Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Does partisanship impact happiness?

Does partisanship impact happiness?
Javier Zayas Photography/Getty Images

Lynn Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

When it comes to polarization, partisanship and happiness, I have more questions than answers. As polarization has increased in America, is it still true that partisans are happier than non-partisans?


On the day that the United States military, under the order of Pres. Biden, shot down the Chinese spy balloon off the coast of the Carolinas. I felt a wave of the “rally around the flag” effect and even shared some patriotic exuberance with my husband. While I did not like the idea that China had managed to launch this spy balloon over the United States, I had full faith that the military and intelligence leadership would do the right and safe thing. Shortly thereafter I saw that the senior U.S. Senator from my state tweeted “Debacle.” How remarkably sad that a senator couldn't rejoice in a “win” for the United States because he is so profoundly motivated by partisan animosity.

Historical studies have shown that Republicans are happier than Democrats or independents. Some 45 percent of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents. Since 1972 Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey (GSS) began measuring this in 1972. This information can be complicated by the correlations of income, education, marital status, and religiosity but it begs the question. Does it remain true that as polarization has increased, those numbers stayed the same?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

I find it surprising that people who consider their political opponents their enemies and stew in an ideological media culture of anger and fear of “the other” are happier than those who consider each other as fellow Americans?

Pew Research reports that highly negative views of the opposite party have more than doubled: 43 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms. Among all Democrats, 27 percent say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. That figure is even higher among Republicans, 36 percent of whom think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

I am a recovering partisan. It has been several years since I left the warm embrace of a tribe. I am also so much happier. I have adopted independence in most aspects of my political life. Not only do I consider myself an independent voter, I approach each issue, candidate, and election in a refreshingly independent way. I am not alone. According to Gallup Research, as of Nov. 2022, the largest voting block in the electorate goes to independents with 42 percent, followed by Republicans with 30 percent and Democrats with 26 percent. Of course independents lean one way or another but the takeaway should be that more Americans no longer want to associate with one of the two major parties.

When thinking about all this data and considering my personal experience, I am starting to think we need new studies. I was excited to see this one.

A study published in 2020 in The Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties as “Neural Nonpartisans” suggests that the brains of non-partisans function differently than those of partisans. Blood flow to regions associated with problem solving differed between the two groups. The findings may lead to further research in how differences in brain activity affect personality. The study looked at blood flow in the brains of partisans and non-partisans as they played a betting game. The results were later compared to their voter registrations to confirm their partisanship or lack thereof. The sample size was small with only 110 test subjects but the results were fascinating. The brain scans demonstrated that blood flow to the right medial temporal pole, orbitofrontal/medial prefrontal cortex, and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex differs between partisans and non-partisans. These regions are associated with socially relevant memory, decision making, and goal-related responses. Previous studies have also shown them to be essential for social connections. The study demonstrates that the brains of non-partisans approach non-political problems differently than the brains of partisans.

Lead author Dr. Darren Schreiber laid out his interpretation of the data and offered takeaways: “There is skepticism about the existence of non-partisan voters, that they are just people who don’t want to state their preferences. But we have shown their brain activity is different, even aside from politics. We think this has important implications for political campaigning – non-partisans need to be considered a third voter group. In the USA 40 percent of people are thought to be non-partisan voters. Previous research shows negative campaigning deters them from voting. This exploratory study suggests US politicians need to treat swing voters differently, and positive campaigning may be important in winning their support. While heated rhetoric may appeal to a party’s base, it can drive non-partisans away from politics altogether.”

The escalation of polarization, as well as the surge of non-partisans, warrants further studies and meaningful discourse. We have very little to lose and much to gain.

Read More

People holiding "Yes on 1" signs

People urge support for Question 1 in Maine.

Kyle Bailey

The Fahey Q&A: Kyle Bailey discusses Maine’s Question 1

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The PeoplePeople, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. Sheregularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Kyle Bailey is a former Maine state representative who managed the landmark ballot measure campaigns to win and protect ranked choice voting. He serves as campaign manager for Citizens to End SuperPACs and the Yes On 1 campaign to pass Question 1, a statewide ballot initiative that would place a limit of $5,000 on contributions to political action committees.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ballot envelopes moving through a sorting machine

Mailed ballots are sorted by a machine at the Denver Elections Division.

Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

GOP targets fine print of voting by mail in battleground state suits

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In 2020’s presidential election, 17 million more Americans voted than in 2016’s election. That record-setting turnout was historic and even more remarkable because it came in the midst of a deadly pandemic. A key reason for the increase was most states simplified and expanded voting with mailed-out ballots — which 43 percent of voters used.

Some battleground states saw dramatic expansions. Michigan went from 26 percent of its electorate voting with mailed-out ballots in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. Pennsylvania went from 4 percent to 40 percent. The following spring, academics found that mailing ballots to voters had lifted 2020’s voter turnout across the political spectrum and had benefited Republican candidates — especially in states that previously had limited the option.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump on stage

The media has held Kamala Harris to a different standard than Donald Trump.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The media is normalizing the abnormal

Rikleen is executive director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of “Her Honor – Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.”

As we near the end of a tumultuous election season, too many traditional media outlets are inexplicably continuing their practice of covering candidates who meet standards of normalcy differently than the candidate who has long defied them.

By claiming to take the high road of neutrality in their reporting, these major outlets are committing grave harm. First, they are failing to address what is in plain sight. Second, through those continued omissions, the media has abdicated its primary responsibility of contributing to an informed electorate.

Keep ReadingShow less