channels report with a political bias to match
its viewer base. Rarely on Fox News do news personalities praise the work of president Obama.
Likewise, former speaker John Boehner receives less favorable news coverage on MSNBC. Last
year while preparing a report for an AP Government class, I examined the inherent biases in
Foxs The OReilly Factor versus MSNBCs the Rachael Maddow Show. On the same day, both
shows covered the growing power of ISIS in the Middle East from opposite angles. OReilly
lambasted Obamas ineffective foreign policy and suggested that he was just throwing out ideas,
while on the other hand, Maddow was quick to criticize a Republican controlled Congress for not
formulating an effective foreign policy plan to combat ISIS. Viewers on the left and the right
have widespread distrust of many news outlets because of their reputation for political bias. In
the Pew media study of all the major sources for broadcast, print, and internet political news only
the Wall Street Journal was considered trustworthy to all ideological subgroups (Mitchell et al.).
Forty years ago, Americans turned in to same nightly news coverage on the networks of NBC,
CBS, and ABC, but modern Americans receive different, more partisan takes on the news and
thus tend to view issues through the lenses of their initial political preconceptions (Barber, and
McCarty 32-33). As social media grows as a source for political content, it too has become a tool
for widening the political divide. Researchers at Indiana University conducted a study of the
political content on Twitter and found that the social media site is a highly polarized medium that
includes two distinct clusters of political thought. Although Twitter may encourage some

Andes6

discourse across the political divide, individuals rarely share information that conflicts with their
existing belief system (Conover et al.). Similarly to other types of media, social media
exacerbates the preexisting biases of the reader and paint a negative picture of the other side.
Increasingly the left and right are living their lives in a bubble of political content. As
discussed above, more ideological and more politically involved Americans tend to drive
political discussions. Consistent conservatives and liberals, who tend to discuss politics far more
than the average citizen and play an influential role in the political system, prefer to live and
socialize with people who share their political beliefs. The Pew Research Center found that half
of consistent liberals and 63% of consistent conservatives replied that many of their close friends
shared their political beliefs. The American Association of Geographers has found that politics
plays a major role in moving decisions and likewise many of these ideological Americans also
agree that is important to live in a place where people share their political beliefs (Political
Polarization). These finding suggest that red and blue states are not merely general labels that
we apply after elections, but are instead a distinctive grouping of likeminded individuals. Among
key differences in the ideal community for liberals and conservatives, Pews survey found that
liberals were drawn to cities and conservatives were drawn to rural areas (Political
Polarization). Looking at a map at an Electoral College map of America, it generally holds that
the red or conservative states are more rural than the blue or liberal states, which are often
dominated by cities. Recently these states have become far more divided upon party lines and
that there are growing disparities between voters in red and blue states on social and religious
questions. The average margin of victory in the states has risen from 8% in 1960 to 15% in the
2004 presidential election while the number of electorally competitive states has vastly declined.
(Abramowitz, Saunders 548-550). The practice of gerrymandering or redrawing of district

Andes7

boundaries by states legislatures to form strong one-party districts may exacerbate this
geographic trend by further dividing communities on party lines (Barber, and McCarty 27-28).
As the far left and right continue to live their lives in an ideological silo, it will become
impossible for them to see the other sides point of view because they are never exposed to
opposing viewpoints. Nearly 30% of both consistent liberals and conservatives oppose the idea
of an in-law from an opposite party (Political Polarization). Without the infusion of dialogue
across the political divide, neither side will be ready to compromise.
The American peoples faith in Congress has been declining for some time as evidenced
by a Gallup Congressional Job Approval Rating that has remained under 20% since early 2011
(Congress and the Public). Political polarization has affected and is slowly destroying our
nations ability to effectively legislate. Analyzing the number of laws passed during each session
of Congress, the Washington Post has found that congressional legislative output has slowly
declined over the last few decades (Klein). In accordance with these findings, the Pew Research
Center has found that as polarization has increased the number of substantive pieces of
legislation has declined as well. As recently as the 106th Congress (1999, 2000) 580 laws were
passed, with 117 of these being substantive. By the 113th Congress (212-2014) legislative output
had fallen to 296 laws with 84 being substantive (Desliver). The 112th Congress passed the least
legislation since the late 1800s and current predictions are that as polarization increases,
legislative productivity will continue to decrease (Barber, and McCarty 39). While legislative
output has declined, political scientists Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty propose that
polarization has broader detrimental effects on policy-implementation and the routine
functioning of the national government. They postulate that a more polarized Congress is less
likely to delegate administrative tasks and rely on the experience of bureaucracy. Additionally,

Andes8

there is more partisan strife and delay present in the Senate confirmation process of judicial
appointments and executive branch officials leaving vital governmental offices vacant. The
Federal Reserves Board of Governors, responsible for carrying out monetary policy in the
United States, has had a full seven member board less than 40% of the time over the last two
decades and currently only has five members (Applebaum). One of Congress most important
functions is the power of the purse, which centers around the House Appropriations Committee.
Over the last few decades, delays and appropriations have become synonymous. The 104th
Congress was the last time all appropriations bills were passed before the October 1st official
deadline (Frisch, and Kelly 17). In the book Politics to the Extreme, authors Scott Frisch and
Sean Kelly describe how the once bipartisan appropriations committee has become corrupted by
partisanship as congressional tensions continue to grow. While both sides once sought
compromise over key spending bills, polarization and the hold of party leaders has caused
committee members to reject the middle ground. Change began in the 1990s as ideological
junior members gradually replaced senior committee members and eroded the tradition of
bipartisanship (4-19). An appropriations committee staffer described the situation as Incredibly
partisan, dysfunctional and demoralizing the institution has the inability to deal with the
challenges facing the nation (4). A 2013 government shutdown for 17 days over the debt ceiling
and Marchs emergency Homeland Security Funding passed hours before the deadline, for one of
the governments biggest departments, all point to the fact that Congress is losing control over
the power of the purse and possibly much more.
Gridlock has now become commonplace in Congress. Recently, Speaker of the House
John Boehner resigned over tensions within his own party, let alone the increasingly difficult job
of managing the House of Representatives. The Republican led House has voted on repealing

