The Case for Polarization

Everyone's gotten to the fact that Newsweek's Evan Thomas is factually wrong to say that increased partisan polarization turns people off from politics. It's worth stopping to pause the fact that Thomas had a false, empirically verifiable, CW-reaffirming thesis in his head and a major newsmagazine went ahead and published it without either the author or any of his editors stopping to check the evidence, which would have proven him wrong. Meanwhile, it's a foregone conclusion that nobody involved in publishing this in Newsweek will suffer any deleterious consequences whatsoever. If you repeat the CW, you prosper, no matter what.

Pushing things further, though, I would make the case that polarization is a good thing. Polarization means you know, as a citizen, how to translate political activity -- voting, volunteering, donating -- into policy results. If every Democrat is to the left of every Republican on some issue, then if you want to move the status quo to the left you support Democratic candidates but if you want to move it to the right you support Republicans. Under conditions where there's very little polarization, like the congressional politics of civil rights in the 1950s, you get chaos. Perhaps a certain Democratic incumbent is slightly better on civil rights than his Republican challenger. But the Republican ranking member on some key committee may well be better on civil rights than is the Democratic incumbent. Thus it's possible that backing the incumbent is good for civil rights unless beating the incumbent would cause the balance of power to shift and bring the Republican ranking member into the majority. What's a voter to do? Who knows?

Weak parties make the life of a Washington power broker more interesting. Basically, there's more power brokering to do. There are more horses to trade. There's more dealing to wheel. Politics becomes a fascinating game of three dimensional chess. Polarization is boring. Two parties lay out there programs, people vote, and depending on the election outcomes and the veto points in the system, legislation results. But polarization is simpler for voters. It connects actions to results. And it brings about higher levels of participation as a result.

Photo of the North Pole by Flickr user ianz used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

That is not a real photo of the North Pole. It is Photoshopped. The moon would not be so much bigger than the sun (and there are numerous other problems).

Posted by Jonathan Andreas | December 28, 2007 5:30 PM

That's no moon . . .

Posted by anon | December 28, 2007 5:36 PM

I feel like you've posted this before. But it is a really good insight. Its also pretty obvious why the people at Newsweek don't like it. Politics becomes more about the actual issues instead of horse-race crap. Our media is so pathetic.

Posted by mpowell | December 28, 2007 5:37 PM

If every Democrat is to the left of every Republican on some issue, then if you want to move the status quo to the left you support Democratic candidates but if you want to move it to the right you support Republicans.

This reminds me of that scene in Donnie Darko where they try to divide everything into Fear or Love on a polar spectrum. And my reaction is about the same as the main character's:

You can't just lump everything into two categories. It's just not that fucking simple.

Posted by southpaw | December 28, 2007 5:40 PM

I'd classify the problem as having two (potentially orthoganal) axes of worry:

1) Polarization undermines the checks and balances of the US system. The constitution is built around Obama style "bipartisanship" and horse-trading where individual representatives can affect the congressional direction on issues that matter to their local constituents, thus gaining re-election even if the party doesn't like their stance. Polarization puts the parties in the driving seat and leads to much more of a parliamentary system. Problem is, the US has few checks and balances for a parliamentary system.

2) Polarization and/or the failure of the checks and balances is being driven by changes in the money and media landscape of politics. It's a structural change which can't really be addressed without looking at all the institutions involved.

Posted by Meh | December 28, 2007 5:42 PM

Yes polarization is good for newspapers, talk radio and blogs. But I insist that we ask the parents all of the kids who can't get SCHIP if they think partisanship is ok. I hate when politico's look at politics in Washington like it is a contest. Are we so jaded by politics that we cannot see how partisanship hurts average everyday people like me? I ask myself everyday why can't things get done in Washington. Why are the politicans and media types playing games with our lives. I have come to realize that everyone wants to win so somebody has to lose. I guess the losers are the American people.

