Jake Wisser Professor Haspel English 137H October 26, 2012 A Trend towards Gridlock: Increasing Political Polarization

Wisser 1

In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington warned against the creation of political factions that he believed would prevent the government from performing its duties to the people. He gave this address during the development of the nascent Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties. Two hundred years later, political parties are ubiquitous in everyday life, ranging from political commercials to mainstream media bias. Worse, these parties are becoming increasingly polarized. According to Vital Statistics on Congress, 2001-2002, both parties are straying further and further from the middle, with Republicans moving further away than Democrats. There are no longer social liberals and fiscal conservatives, or liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Many bills are voted on along party lines, and dont need bipartisan support to pass. A recent example of this is President Obamas healthcare reform bill, which received almost no support from the right side of the isle. It wasnt always this way, however. There was always conflict between competing ideologies, dating back to Washingtons day, but there was usually room for bipartisanship and cooperation. Over our lifetime, however, we have seen a trend towards staunch stands on issues and refusal to cooperate with the other party. Why have our leaders chosen to move further and further from the center? The shift towards more polarized parties coincides with the increased use of redistricting to create safe seats (gerrymandering), the rise of twentyfour media coverage and the Internet, and increased political parity. All of these smaller shifts in 20th century politics lead to the increased polarization of the political parties that

Wisser 2 we see in 21st century politics. As the parties become increasingly split over key issues, and the willingness to work with the other side dissipates, the American people are left with a standoff between two stubborn factions, each waiting for the other side to blink first. Every ten years, the census returns data about the population of each state, which determines a states representation in the House of Representatives. The party that controls the states legislature then redraws the district lines (redistricting) in response to the census data, often in a way that favors their own party by splitting districts that traditionally vote for the other party. Technically, this process (gerrymandering) is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has held up many redistricting plans. These largely homogenous districts result in safe seats for representatives of the party that drew them. One of the dangers of these safe seats is that candidates no longer have to appeal to the middle in order to win elections. Undecided voters dont matter as much when a majority of the district is already voting one way or the other (Greenblatt 380). The bases of the political parties become most important, as politicians [hope] to get the faithful to the polls while picking off just enough independents to cobble a majority (387). Politicians then take the most extreme views of their party to Capitol Hill, views that are often incompatible with the platform of the opposing party. This form of polarization is mostly exclusive to legislative candidates, because presidential and gubernatorial candidates must appeal to a wider range of voters, including the undecided (380). Over the past decade or so, we have seen increased media coverage of the political landscape. Twenty-four-hour news networks such as CNN constantly have our

Wisser 3 eyes on our political leaders. In addition, the Internet has gone global, and everyone in the world now has access to information that was previously hidden, or even clandestine. The personal lives of politicians have become fair game for the media, especially after the incident involving former President Bill Clinton, and unconfirmed rumors are ubiquitous throughout the media. This is especially true concerning the Internet, where anyone can create a blog page and post rumors about politicians, true or not. Political parties know it, too. According to one scholar, The major parties are eager to feed the media machine, faxing daily position papers and quotes to news bureaus. In addition, the parties also maintain rapid-response units to quickly respond to the latest rumors and portray opponents in unflattering ways (Bettelheim 241). Consequently, the swarm of rumors prevents the public from determining what is true and what is not. As a result, neither side can argue or counter-argue, and once these defenses are gone, a persuasive message that might otherwise have been challenged or rejected can slip by (241). When neither side can argue their case, the extreme views prevail, and this has a polarizing effect on the parties themselves, as well as the public. These dubious rumors are not the only harm that increased media coverage creates, however. Even unbiased networks such as C-SPAN that provide constant coverage of Congress and politicians contribute to the political polarization of American politics. This post-Watergate effort to make politics transparent to the American public puts politicians under the microscope, as anyone can have access to every vote they make; delegates suddenly became much closer to their constituents. As Senator Dale Blumpers puts it, We have all come to reflexively calculate on every vote, significant or insignificant, 1) what 30-second television spot our next opponent can make of it; 2) the

