A key take away from this week's readings is that the two parties are becoming more and more polarized due largely to conservatives becoming more conservative. As Mann and Ornstein cite, "More than 70 percent of Republicans in the electorate identify themselves as conservatives or very conservative, while only 40 percent of rank-and-file Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal (p.56)." These authors outline Newt Gingrich's role in deepening the wedge of polarization. Arceneaux and Nicholson examine the movement's face, the Tea Party, arguing that while it is actually more heterogeneous than presumed, it is not made up of working poor Americans. McCarty's analysis emphasizes the numerous negative effects of polarization. Each of these authors contributes to the understanding of why polarization has increased and how it affects policymaking.
It seems that Newt Gingrich and some of his Republican colleagues did exactly what Friedeman discussed, reinforcing excessive fears in the citizenry when it was in his own interest (Managing Fear). According to Mann and Ornstein, he sought to destroy Congress by intensifying public hatred and distrust in the institution in order to scare them into voting for Republican candidates.
The polarization Gingrich helped spark has only intensified in the post-Citizens United paradigm of campaign financing through super PACs. Tea Partiers, according to Arceneaux and Nicholson, are more likely to be white, male, Republican, conservative, and have higher income and education levels than the general population. In terms of sheer demographics, this is becoming a more and more irrelevant group as people of color will soon usurp whites and women have overtaken men in educational attainment. However, to the extent that this group funds conservative candidates, they will remain influential in strengthening the GOP and its continued path of polarization.
If McCarty is to be believed, polarization results in more extreme policy outcomes, vote buying/pork barrel, and an increase in executive and judicial power due to legislative gridlock. How then can average citizens encourage compromise and problem solving among their elected officials? Mann and Ornstein assert that it is now "better [for parties] to have an issue than a bill" (p. 51). Does this make it easier for public opinion to play a role as voters are more likely to be knowledgeable about general issues than particular bills, or is it a way to deflect the public's interest in the gridlocked work of Congress? Also, why aren't Democrats becoming more liberal?
Josie raised some interesting points here.
Firstly, "More than 70 percent of Republicans in the electorate identify themselves as conservatives or very conservative, while only 40 percent of rank-and-file Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal ". This phenomenon can be explained by people’s interpretation of social values and culture. More people are willing to be labeled as traditional value keeper and guardian especially among elder generation and a large number of the Christians. Conservative social policy is not as harmful as a too liberal social policy given the fact that U.S. is Christian majority based. Also, when facing severe economic recession and emerging social issues, people tend to look back and seek antidote from the past, which leads to a non-liberal Democratic party because any risk may ruin their political career and agenda.
In terms of question "how then can average citizens encourage compromise and problem solving among their elected officials?" I do believe public opinion and media can be effective tools and supervisors. But the real question is how can we guarantee that public and media are doing their job right instead of being sounding-boards for either party’s political beliefs.
Your question about how average citizens can encourage reform in the legislative process is a great question. At first it seemed that the answer lies in the electorate. However, interestingly McCarty points out that since gerrymandering and interest group financed campaigns are not the primary reasons for polarization electorate reform will not alleviate or reduce the problem. I tend to agree with McCarty that reform in the legislature is required. While it may be difficult if not impossible, average citizens can play a role in that process to ensure that elected officials are held accountable and the process is transparent and understandable to the lay person. It seems that elected officials are less and less responsible to the constituents that they are supposed to be representing and maybe the solution lies in more engagement with the political process. However as we discussed last week, this in itself is rife with problems.
As Mann and Ornstein pointed out age old tricks, combined with new technologies such as proliferation of media sources have made the process more difficult. It's hard to see how average citizens can play an active role to reform the legislature when they are up against super PACs and the elite who have the resources to ensure that politicians respond to their needs rather than the masses.
Democrats aren't becoming more liberal because the Republican and Democratic parties have different types of base and this affects their ability to evolve. The Republicans party has far less diversity of opinion and experience among their base. The Democratic party on the other hand, is comprised of many different interest-type groups each with their different goals, often which conflict with other Democrats goals. The unity of opinion among Republicans allows a large enough group of extreme conservatives to noticeably exist. Democrats on the other hand do not have enough unity of opinion for a single group to be cohesively “extreme liberal.”
On the issue of healthcare for instance, the range of liberal opinion is clear. Liberals have a huge range of opinions on how healthcare should be reformed, in order to present a clear platform, major compromises have to be made within the party, often these compromises make the policy more moderate, and that is only if they decide a policy issue has enough support to be pursued. Conservatives on the other hand are on the defense for most policy issues; it is easier to present a unified defense against a common threat than to create a united offense to pass a new plan.
On one final note, to be extremely liberal is perceived more negatively than to be extremely conservative. Conservatives always have on their side patriotism, of defending the American way. Liberals are always, it seems, open to attack for being too socialist.
All of these are reasons why the Tea Party can exist, but liberals don’t become more radical.
Great, insightful comments! Sorry about the typo - the last sentence was not meant to be repeated earlier.
While I agree with many of Naadha's points, I wonder about the last part of her post - that "it's hard to see how average citizens can play an active role to reform the legislature when they are up against super PACs and the elite who have the resources to ensure that politicians respond to their needs rather than the masses." This is an interesting argument, and I don't think I know enough about the topic to fully counter it. But when reading I thought about Karl Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads and how it was almost completely unsuccessful this election season. American Crossroads raised a huge amount of money to influence the Presidential and Congressional elections and in the end they made no impact. While I agree that super PACs, elites, and special interest groups hold considerable power, I'm not sure that this power really overwhelms the power of the masses. I think with this election voters exhibited a desire for less polarization and more moderation. It will remain to be seen if this can decrease the level of polarization in Congress, but it makes sense in my mind that the basic solution will be the act of voting, by which citizens hold elected official accountable.