Posted by Kisha | December 28, 2007 5:45 PM

Also, it's worth asking-- Where were all those wise, thoughtful consensus-builders when the right-wingers made polarization the centerpiece of their political strategy? Polarization is exciting, incisive, and forceful when Newt Gingrich does it-- it's lamentable and divisive when Democrats do it.

Posted by MattF | December 28, 2007 5:52 PM

MY, I think you're conflating concepts here ... and to be honest, I'm not sure what the point of this post is. You seem to be talking about increased partisanship, which isn't necessarily the same thing as increased polarization. Most people understand polarization as the sort of stuff you see on Fox News from Hannity or Savage or someone -- like saying that politicians who oppose warrantless wiretapping as favoring the terrorists. So even if you are right that having the parties more clearly identified as being unified in their support for certain policies -- and on the surface it strikes me as somewhat naive to assume that all politicians around the country are just going to fall in line with one of two party platforms while at the same time purporting to represent their constituents -- it doesn't follow that they have to be mean to each other (which is the kind of polarization I understood Thomas to be decrying).

Posted by Dave K | December 28, 2007 5:55 PM

Kisha:

I ask myself everyday why can't things get done in Washington.

What are you, six years old? Of course things get done in Washington. For instance, re SCHIP, the veto served the interests of Bush's funders and his movement. That's why he did it, not because he was "jaded by partisanship" or didn't see it hurts everyday people. It was important to Bush to prevent his supporters from losing power and money, and precisely that got done.

Posted by 23456 | December 28, 2007 5:59 PM

There are political differences that can only be solved when one side has more power than the other. There is no meaningful compromise on bombing Iran, or torture, or acting on global warming, or Social Security. You're either for it or against it. SCHIP went down because the haters have more power. The solution is to vote them out, so they no longer have power. The solution is to be as partisan as possible, to fight back as if we actually mean it. The other side sure does.

Posted by Gregory Thelen | December 28, 2007 6:02 PM

Note that Japanese politics is completely un-polarized, and yet apathy reigns because - surprise surprise - there's no way to change policy by voting.

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 28, 2007 6:03 PM

Problem is, the US has few checks and balances for a parliamentary system.

I have no idea what this means. My impression is that generally parliamentary systems don't have formalized checks and balances (unlike the U.S.). What checks there are are political, relating to the need for the ruling party to keep its majority.

But I insist that we ask the parents all of the kids who can't get SCHIP if they think partisanship is ok.

Partisanship would work great for these parents if the Dems would stop letting the GOP roll them. SCHIP will work only to the extent that the partisans favoring it defeat the partisans opposing it.

On a more general level, bipartisanship can function only when both sides are willing to make good-faith compromises. The Republicans have shown repeatedly that they have no intention of compromising in good faith, and only use pretend bipartisanship as part of a strategy to play their opponents for chumps (a strategy which has been quite successful up to now).

Posted by jimBOB | December 28, 2007 6:06 PM

Not that I think Matthew's wrong, but he is asserting that the thesis has been empirically verified to be wrong. But no link to empirical verification is provided.

At least at first blush, one could show that voting is down over the last few decades as polaraization has risen. Correllation/causation and all that, to be sure. But I wonder about the evidence to which Matthew is referring.

Posted by Al | December 28, 2007 6:09 PM

Everyone's gotten to the fact

Who is everyone? Links please.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 28, 2007 6:09 PM

But I insist that we ask the parents all of the kids who can't get SCHIP if they think partisanship is ok.

Look, Kisha, it used to be, back in the golden days of yore, that both parties would support worthy programs like SCHIP. One party changed, the other didn't. If you try to lay the blame on partisanship rather than on the party which won't support the program, you are confusing effect with cause. For crying out loud, if you want the program enacted, try being its partisan, rather than deploring partisanship.

Posted by rea | December 28, 2007 6:16 PM

Polarization isn't a virtue any more than unity or bipartisanship is.

People have different views on how the world should be run. Fighting over those differences is a fundamental part of politics and is a sign of a healthy democracy. Polarization occurs when the two sides become intransigent and what follows isn't good government, but a completely different dysfunction from the mindless nationalism we saw after 9/11.

