The Hunt for the Electoral Causes of Congressional Polarization
A few weeks ago I noted that Congressional polarization has been the highest in 120 years. I briefly discussed a couple of explanations and noted that I would discuss each one in further detail. Before beginning with academic explanations, let me first discuss a journalists explanation via an academic scholar. Evan Thomas, in a Newsweek article, uses the work of Markus Prior (Princeton) to explain that electoral polarization is the consequence of “post-broadcast” democracy. How? Evan Thomas makes the following argument:
In 1970, at about 6:30 p.m. at least two or three nights a week, about half the country could be found watching the evening news on one of the three major networks. The broadcasts tended to be fairly sober-minded, on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand presentations…But then, in the 1980s and ‘90s, came cable TV and the Internet. Before long, viewers had scores of channels to choose from, or they could abandon TV altogether and entertain themselves online. Prior estimates that about half the viewers of the evening news wandered away to watch entertainment—sports, movies, reality TV, whatever.
The people that wandered away (and this is where Evans makes a major causal leap) were the moderate voters. The moderate voters not only stopped watching the news, but stopped participating in the electoral process. So Evans’ solution, “[T]hey will have to switch off the Xbox or click away from the Home Shopping Network or ‘Girls Gone Wild’ and go out and vote.”
How can we test Evans’ theory of electoral polarization?
Combining party and ideology reveals somewhat more evidence of polarization between voters and nonvoters. Republican (Democratic) party identifiers who vote are increasingly more conservative (liberal) than those who do not. In sum, electorates are slightly more partisan and more ideological than the country as a whole, but as documented by numerous empirical studies (most recently, Teixeira (1992: ch. 3) the differences are not major.
So the hunt continues…
Comments
One point of clarification. One might object to the “causal leap” that Evan Thomas makes in connecting changes in the news environment (cable, internet) to polarization in Congress, or to his facile characterization of Prior’s work, but clearly Markus Prior, in Post-Broadcast Democracy, makes a strong empirical case for how changes in the news environment made the congressional electorate more polarized. Prior’s analysis is extensive, sophisticated and compelling; and he rules out a number of alternative explanations as well, such as elite-led polarization in the electorate. So, to help clarify the discussion, there might be two branches here: one focusing on Prior’s analysis of the polarization of the electorate and another connecting those changes to polarization in Congress.
btw: I love this blog! Thanks.
Posted by: Mark Peffley | January 15, 2008 09:46 AM
Mark,
I should clearly differentiate between Evans’ interpretation of Prior’s analysis and Prior’s original and more extensive analysis made in his book. In fact, I think Prior’s Ch. 7 “Partisan Polarization in the High-Choice Media Environment” deserves it’s own post. Thanks.
Posted by: David K. Park | January 15, 2008 11:59 AM
I’ve been of the view that for whatever reasons, polar candidates have been coming out of the primaries, and the polar nature of the candidates has been suppressing moderate voters.
One cause of this might be overall voter apathy leaving only the most motivated (polarized) voter participating in the primary. Perhaps his causal leap is more relevant to primary voters than to general election voters?
Posted by: Chuck | January 15, 2008 12:05 PM
“as documented by numerous empirical studies (most recently, Teixeira (1992)) the differences are not major.”
It’s 2008. I’m sure Ruy Teixeira did a fine study in 1992 - or did a fine study in 1990 or so that was published in 1992 - but that was a while ago, a lot of changes have happened in the interim, and certainly there is the appearance of a more polarized electorate now than when Bush Sr. was President.
Thomas’ explanation may be true now, for all we know. Teixiera’s study can’t contradict him.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 17, 2008 03:23 PM