9.4 - Divided Government and Partisan Polarization
1950 - American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties criticize current party system
Claimed the parties were too similar and that distinct political parties were critical for a well-functioning democracy because:
distinct parties give voters clear policy choices at election time
distinct parties can deliver on their agenda
the party that lost the election was important to democracy as it served as the “loyal opposition” which could keep check on the party in power
voters could signal whether they preferred the vision of the current leadership or of the opposition; this signal would keep both parties accountable to the people and create a more effective government
The political parties did not give voters these clear and distinct visions and on the rare chance they did, they were typically unable to enact major reforms once they were elected.
There was an immense overlap between parties when in office which made it difficult for voters to know whom they should hold accountable for poor results.
This lack of distinction is no longer the case.
The Problem of Divided Government
Divided government occurs when one or more houses of the legislature are controlled by the party in opposition to the executive. Unified government occurs when the same party controls the executive and legislature entirely.
makes fulfilling campaign promises extremely difficult since the cooperation/agreement of both Congress and the President is typically needed to pass legislation
one party can hardly claim credit for success when the other side has been a credible partner or when nothing can be accomplished
party loyalty is challenged as individual politicians might be forced to oppose their own party agenda to help their personal reelection bids
can be a threat to government operations
when the divide between parties is too great, government may shut down
Parties’ willingness to work together and compromise can be a great thing, but the past several decades has increased divided government.
Divided government can make for controversial politics. A well-functioning government usually requires a certain level of responsiveness from both the executive and legislative branches. This responsiveness is hard enough if government is unified under one party, but government shutdowns are even more likely when the president and at least one house of Congress are of opposite parties.
For the first few decades of this current pattern of divided government, the threat posed appears to have been muted due to a high degree of bipartisanship - cooperation through compromise. Many legislation pieces were passed in the 60s and 70s with high levels of support from both parties and most members of Congress had relatively moderate voting records.
In the 90s, parties began to diverge and moderates began to disappear in Congress. Bipartisanship seems to have ended as the parties now compete bitterly with one another and cross-party socialization or international trips across party lines no longer happen.
There are benefits to this, though.
now very distinct choices for voters
competitive parties and elections is a good sign that democracy is thriving
The Implications of Polarization
As political moderates leave the political parties at all levels, the parties have grown farther apart ideologically - this is called party polarization. Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly dissimilar from one another. This means:
fewer members of Congress have mixed voting records, instead they vote far more consistently on issues and are far more likely to side with their party leadership
a growing number of moderate voters aren’t participating in party politics; they’re either becoming independents or participating only in the general election and are therefore not helping select party candidates in primaries
This increased polarized parties has happened because moderate politicians have found it harder to win elections. Party polarization has not had the net positive effects that the APSA committee hoped for. Polarization has only amplified intraparty conflict rather than reducing it.