Partisans love polarization because it fractures the electorate into irreconcilable camps Democratic politicians can count on votes from outraged Democratic voters, Republican politicians from outraged Republican voters. But Democrats and Republicans aren't the same thing as progressives and conservatives. In the end, people who care about how society should be run get shunted aside by people who are fighting over the spoils.

The Feingolds lose out to the Feinsteins of the world.

Posted by Jinchi | December 28, 2007 6:16 PM

Somehow the rudder doesn't work when voters try to steer the ship left.

Posted by joejoejoe | December 28, 2007 6:25 PM

Regarding the image: it's a CGI rendering.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060620.html

Posted by onc | December 28, 2007 6:27 PM

Kos has the evidence:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/27/95010/179/336/426798

Posted by Lemmy Caution | December 28, 2007 6:37 PM

re the photo see
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_sun_moon_north_pole.htm

Posted by Bloix | December 28, 2007 6:43 PM

Matt's argument also fails if you believe there is more than one issue of importance. Left and right mean very different things to different people. In 1920, the Democrats weren't just the party of Jim Crow, they were also the party of the unions and the working class. An Italian immigrant in Boston could vote for the union busting country club Republican party or the racist Democrats. Did that make his choices simpler? Maybe. Did it make the country better? I doubt it.

Posted by Jinchi | December 28, 2007 6:58 PM

On a more general level, bipartisanship can function only when both sides are willing to make good-faith compromises. The Republicans have shown repeatedly that they have no intention of compromising in good faith, and only use pretend bipartisanship as part of a strategy to play their opponents for chumps (a strategy which has been quite successful up to now).

JimBOB, who do you mean when you refer to "The Republicans"? Party operatives in DC? Every Republican elected official around the country? Every registered Republican voter? Or every individual who voted for, say, W, in 2004?

Posted by Dave K | December 28, 2007 7:01 PM

Yet in those bad old days of the 60s and 70s, before today's polarization, we got civil rights legislation that amounted to a revolution, the EPA and, again, what amounted to a revolution in the environmental arena, as well as real progress on arms control and nuclear proliferation. And in the polarized environment of the 90s we got--what? NAFTA and welfare "reform" and school uniforms.
The terms of the discussion don't seem helpful. The Clintons are paternalistic corporatists AND polarizers. When Bill did work with Republicans, you got NAFTA and welfare evisceration. When Hillary worked with Republicans, you got amendments against flag-burning and proclamations against video games. In contrast, when Obama worked across the aisle, you got increased government transparency, action against nuclear proliferation, and--at the state level--progressive reforms on health care and criminal justice.

Posted by skeptica | December 28, 2007 7:05 PM

Lack of partisan warfare does not signify "Weak Parties and lack of voter enthusiasm - not when both parties work together to get things DONE that the voters want. The Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, Man to Mars, Civil Rights Legislation all could have been throttled in their crib if the primary goal of past Parties was to formulate objectives, never compromise and above all, never let the other Party walk out claiming triumph - getting nothing done is preferable to such a defeat.

Partisans in both Parties miss that the People ouside the fanatic wings do not wish for ideological purity and not one inch of bargaining - they want things done. And for too long the things they want done - national energy policy, better schools, getting a parasitic underclass of high criminality to reform itself, a major policy shift on use of USA military, control of our Borders, affordable health care insurance - AREN'T getting done!!

Japan was a bad example because while voters don't watch partisan nuts festoon themselves in buttons and body paint and call their own Obamasakis and Mykainos DemiGods who will redeem the People's dreams - Japan gets things done. The "passion" isn't necessary when people think the System will work things out.

Political passion is mobs and deaths in new states before the Civil War fighting about Free Soil vs. Slave State. Political passion is the sea change of Jacksonian democracy sweeping America.

Getting things done is us quietly sitting down and hashing out the financing and wartime control of labor and industrial resources for WWII, the Reagan-Moynihan plan to salvage social security for 30 years that was achieved back in the early 80s. It's Eisenhower skillfully spreading the promise of future benefits of the Interstate and the "land takings" 5th Amendment fanatics said would block such a system forever - to Republican and Democratic Reps of the People, who supported the Highway bills and the huge taxes and local bonds it took.

