The Case Against Polarization

William Galston and Pietro Nivola have an interesting piece on the rise of geographic segregation in political presences, where more-and-more people now live in whole counties full of co-partisans. It ends, however, with a pretty lame entry into the literature of bellyaching about polarization:

Because politics is a contact sport, hard-hitting partisan competition is unavoidably part of the game. A party system that differentiates sharply between alternatives has virtues, not the least being that it engages more voters, offers clearer choices and enhances accountability. But hyperpartisan politics also do damage, not least to public trust and confidence in government — and many Americans understandably yearn for less polarization. Because the underlying structure of our politics remains so deeply divided, the 2008 election may not requite their wish.

These upsides are what I wrote about in my "case for partisanship" article and stacking the upsides against the Galston/Nivola downsides, I think polarization looks pretty good. On the one hand, we have more engaged voters, clearer choices, and more accountability. All of those are good things. The downside is allegedly "public trust and confidence in government." But it's not even clear that that's a bad thing. I don't trust the government as much as I did before I learned that it was running a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and organizing an illegal surveillance program, but I'd say that's a merited decline in trust.

Why would we pine away for a shift that would make government less accountable but more trusted?

Comments

I thought it was pretty much a requirement of political science that most social and political problems be traced backed to increasing polarization.

Posted by El Cid | May 11, 2008 2:10 PM

The downside is allegedly "public trust and confidence in government." But it's not even clear that that's a bad thing.

I'm sure it's not a bad thing if you don't think the government should be employed to solve problems and serve the public good. If, on the other hand, you support something like universal health care or publicly funded mass transit, that's a pretty unambiguously bad thing.

Posted by J.B. | May 11, 2008 2:11 PM

I would think that the real downside is something like a permanent minority region (or type of region), that the distrust from that region is merited, and that the permanent majority has--because of its permanent majority--little reason to be responsive to that minority.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 11, 2008 2:24 PM

And to push the concept out a little further, clearly at the extreme, political polarization, if it becomes linked to identity, is antithetical to democracy.

This is most obvious where the polarization falls along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. See, e.g., Iraq. Elections operate effectively as censuses, merely tallying up how many people belong to each identity group. Whoever is in the minority side knows that they will never win and will always fall under the thumb of the majority, and consequently they cannot accept the government as legitimate. Instability and violence ensue.

We're a very long way from that here, the lines of political identity aren't hardened in that way. But it does seem obvious that political polarization is not something to be encouraged. Democracy works only if there is a critical mass of voters whose votes are moved by actual merit rather than team identification. Polarization pushes people to choose a side and stick by it. That's just not good.

Posted by J.B. | May 11, 2008 2:28 PM

The block-quoted piece of text has got to be one of the most inane pieces of commentary I've ever read.

History is rife with instances of "hyperpartisan politics" (slave-staters vs. abolitionists in the pre-Civil War years come immediately to mind) where the outcome of the underlying dispute was infinitely more important than any disillusionment the populace might've suffered as a result of governmental partisan-ness.

Posted by James Gary | May 11, 2008 2:31 PM

Matt -

I kind of understand the point you're making, but would point to the current situation (at least among Republicans) as illustrative of the poisonous rewards of "hyper-partisanship."

When the partisanship ceases to be about competing ideologies, and devolves into simple tribalism, it serves no one, but instead poisons the political culture so that half the population feels alienated and politically isolated.

One of the curiousities of the Bush era (actually, the post-Gingrich era) is that "political" polarization is actually less and less about policy. A good example is the recent Brett Bozell audio fakery to make it appear that Al Gore made an assertion that he didn't. This is no longer a war of ideas, but a simple war.

A good part of the right-wing playbook is casting aspersions on the sanity, the patriotism, and rationality of the left. And many on the left cannot believe that all right-wingers are in a secret cabal to bring about a fascist melding of corporation and state.

