Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gridlock's awful, especially for a nation much less polarized than its politicians

Divided Capitol, partisan gridlock
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.


Scholars have debated for years whether the United States is polarized. The minority view is that the country is not polarized.

Morris Fiornia has led the charge for that position. He and his Stanford colleague Samuel Abrams, along with Harvard's Jeremy Pope, staked out this ground in "Culture War?," a 2004 book that used polls and surveys to argue our country is not all that bitterly divided over major public policy issues.

To be sure, since the third edition came out a decade ago the country has probably become more divided — especially during the four years Donald Trump was president.

Still, we need to consider the possibility that the nation's population is not polarized, even though the politicians the people have sent to Washington are undeniably polarized.

Back in 2014, columnist Greg Sargent of The Washington Post relied on polling data to lay out the case for widespread national agreement on an array of supposed hot-button topics. There was broad support for immigration reform leading to a path for citizenship, for example, for a big public works program and for job training tax breaks offset by higher taxes on the rich. And there was broad opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Tribal tendencies have ratcheted up in the Trump years, especially on issues related to race and ethnicity. Most polls, however, still show solid majorities wanting to see a path-to-citizenship immigration policy, major infrastructure spending and the status quo for the social safety net.

But in Washington, the Democrats and Republicans are almost totally split. Only a few members on either side in the 50-50 Senate display any tendency to support positions of the opposing party. The same is true in the House, now with the narrowest Democratic majority in 76 years.

So while Americans still may disagree about many things, the claim that Capitol Hill is a microcosm of the country is manifestly untrue. Not only is there widespread agreement among the people on many top-tier policies, but also the electorate is substantially less partisan than Congress. While all 535 lawmakers have affiliated with one of the major parties, the same is true for only 60 percent of voters.

There may be plenty of visible signs and audible voices of opposition to President Biden and his fellow Democrats now in charge of Washington policymaking. But for every member of a white supremacist group, several orders of magnitude more Americans disavow such groups. And for every act of violence by a citizen on the right or the left, there are thousands who have not and would never commit violence in political protest.

It is also true that as many as 60 million Americans do not view Biden as the legitimate president. Yet it does not follow that, on policy questions, these people are polarized against the 81 million who voted to make him president — or against the 80 million who did not vote at all last fall.

Also remember, as political scientists have long reminded us, that voting is only one part of citizenship. In recent decades the nation has seemed to be positioned for something close to a civil war before every election. But while wearing their red or blue uniforms for campaign season, millions have stayed in agreement on plenty of issues. And once the voting is over, people have tended to drop their polarized postures.

In other words, our identity as "voters'' dominates for only a short time every two years, when the choices are often binary. But we are always maintaining our identities as "citizens" — people who espouse subtlety and collaboration on the issues, volunteer for myriad public causes and take pride in helping educate others. Who we vote for does not exhaust who we are as citizens.

Progressives point to "affective polarization" and "tribal identity politics" as the causes of the societal conflicts that truly divide us. Yet the question still remains whether such cultural differences also guarantee divides on public policy questions involving the poor and elderly, crumbling infrastructure, job creation, civil rights and health care.

There was 70 percent public support for Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus package, including 41 percent backing from Republicans. Isn't that evidence to support the view we are not polarized?

The challenge is to seek a resolution of the tension between Washington, which has a problem of polarization, and the country, which does not. Biden probably got elected with many hoping he could lead the effort to get this done. But the responsibility also rests with the congressional leaders of both parties to help forge this new model of legislative success.

And it is up to the nonprofit leaders, media pundits, the clergy and the citizens themselves to tell Washington to stop projecting its own polarization onto the public. If the politicians can resolve their own discord, and the public can transform its understanding of itself, there is a path forward.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less