That is why need less Religious Right, less Koz Kidz, less corrupt corporatists selling out America for personal wealth, and less anti-American Lefties influencing US policy.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 28, 2007 7:07 PM

"JimBOB, who do you mean when you refer to "The Republicans"? Party operatives in DC? Every Republican elected official around the country? Every registered Republican voter? Or every individual who voted for, say, W, in 2004?"

Dave K: He is, of course referring to Republicans who actually make decisions, so spare us the strawman about us mean 'ol libruls attacking 'every individual who voted for, say, W".

I promise, you're off the hook! (Sort of)

But the GOP in DC, for the past 15 years, if you've been paying attention, has been in a take-no-prisoners mode that INSISTS upon no cooperation with Dems, be they in or out of power. Kristol's memo on the health care battle in 1993 being the first example, and indeed the blueprint.

Posted by Andruw | December 28, 2007 7:22 PM

Polarizing and partisan are, indeed, different words with different meanings. What MY decries is the fake-outrage surrounding the inability of policymakers and politicians to agree. The origins of these disagreements stem from differing priorities and values. And presumably, these reflect the preferences of their voting constituents.

If affecting policy is the goal, the real tactic should be educating and changing the minds of voters. It's hard work and it's long-term. But hammering policy decisions from the top-down against the wishes of a sizeable fraction of the population precisely generates the polarization and partisanship that everybody claims to hate.

Plus, working to change public opinion from the ground up rather than angle and juke to push policy in a particular direction offer less room to potential critics who regularly bemoan the politicization of the policy-making process.

Posted by mesbah | December 28, 2007 7:23 PM

I think that sometimes we confuse tactics with ends. Polarization can be quite tiresome, and there are times when there's nothing wrong with bipartisanship and consensus, so long as it is under the rubric of liberalism. I welcome a time where the consensus will lay on the side of the left because I am tired of having to fight and being constantly disappointed.

Posted by MGJ | December 28, 2007 7:26 PM

About the good ole nonpolraized 60s and 70's: I remember a president murdered, civil rights leaders and workers murdered, draft riots, what we called then race riots in pretty much every major city, a stupid war in Asia, radical bombers, the Kent State killings, the Jackson State killings, hatred between generations, a president and vice president forced to resign one step ahead of the sheriff...and I'm just getting warmed up. Those civil rights bills were bought with blood.

Posted by Gregory Thelen | December 28, 2007 7:32 PM

Gregory, The civil rights bills should also make a difference in assessing voter participation in 1960 and before. I assume those figures are based on voter registration. Now, the fact that in the South, maybe 10 percent of the black population was registered, or could be registered, means that behind the 60 percent registration is much lower voter participation. To get a real figure, you have to retrospectively add into the vote total those who couldn't vote because of American apartheid, and then figure out what real voter participation has been. I'd guess it is a lot more constant from 1960 onward, once you do that.

Posted by roger | December 28, 2007 7:49 PM

oops - correct that sentence to: "means that behind the 60 percent of the registered voters who voted"

Posted by roger | December 28, 2007 7:51 PM

Matt, I love ya, but this is possibly the stupidest and ill-informed post you have ever written. I'm for polarization too, but it's madness to say that lack of polarization leads to chaos.

I'm writing this from Austria. In the 1930s, Vienna saw real polarization, in the form of actual capital-F Fascists doing literal, civil-war battle with actual capital-C Communists. That sort of polarization makes our current problems look a bit piddling, doesn't it?

