Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:46:55.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Party Sorting: The Foundations of Polarized Politics

from PART I - POLARIZATION AMONG VOTERS AND ACTIVISTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Samuel J. Abrams
Affiliation:
Hoover Institution at Stanford University
Morris P. Fiorina
Affiliation:
Stanford University
James A. Thurber
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Antoine Yoshinaka
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Buffalo
Get access

Summary

  1. • A political cleavage illustrates polarization when the extremes grow at the expense of the middle.

  2. • Whether one looks at partisan, ideological, or issue cleavages, the American electorate shows no evidence of polarization; the middle has not shrunk.

  3. • The American electorate has sorted – the parties are more internally homogeneous and more distinct from each other.

  4. • Party sorting increases inter-party conflict and makes cross-party compromise more difficult.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, the national media adopted a narrative promoted by a coterie of scholars, pundits, and politicos. According to the narrative, Americans were combatants in a culture war between red and blue states. Our country had become a 50/50 nation with no neutrals to mediate between the opposing sides. The United States of America had deteriorated into the Divided States of America. This narrative nicely met the mediae's concept of newsworthiness – division, polarization, battles, war! But to political scientists familiar with public opinion data, the narrative was puzzling.

If one thinks about polarization in partisan terms, the American public did not look much different than it had in the 1970s. As shown in Figure 1, the proportion of Democrats was a little smaller than in the 1970s and the proportion of Republicans a little larger. After 1984, there is almost no change. Rather than the middle – in this case, nonpartisans – having disappeared, it is slightly larger today than in the 1970s.

Similarly, if one thinks about polarization in ideological terms, the American public looked about the same as it did in the 1970s. The proportion of self-identified liberals – always the least popular label (Free and Cantril 1967; Ellis and Stimson 2012) – trails the proportion of conservatives, which with a few small exceptions, trails the modal category – moderates. Again, the middle has not disappeared.

If one thinks about polarization in terms of specific policy issues, the picture is less definitive because we do not have lengthy time series of data such as those previously described. But most data shows the American public clustering in the center, as on the seven-point scales included in the American National Election Studies (ANES) graphed in Figure 3.

Type
Chapter
Information
American Gridlock
The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization
, pp. 113 - 130
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” Journal of Politics 60 (3): 634–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Samuel J., and Fiorina, Morris P. 2012. “Are Leaning Independents Just Deluded or Dishonest Weak Partisans?” Paper presented at the Conference on Revisiting Party ID, Rome, Italy.
Baldassarri, Delia, and Gelman, Andrew. 2008. “Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion.” American Journal of Sociology 114 (2): 408–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broockman, David E. 2014. “Assuming Americans Are Reliably Ideological Can Mislead Studies of Representation.” Retrieved from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~broockma/broockman_artificial_disconnect.pdf.
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Elizabeth Addell, Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. Between Two Absolutes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James A.. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2014. “Americans Have Not Become Politically More Polarized.” Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/23/americans-have-not-become-more-politically-polarized/.
Fiorina, Morris P. 2013. “Party Homogeneity and Contentious Politics.” In Shea, Daniel M. and Fiorina, Morris P., eds., Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics. New York: Pearson, 142–153.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” In Levi, Margaret, Jackman, Simon, and Rosenblum, Nancy, eds., Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 563–588.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, edition. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Free, Lloyd A., and Cantril, Hadley. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2007. A Divider, Not a Uniter. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey, and Carsey, Thomas M. 2002. “Party Polarization and Party Structuring of Policy Attitudes: A Comparison of Three NES Panel Studies.” Political Behavior 24: 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 2014. “Admit It, Political Scientists: Politics Really Is More Broken Than Ever.” The Atlantic, May 26.
Meyer, Dick. 2014. “Maybe Americans Are Not as Politically Polarized as Reported.” Retrieved from http://www.theindychannel.com/decodedc/maybe-americans-are-not-as-politically-polarized-as-reported.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2013. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Daron. 2012. “If Everyone Votes Their Party, Why Do Presidential Elections Vary So Much?The Forum 10 (3): Article 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Brewer, Mark D., and Mariani, Mack D., 2003. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tilley, James, and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.” Journal of Politics 73: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Daniel Joseph, and Ellis, Christopher R. 2012. “Partisan Moods: Polarization and the Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences.” Journal of Politics 74: 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ.Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×