Andes9

Obamacare thirty-three times diverting energy and time from other legislation (Klein). While for
decades congressmen have promised immigration reform, a gridlocked congress has repeatedly
failed to deliver. Substantial immigration legislation was last passed in 1986 and since then
partisan attempts including the Sensenbrenner Bill and Dream Act, have failed to gain the
necessary support of both parties. Even the bipartisan Gang of Eight committee failed largely
due to the inability of both sides to comprise on key provisions of legislation (Barber, and
McCarty 39-41). This war of ideologies has seeped into every facet of Congress. In the Senate,
the use of obstructions such as the filibuster has increased, giving the minority party the power to
effectively block a piece of legislation, unless the majority can muster sixty votes to force a
cloture. In the House, committees have become increasingly partisan and policy is now
dominated by party leaders who base committee appointments on ideology rather than seniority
as was done in the past (Barber and McCarty 42-44). As Congress loses the capacity to handle
pressing issues such as entitlement reforms, the national debt, and immigration, it creates a
power vacuum in Washington. Legislative polarization allows the executive and judicial
branches to increase in power (Barber, and McCarty 44). The Supreme Court has taken on the
role of regulator and its ruling in the case of Oberfegell v. Hodges decided the issue of gay
marriage. The head of the executive branch, Barack Obama has become more aggressive in
asserting his authority to issue executive orders and his order on immigration represents the only
piece of real legislation recently passed in that area. As political compromise decreases and
delay and gridlock persist, Congress will struggle to provide policies to keep up with a rapidly
changing world.
The United States faces a crisis of divisive politics, which has divided our Congress, our
media, and our public. The ideological common ground in America between todays liberals and

Andes10

conservatives is shrinking due to the formation of ideological silos reinforced by partisan media
outlets and is contributing to the erosion of Americas ability to legislate. While Americans are
members of, in the words of the pledge of allegiance, one indivisible Republic, the differences
between red and blue America have become more strikingly pronounced and the only way to
once again unite the nation is to establish a dialogue. During the late 1990s, Congress convened
for a series of retreats aimed at restoring civility and building working relationships across the
aisle (Frisch, and Kelly 188-201). The idea was that if political adversaries began to see each
other as individuals they would better understand each others point of view and would avoid
turning policy differences into personal hostilities (191). We as Americans now need to follow
their lead. Its time to step outside of our comfort zone and actually listen to the other sides
arguments even if we disagree. In the past, America was great because of our ability to
compromise and some of historys greatest figures are remembered, not for their ability to toe a
party line but for their willingness to reach across the aisle and make a deal. On his election to
the presidency in 1801, Thomas Jefferson dealt with a crisis of partisanship between the
Federalists and the Republicans. In his inaugural address, he spoke these famous words that are
adorned on the Jefferson memorial, we are all Federalists we are all Republicans. Jeffersons
sentiment continues to ring true today, so America, we are all Democrats we are all Republicans.

Andes11

Works Cited
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. "Is Polarization a Myth?" The Journal of
Politics 70.2 (2008): 542-55. JSTOR. Web. 17 November 2015.
Applebaum, Binyamin. Vacancies Pose Threat to the Fed. New York Times. New York
Times, May 12, 2014. Web. 20 November 2015.
Barber, Michael, and Nolan McCarty. Causes and Consequences of
Polarization. Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Ed. Persily, Nathan. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 19-46. Web.
Baumer, Donald C., and Howard J. Gold. Parties, Polarization, and Democracy in the
United States. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm, 2010. Print.
Congress and the Public. Gallup. Gallup, 2015. Web. 29 November 2015.
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonalves, B., Menczer, F.,
and Flammini, A. Political Polarization on Twitter. Fifth International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media July 2011. JSTOR. Web.
17 November 2015.
Desliver, Drew. In late spurt of activity, Congress avoids least
productive title. Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center,
December 29, 2014. Web. 24 November 2015.

Andes12

Desliver, Drew. The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the
1970s. Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, June 12, 2014.
Web. 24 November 2015.
Frisch, Scott A., and Sean Q. Kelly. Politics to the Extreme. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Gass, Nick. The 11 best quotes from the first Democratic debate. Politico. Politico,
October 13,2015. Web. 20 November 2015.
Hopkins, David A. This one chart shows which Republicans bashed Hillary Clinton in
Tuesday nights debate. We explain why. Washington Post. Washington Post, November
11, 2015. Web. 20 November 2015.
Jefferson, Thomas. First Inaugural Address. US Capital. Washington DC. 4 March
1801.
Klein, Ezra. 14 Reasons why this is the worst Congress ever. Washington Post.
Washington Post, July 13, 2012. Web. November 12th, 2015.
Mitchell, Amy, Geoffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley, and Katerina Eva Matsa. Political
Polarization & Media Habits. Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, October 21,
2014. Web. 22 November 2015.
Political Polarization in the American Public. Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center, June 12, 2014. Web. 22 November 2015.

Andes13

Topaz, Johnathon. Worst Congress ever by the numbers. Politico.

Politico, December 17, 2014. Web. 15 November 2015.
Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014. Pew Research Center. Pew
Research Center, April 7, 2015. Web. 24 November 2015.

Andes14