And you know where Austria went after WW2? It's called the Social Partnership. Look it up sometime. What it means is that the three sides of society -- government, labor, and capital -- agreed to work together to build a better society. A "Grand Coalition" consisting of the main moderate liberal party and the main moderate conservative party ruled the country for much of the postwar period. They rule it right now. The two parties dislike each other intensely, possibly more than our Republicans and Democrats, but by and large they behave like adults and rule together. The outcome of all of this nonpartisanship is that Austria has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world, per capita, and peaceful, harmonious, high voting rates, and all that. Indeed, it became a country that in other contexts you would want the US to emulate. I know you want Austria's health care system, for instance. That health care system was the product of nonpartisanship.

Look -- Austria isn't paradise, and Evan Thomas is wrong, too. But intoning the word "1950s" does not a case make, and you should know better.

Posted by Martin | December 28, 2007 8:14 PM

In a polarized country, you're less likely to feel you're in the same boat as your fellow citizens. My theory is you'd be less likely to pass universal health insurance--why pay the health costs of those hateful snobby blue state neighbors?

What's remarkable is not that disempowered minorities have to fight to get to the table, but the general middle class interests too. The fight shouldn't have to be as bitter as it was in the '60s. But poor and middle class voters are voting on hot button social issues and not economics.

Posted by Bram Boroson | December 28, 2007 8:25 PM

There is a difference between fighting for what you believe in or for what is right and polarization.
You can stand strong and push for your agenda without being nasty and ugly. Becasuse the people have been subjected to the republican way of things it is now thought that to be strong you have to thump your chest and get in people's faces.
You can be civilized and still fight for your beliefs.
You can be strong without shouting.
Polarization is when both sides are so nasty that nothing gets done. Nothing.
It is about revenge and immature thinking.
The opposition is the enemy.

In reality the opposition is the opposition. And if people thought hard you can find some decent republicans and for the other side, they actually like some of our side's people.
You don't have to be a pig and you don't have to be Joementum to deal with the opposition.

Two different things

Posted by vwcat | December 28, 2007 8:30 PM

Actually, the party who turned us into a nation of torturers and shredded the Constitution is my enemy. Eh?

Posted by lambert strether | December 28, 2007 10:59 PM

Somehow the rudder doesn't work when voters try to steer the ship left.

For the win!

In 2006 there was a definite attempt to steer that direction, and uhhh, it didn't work.

In parliamentary systems the effect is more easily seen, but when the populace gets fed up and and starts voting left the liberal party will caucus with the right because at the end of the day the concern of liberals (and their financial backers) is mopping up the excess of the right and keeping the left away from any lever of power.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 28, 2007 11:50 PM

I think Jinchi hits the nail on the head. Who should a socially conservative black voter support? Or an economically conservative gay voter? Where does globalization fit in? Not everything fits neatly along a single axis, and not everyone supports all issues at the same point along that axis.

So I agree, the Newsweek article was crap, and issues do need to be fought out, and compromise is only worthwhile when it provides beneficial results. But I think your analysis is just too oversimplified. A Coke vs Pepsi world isn't so good for reflecting the views of people who want 7-Up.

Posted by Royko | December 29, 2007 2:53 AM

Matt states just another form of the CW here. It is not only wrong, but perniciously wrong.

In the first place, most voters now don't identify themselves as either Republicans OR Democrats.

Second, even among those who do identify with a party, policy choices tend to cluster around the center, with individual issues getting support on either side of the partisan line depending on their particulars-- I'm for stem cell research AND school vouchers, for example.

Third, American politics does not offer much of a difference even at the "poles". Every important policy foreign and domestic since at least the New Deal, and probably since the Civil War, has relied on significant bi-partisan support--the Homestead Act, participation in wars from 1898 to present, Social Security, Civil Rights, containment of communism, membership in multilateral organizations like the UN or the WTO--you name it, and it's depended on votes from both parties in Congress.

The current mood of treating electoral politics as a contest between Good Guys and Bad Guys is not only juvenile and ignorant, it is a luxury we simply can't afford today. It may be personally satisfying for some individuals to see politics as a kind of lifestyle choice or fashion statement, but in a world in which we have actual enemies, confusing them with political opponents can have grave consequences.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 29, 2007 4:15 AM

What is CW?