I used to subscribe to National Review (during the Buckley era), and while I agreed with very little of the ideological content, there was, at base, a civility and decency about the motives of liberals. Now, conservatives claim that liberals hate America, are secret communists, and purport global warming as a back-door way of increasing the power of the state.

Partisanship as a way of highlighting and grouping ideological views of the world is fine. But as a way of closing ranks and demonizing those with other worldviews is a sign of societal sickness. If we could just roll back the fury a bit, and recognize the humanity of the ideological opposition, I think we'd all be a lot better off.

Posted by Osama Von McIntyre | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM

We're getting division in this country because SOME of the people are smart enough to finally catch on that our national leaders and news media figures are a pack of lying shitheads who are destroying this country in service of hidden agendas and their fucking pocketbooks.

Given that the Neocons, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News crew, Tom Delay and Rev Hagee are still breathing --whereas 4000 of our sons are not -- I would judge that we are not
all that "polarized".

Posted by Don Williams | May 11, 2008 3:18 PM

The downside is allegedly "public trust and confidence in government." But it's not even clear that that's a bad thing.

Declining trust in the government is a bad thing if the government is trustworthy. In the far more likely case that the opposite is true, declining trust in the govt is good and sensible.

Posted by matt foley | May 11, 2008 3:22 PM

Re "Because politics is a contact sport, hard-hitting partisan competition is unavoidably part of the game"
--------------
Are they talking about the CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS? Ha ha ha ha

Nancy Pelosi is the only one with a pair of testicles in the whole bunch.

Our politics has not been a brusing battle between two NFL teams. It's been more like the Republican Football team showed up but the Democrats only sent a bunch of sulky cheerleaders-- some of whom flirt with the enemy.

I'm talking about you , Joe Lieberman, you shameless slut.

Posted by Don Williams | May 11, 2008 3:24 PM

If anyone would like to see what this fight is about, I suggest they see a Robert Redford Movie "Lions for Lambs" just out on DVD and available at blockbuster. It's a scathing indictment of our politics -- and news media -- over the past 7 years.

Of course, the movie only got $15 million box office here in the USA -- but its receipts overseas are over $45 Million.

It's one of the best dramas I've seen in a while but suffered from relentless (and false, IMO) critical reviews both from the right and from the allegedly "liberal" press it mocks.

The rest of the punditocracy tried to pretend the movie -- and the issues it raises -- don't exist.

Highly recommended.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_for_Lambs

Posted by Don Williams | May 11, 2008 3:33 PM

Lieberman's a Democrat?

Posted by AlanC9 | May 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Why would we pine away for a shift that would make government less accountable but more trusted?

Because some people pine away for having all government problems resolved by a behind-closed-doors blue-ribbon commission made up of Brookings Institution policymakers. It's an essentially (I hate this word) elitist worldview of policymaking which disdains the rough-and-tumble dealmaking of politics.

Posted by Tyro | May 11, 2008 3:44 PM

Re AlanC9's comment "Lieberman's a Democrat?"
---------

"Independent Democrat". Kinda like "Gentleman Farmer" --in it for the tax incentives but really to stick in a housing subdivision when the money's right.

Ask the Democratic Caucus who's chairman of several committees.

Posted by Don Williams | May 11, 2008 3:50 PM

The downside is allegedly "public trust and confidence in government." But it's not even clear that that's a bad thing.

Duuuuuhhhhh...what?
Is it OK if people don't believe that the FDIC will pay up on their insured deposits, so they keep their money in mattresses?
Is it OK if people don't believe that the police will respond to a call, so they load up on locks and guns and stay at home?
Is it OK if people don't believe that roads, bridges, planes, etc., have been inspected, so they don't travel?
Is it OK if people believe that justice is not handed out fairly, so they care less about obeying the law?

I understand how importantit is for government to deserve the trust--but the bottom line is: if the people don't trust the government, society and the economy will break down.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 11, 2008 3:58 PM

If we could just roll back the fury a bit, and recognize the humanity of the ideological opposition, I think we'd all be a lot better off.

