Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Polarization

In campaigning to be Turkey’s Prime Minister in the mid-90’s, the Islamist leader, Necmettin Erbakan, declared, “In this country there are two parties: the righteous and the fallacious.” Looking at America’s current political environment, one wonders how many citizens hold similar views of others from across the aisle. In a recent report from the RAND Corporation, alliteratively entitled “Polarized Politics and Policy Consequences,” researchers Diana Epstein and John D. Graham look at the issue from several different perspectives, offering a set of solutions. But throughout its 26 pages, one theme continues to show itself: we’re just not talking with each other.

From an historical perspective, it might surprise some to discover that we are not currently living in the most polarized era. Epstein and Graham’s research shows, somewhat understandably, that the three decades following the Civil War manifested the greatest level of divergence between liberal and conservative ideologies as measured by votes cast in the House and Senate. Still, using the same lens, we are witnessing the greatest level of political polarization in the last 80 years.

Reasons offered for the current climate range from the growth of conservative influence in the South and gerrymandering to an increasingly politicized media and the rise of politically active interest groups. All of these elements have contributed to the gradual entrenchment of the two major political parties.

What is unique about this period in our history, though, is the increasing amount of issues on which the two central ideologies diverge. Epstein and Graham write: “A generation ago, the breadth of partisan disputes was narrower. In the past, some topics were excluded from partisan disputes; it is possible that their growing incorporation into political party rhetoric has stimulated and aggravated polarization.”

Granted, part of the reason for this, has been that previously non-political issues, like abortion and gay marriage, have moved into the center of political Public Square, engendering fierce debate. But the RAND study indicates that polarization is now bleeding into issues where Americans have, generally, been more closely aligned: foreign and economic policy.

Epstein and Graham do allow that polarization can be seen as a good thing in some circumstances. First, it gives Americans a clear choice when making their decision in the voting booth. In fact, analysis of voter turnout rates for presidential elections over the last few decades demonstrates that a greater percentage of the voting-eligible population have voted during this recent polarized period than at any time in the last 40 years. As the researchers comment, the clearer choices offered in this polarized climate, “may help citizens understand what is at stake in an election, thereby encouraging them to participate in the democratic process by voting, working on campaigns…and making contributions to candidates.”

On the flipside, divided legislative bodies (at national and state levels) have shown an inability to find solutions to policy problems that have longer timeframes – particularly entitlement spending and healthcare reform. The researchers state, “polarization may prevent thoughtful consideration of long-term policy challenges that can be solved only with bipartisan compromises.” This lack of deliberation on economic and budgetary issues by our governing bodies appears to find some of its roots in the general schismatic climate founded in the aforementioned social issues.

In the end, Epstein and Graham see political polarization as generated from both the bottom-up (from a divided citizenry/grassroots organizations) and the top-down (elected officials and media elites). For the majority of us who are members of the former group, the researchers offer a logical, yet demanding, solution to polarization’s problematic effects: “a more fundamental yet promising strategy to reduce polarization would be to engage more citizens in local politics, including exercises in deliberative democracy where the influence of partisanship is weak and citizens can learn about issues.”

Finding local “spaces” where citizens of diverse viewpoints can deliberate – as opposed to yell past each other – has become increasingly difficult. Political columnist Jack Germond said a few years ago that, "If you characterize the political opposition as evil, there is no way you can compromise with them. There is no way that you can have a drink with them." Where polarization has been doing its greatest damage is in clouding issues that have little ideological motivation, by providing a set of simplistic labels for those who have pre-set panoply of views. While the media and political leaders do battle, it might be up to us citizens to demonstrate how thoughtful political discourse can occur.