Posted by brian | December 29, 2007 4:18 AM

A majority of Democratic senators voted YES on Iraq in 2002.
Far more than those who voted YES in 1990.

There is no 'polarization'.

Posted by David | December 29, 2007 4:58 AM

If every Democrat is to the left of every Republican on some issue, then if you want to move the status quo to the left you support Democratic candidates but if you want to move it to the right you support Republicans.

That works right up until you realize that there are some issues the population wants but the establishment - Dem and Republican alike - won't touch.

Sometimes you don't want to go "left" or "right". How does a pro-life Catholic vote? For the abortionists in the Democratic Party or for the warmongers and lethal injectioners in the Republican Party? How does a fiscal conservative vote? For the entitlement crowd on the left or the bomb-till-we're-broke crowd on the right? Who do I pull the lever for if I want us to stop funding Israel to the tune of $3 billion a year? Where can I cast a ballot on immigration reform? I haven't seen either party tackle that one consistently. How about real, substantial lobbying reform? Or crazy shit like a candidate with a platform promise not to invade any new countries for a while?

Fuck "unity" and "partisanship" and all of that garbage. I'd just settle for a few good candidates every now and again. Otherwise you're just getting lead around by the nose.

Posted by zifnab | December 29, 2007 2:46 PM

What Powell doesn't point out -- either here or in his near-duplicate message at TNR's "The Plank" ( http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/29/is-polarization-good.aspx ), although at least here he refrains from calling Yglesias "a moron" -- is that the only reason "every important policy foreign and domestic since at least the New Deal, and probably since the Civil War, has relied on significant bi-partisan support" is because of that peculiar piece of lunacy, unique to the US, known as the filibuster -- which the Founders did not intend, and which didn't exist at all for the first 15 years of this country's existence, at which point it was accidentally created. Patashnik's "Plank" entry links to Yglesias' own 2005 piece on the destructive stupidity of the filibuster ( http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9483 ), which should be required reading for everyone on this thread. (Note particularly his observation that it's even more artificially biased, by its nature and design, toward right-wing domestic policies than I had previously believed.)

That being said, include me out of any enthusiasm for the current system of ARTIFICIAL polarization made mandatory by our current election system -- in which candidates have to run away from the center to have any chance of getting nominated, and then have to try and shuffle back toward the center (with limited success) to win the general election. It's an idiotic system, and its results in practice have been the US being yanked back and forth like a fun-fair ride between administrations to the Left and to the Right of what a landslide majority of the people actually want. We badly need a radically revised election system in which candidates of ALL parties run in a single election, and an instant-runoff system (there are several of these that could be devised) immediately picks the candidate with the most overall support among the people as a whole. In the short run, this would lead to a wave of Schwarzenegger-Lieberman type leaders, but so what? Not all centrists are that incompetent or corrupt. (Of course, all incumbent members of the two current parties would be horribly endangered by such a sustem -- which is why, when a generally similar system was recently proposed as a state initiative here in California, both parties joined to put out a magnificently misleading campaign describing it as "RESTRICTING popular choice", and of course a landslide majority of the voters fell for this.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 29, 2007 3:45 PM

Polarization always seems like a great idea when you appear to be on the "winning" (not necessarily the right) side of an issue, but otherwise it is awfully frustrating.

Frankly, the current political situation is only polarized on the fringes, with the center, now larger than it has been in decades, sporting an indifferent position on the "major" issues such that it puts them at odds with both major parties. Polarization has had the effect of cleansing the parties of new ideas, while leaving the major problems untouched.

"Power brokering" the "rearrangement of the Titanic deck chairs" may appeal to some, but don't expect any real, useful results. Expect a lot of frustrating entropy.

Posted by Neo | December 29, 2007 4:03 PM

The right is not blockading the doors to the Unitarian Church in Cambridge to prevent women from marrying each other there.

The left is not disrupting political or economic activity to end the War in Iraq.

If this is polarization never has polarization been so polite or superficial.