Wisser 4 impact it could have on contributions; and 3) what interest group it might inflame or please (Bettelheim 238). Politicians are constantly under watch, not only by the public and their constituents, but also by special interest groups that contribute money to their campaigns and can run ads either supporting them or defacing them. Every single vote matters and could be used against them in the next election, so politicians are more likely to vote along party lines and stay safe, rather than cross them and risk being ostracized. As a result, politicians have taken to pandering to their own constituents and have [begun] living by public opinion instead of influencing it (239). The increased popularity of polls has only exacerbated this tendency, as politicians are constantly under evaluation (238-9). Perhaps the greatest cause of the trend towards extremism comes from the increased political parity in the United States. Over the past several decades, the public has evenly divided itself between the two parties, with each side constantly trying to gain an edge over the other. In short, In an era of political parity, party leaders fight for every vote they can by magnifying every difference they have with the other side (Greenblatt 377). In order to scrounge up as many votes as they can, politicians create a black and white choice between themselves and the other party, allowing the voters to see clear differences (376-7). Because of these differences, it matters a lot more which party is in power. Even a slight majority in Congress makes a difference when the parties take stands on opposite sides of the spectrum (377). This trend towards extremism came to a head in 2011 when a standoff between the President and congressional Republicans over the federal debt limit almost resulted in a government shut down, and caused Standard & Poor to downgrade the United States

Wisser 5 credit rating for the first time (Mann & Ornstein 4). The conflict was due in part to the sweeping Republican victory in the 2010 Congressional election that lead to the election of new, young, ultraconservative delegates with Tea Party support bent on differentiating themselves from the traditional Republicans: the so-called young guns. The young guns (among them Representative Eric Cantor and Senator Marco Rubio) ran on promises of slashing federal spending (by $100 billion), balancing the budget, and a particularly confrontational attitude (12). Their first test, however, would be negotiations with the President over the federal debt ceiling. These talks, however, were less of a negotiation and more of a hostage situation. The congressional Republicans, including the young guns, used the threat of a government shutdown as leverage in budget negotiations to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut spending from federal programs such as Medicare. Republicans were unwilling to accept any sort of tax increase, even if it meant running out of money. Eventually, after many months of deliberation, the President and Congress came to an agreement on a budget, just in time to avoid a complete government shutdown. The debt ceiling was raised just enough, and no new tax increases were introduced (24). The tactics of hostage taking are a direct result of the recent political polarization and trend towards extremism. Differences between the two parties have become so intense that near party line votes have become the norm, and parties are finding out that if they control a house of Congress, they can use the budget as leverage to get what they want. The result is political stagnation and gridlock, all at the expense of the American people. In the words of Steve Benen, What we actually saw, over and over again in GOP primaries, was the willingness of the Republican base-everywhere- to punish those open to compromise and constructive policy making (Tea Party). Benen

Wisser 6 sites the example of Republican Senator Bob Bennett, who he believes lost his seat in Utah because Bennett was willing to compromise with Democrats about health care. Benen says it best when he says, Party activists dont want responsible leaders wholl try to solve problems; they want hard-right ideologues. No exceptions (Tea Party). This trend toward political polarization and extremism poses a serious threat to our political system. Democracy is built on cooperation and negotiation, something that we just arent seeing today. If delegates are unable to reach compromises with each other, even if it means (god forbid) crossing party lines, then the American democracy loses its ability to function and leaves the American people with a broken, dysfunctional government. Voters become disenfranchised as they lose their faith in their government, and the situation can only get worse. In order to fix the system, politicians need to fundamentally change they way they think about their duty to the public. It is not their job to fight viciously and vehemently for ideological goals that only please their party and constituents, but to reach agreements with the other side, even if they may lose some support in the process. They must make policy based on the needs of the American people, not on what will get them reelected. Politicians need to listen to this plea of the American people; we cannot afford to lose what is at stake.

Wisser 7

Works Cited Benen, Steve. "Tea Party Ideologues May Prevent Constructive Lawmaking by Reasonable Republicans." The Tea Party Movement. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Effects of Planned Tea Party 'Ambushes' in 2012." Washington Monthly (7 Oct. 2010). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2012. Bettelheim, A. (1999, March 19). Partisan politics. CQ Researcher, 9, 233-256. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/ Greenblatt, A. (2004, April 30). The partisan divide. CQ Researcher, 14, 373-396. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/ Mann, Thomas E., and Norman J. Ornstein. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic, 2012. Print.