In a recent post, I discussed some reasons why political polarization has become much worse in recent years. In the comment section, I was startled to see people deny that polarization had actually become much worse. (Perhaps some commenters are too young to recall the 20th century.) In any case, a recent article in The Economist provides some data:
Scholars of American politics are particularly dismayed by rising levels of “affective polarisation,” the political science term for the hostility one person feels towards members of the other party relative to the feelings they have towards members of their own party. Levels of affective polarisation have risen more than two-fold since the 1970s when the American National Election Studies, a quadrennial academic survey started at the University of Michigan, began asking citizens to rate how they felt about members of either major party. In 1978, according to the survey, the difference between Americans’ ratings of members of their own and ratings of members of the other party on a 100-point “feeling thermometer” scale was 27 points. The gap had widened to 56 by 2020.
Yes, political polarization is real and getting much worse.
READER COMMENTS
Jose Pablo
Oct 22 2021 at 4:42pm
“the difference between Americans’ ratings of members of their own and ratings of members of the other party on a 100-point “feeling thermometer” scale was 27 points. The gap had widened to 56 by 2020.”
does it grow steadily during the whole period or jumps up suddenly around 2016?
Jared
Oct 23 2021 at 3:33pm
More or less steadily during the whole period:
https://peterlevine.ws/?p=23494
Michael Sandifer
Oct 22 2021 at 5:15pm
I’m 45, and political polarization has seemingly gotten worse over the course of my entire life, but at an accelerated rate since about 1992, and faster still over the past 10-15 years.
One possible way of addressing the increasing polarization of the judiciary would be to expand the size of the Supreme Court by 3 seats, and put 3 preferred Democratic judges on the Court, making for a stalemate on pure ideological/party line votes, such that no rulings can be made on such a basis. Then, one or more Justices who cross party lines on a vote are more likely voting on the basis of non-ideological interpretations of the law. Do likewise with Courts of Appeal. Even numbers of judges chosen by Democrats and Republicans at all times, on an ongoing basis.
To do this, McConnell and Senate Republicans would have to be willing to agree on such a deal. Biden and the Democrats could threaten to pack the courts in their favor in absence of such a deal.
Scott Sumner
Oct 22 2021 at 11:32pm
It’s so sad that justices make decisions based on politics, not the law. No institutional change will fix that sort of problem, it’s cultural.
ee
Oct 23 2021 at 12:31am
“It’s so sad that justices make decisions based on politics, not the law.”
When cases reach the Supreme Court, the law is ambiguous. That’s what made Gorsuch’s balls and strikes metaphor annoying: he was describing the job of a lower court. Justices need principles and logic.
Scott Sumner
Oct 23 2021 at 12:04pm
“Justices need principles and logic.”
Legal principles, not political principles.
Mark Z
Oct 23 2021 at 1:51am
What you’re describing is packing the court in their favor, so what exactly is the threat? I guess, ‘let us pack 3 or else we’ll pack 6?’ Leaving aside the foolishness of making such a threat unless you have a solid majority in the senate, of the three branches, the Supreme Court is the *least* polarizing one, the one where ‘norms and institutions’ are most robust. Threatening to nuke it like that is an odd strategy of depolarization.
Mark Brophy
Oct 23 2021 at 11:06am
Many Republicans don’t like Trump but they supported him because they didn’t want 3 more Democrats on the Supreme Court.
Phil H
Oct 23 2021 at 3:01am
So, I don’t deny this data, and it certainly does represent specifically political polarisation. I think argument that I and others were making on the other thread was that there are other kinds of polarisation, which should also count as political, which have fallen in the same period. For example, antipathy from straight people towards gay people, absolutely standard in my parents’ generation, is drastically reduced in mine. That’s a kind of polarisation, and it doesn’t seem helpful to completely ignore it.
It’s also interesting to note that Britain shares a lot of political trends with the USA, but is not very polarised between the political parties at the moment, perhaps mainly because the Labour vote has collapsed as they’ve failed to handle Brexit and other issues. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing because it suggests polarisation can reduce; or a bad thing because only the collapse of a political party reduces it!
Scott Sumner
Oct 23 2021 at 12:06pm
Yes, it’s great that gay rights have improved. But that isn’t about polarization. There was never very much bigotry of gays toward straight people.
Monte
Oct 23 2021 at 10:55am
Polarization has become acute. Politics are playing into every aspect of our lives in an uncompromising and zero-sum way. Unfortunately, it seems to take some extraordinary event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 for us to identify a superordinate goal and a common enemy. I wonder if this time around the enemy will end up being foreign or domestic?
Scott Sumner
Oct 23 2021 at 12:07pm
Both parties seem to be trying to gin up a cold war with China.
Monte
Oct 23 2021 at 2:34pm
And war of some type at some point, our government will undoubtedly insist, is the best option.
rsm
Oct 24 2021 at 1:58pm
Is it up to us to propose nonviolent solutions, such as beaming in uncensored internet to China, because authoritarian regimes fear the people talking amongst themselves more than physical war?
Monte
Oct 25 2021 at 12:16am
Love the thought, but how do you successfully breakthrough the Great Chinese Firewall? The CCP closely monitors all internet content and the penalties are stiff for those who violate internet rules & regulations. Their internet censorship system is something of a panopticon that reinforces self-regulation by the population. And if, by some miracle of technology, you mange to overcome those obstacles, they’ll just hit the Internet kill switch like they did in Xinjiang in 2009. Game over…
Billy Kaubashine
Oct 23 2021 at 11:26am
As the list of things that are “None of Government’s Business” gets shorter and shorter, the stakes get higher and higher for people on either side of any issue.
Just as government regulation spawns lobbyists, government interference in citizens’ affairs and cultural preferences spawns antipathy.
Komori
Oct 24 2021 at 2:43pm
Yes, this. Even ignoring everything else, government spending is getting to 50% of GDP. When that much direct spending is controlled by government, of course anything to do with how it’s allocated will become more acrimonious. And of course straight spending is far from the only influence; add in law and regulation, especially where things are only enforced sporadically or with discretion, and of course the polarization is getting worse.
Especially when one side has overwhelming control of the bureaucracy, with all the attendant bubble problems.
It would be interesting to graph the polarization along with the size and scope of government.
BS
Oct 25 2021 at 1:12pm
Yes. The more the power, the worse the consequences of not controlling it. (The problem is the presidency, not the supreme court. The supreme court is only what you need to make sure all your executive orders stick. Most of those never get to the court, though.) Even if a conservative president literally does nothing, to a progressive it’s 4 years of opportunity to reform/transform lost.
TGGP
Oct 24 2021 at 12:36am
Does The Economist provide a year-by-year graph over time?
Comments are closed.