Posted by Linus | December 29, 2007 8:50 PM

I'm in general agreement with Bruce Moomaw's post in terms of "artificial polarization" and what to do about it, but think he's significantly overstated the role of the filibuster. This is a method for blocking change, and all the policies I cited, and the many more I didn't, were CHANGES passed with bi-partisan support because they were seen as something most voters in the country supported. That seems like a Good Thing to me.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 30, 2007 4:24 AM

How much is "most"? Why the hell should a (small) minority have the ability to potentially block any change desired by the majority -- including changes to REVERSE policies that have quickly revealed themselves as disasters after their introduction?

We need a government, true, that adequately protects minority rights; but the "minority rights" that it needs to protect are the right not to be unfairly legally persecuted (which is what the Bill of Rghts is for) and to get their message adequately heard by the public -- which the filibuster is NOT necessary for. (What we DO need to improve the latter is departizanization of the Justice Department, which could be done by an entirely separate Constitutional amendment to require a Congressionsl supermajority to confirm -- and periodically confirm -- the Attorney General, and to give him veto power over the President's other DoJ appointees. If we don't do that -- just as if we don't repeal the filibuster -- this country will get itself into more and more of a mess in the next few years. I also find myself feeling the same way about our need for an amendment requiring a supermajority to run a deficit.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 30, 2007 4:23 PM

I agree with the general premise that the recent blogger fetish for polarization is largely self-preservative.

But the "evidence" for polarization increasing participation that has been produced at DKos and elsewhere is pretty thin. Even if we saw modest spikes in voter participation in 2004 and 2006, there's no indication that was caused rather than casually correlated with increased polarization/partisanship.

Since 2000, we've seen a major terrorist event, an unpopular war, unprecedented mobilization of religious voters, and the rise of internet participatory media, all of which are equally probable causes for increased voter turnout as ideological polarization is.

In fact, during arguably the most clearly politicized and polarized elections in recent history, Clinton-Dole and Bush-Dukakis, turnout was the worst in the post-war era. Meanwhile, we saw far more robust turnout when there were viable third party candidates like Wallace and Perot, the latter drawing almost 20 million votes. In 1988, we saw 50% voter participation in a two-man race, and in 1992 was 55% participation in the three-man race. That was followed by the nadir of 49% in the two-man 1996 race, after the highly polarizing '94 Republican "revolution", clearly a polarizing event.

The 1992 Perot case, and the rise of independents combined with lower partisan identification...these are two contrasting data points Matt and the Kos crowd are going to have to wrangle with if they want to make their case, and should they want to appear more than petty when lambasting the Newsweek hypothesis.

The case for polarization increasing total participation is markedly weak.

Posted by Maxwell | December 30, 2007 10:45 PM

I agree with the general premise that the recent blogger fetish for polarization is largely self-preservative.

But the "evidence" for polarization increasing participation that has been produced at DKos and elsewhere is pretty thin. Even if we saw modest spikes in voter participation in 2004 and 2006, there's no indication that was caused rather than casually correlated with increased polarization/partisanship.

Since 2000, we've seen a major terrorist event, an unpopular war, unprecedented mobilization of religious voters, and the rise of internet participatory media, all of which are equally probable causes for increased voter turnout as ideological polarization is.

In fact, during arguably the most clearly politicized and polarized elections in recent history, Clinton-Dole and Bush-Dukakis, turnout was the worst in the post-war era. Meanwhile, we saw far more robust turnout when there were viable third party candidates like Wallace and Perot, the latter drawing almost 20 million votes. In 1988, we saw 50% voter participation in a two-man race, and in 1992 was 55% participation in the three-man race. That was followed by the nadir of 49% in the two-man 1996 race, after the highly polarizing '94 Republican "revolution", clearly a polarizing event.

The 1992 Perot case, and the rise of independents combined with lower partisan identification...these are two contrasting data points Matt and the Kos crowd are going to have to wrangle with if they want to make their case, and should they want to appear more than petty when lambasting the Newsweek hypothesis.

The case for polarization increasing total participation is markedly weak.

Posted by Maxwell | December 30, 2007 10:46 PM