Ummm...how's about the republicans start first mm'kay? Funnily enough, after 7 years of "objectively pro-terrorism", "traitor", "freedom fries", etc., I'm not particularly in the mood to take the advice of concern trolls and act unilaterally solicitous toward the wingnut fucktards who think that invading Iran is a great follow up to the success we've enjoyed in Iraq. Silly me, I know, but there it is.

Posted by DMonteith | May 11, 2008 4:01 PM

There's the Newt Gingrich polarization-for-the-sake-of-polarization model. That's not a good one. I'm pretty sure that Dante found some adherents to that kind of action in Hell.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 11, 2008 4:40 PM

"Clearer choices" are good only if they reflect reality. Unfortunately, what hyperpolarization seems to be offering in most cases is the "with us or with the terrorists" style of pseudo-choice. Yes, it's clear, but it's also completely artificial. That kind of "clear choice" leaves no room for common ground, and that is not helpful in the long run.

Posted by wintermute | May 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Cheer up, things could be worse.

So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.

"if the people don't trust the government, society and the economy will break down."

So they trusted their government, and the society and the economy are still breaking down.

Morons.

But this is just Matt once again arguing for some peripheral notion about politics because he hasn't a clue about the basics of the state.

In other words, this is Matt trying to get some mileage out of his philosophy degree without having to actually, you know, talk about the real world.

It's a Sunday afternoon blog post. Ignore it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 11, 2008 7:05 PM

"The downside is allegedly "public trust and confidence in government." But it's not even clear that that's a bad thing."

So the point is: "But what if the government *deserves* to be regarded with cynicism and mistrust?"

1) By and large, it doesn't. There is more irrational cynicism than there is irrational credulousness out there. People in general think the tax system is unfair and tilted toward the rich, and yet they support things like abolishing the estate tax. For about a third of my students, the term "the government" is practically a punchline, and yet they thoughtlessly rely on it to work in many areas of their life. There's an enormous disconnect between what people think of when they think "the government" and the role it actually plays in their life.

2) Aside from whether government deserves the current level of mistrust, there is the other question whether it's a good thing and has good effects to have low trust in the system. The evidence shows that it's probably bad. MY's mistrust may not discourage him to change careers and no longer care about what the government is doing, but the the common response to cynicism is the reverse. People who have lower trust are usually less engaged and participate less. They also tend to be poorer.

Posted by Colatina | May 11, 2008 10:33 PM

When the partisanship ceases to be about competing ideologies, and devolves into simple tribalism, it serves no one, but instead poisons the political culture so that half the population feels alienated and politically isolated.

Isn't that more likely to happen in a two-party system? It seems likely that the voting electorate gets less polarized when there are multiple parties.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 12, 2008 11:12 AM

I'm a conservative who hopes for a Democratic win this fall. After all the attacks on public servants over the last 7-plus years from Democrats, I can't wait to get in my share. You think Dems are hard on career prosecutors? Hard on Secret Service agents? Hard on FBI agentss? Hard on IRS workers? Hard on administrators at Medicare and Social Security? Just wait! Lots of these folks are Dems, so destroying them in the process of destroying the Obama administration will be double the fun!

Posted by Thomas | May 13, 2008 11:32 AM

I'm a conservative who hopes for a Democratic win this fall. After all the attacks on public servants over the last 7-plus years from Democrats, I can't wait to get in my share. You think Dems are hard on career prosecutors? Hard on Secret Service agents? Hard on FBI agentss? Hard on IRS workers? Hard on administrators at Medicare and Social Security? Just wait! Lots of these folks are Dems, so destroying them in the process of destroying the Obama administration will be double the fun!

Well, that's a lot of fiction you have there. You are going to take revenge for fiction?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 13, 2008 6:12 PM