Advertisement

Introduction

  • David Darmofal
  • Ryan Strickler
Chapter
Part of the Spatial Demography Book Series book series (SPDE, volume 2)

Abstract

Across academic inquiry and popular political discourse, a consensus has emerged that the U.S. political landscape, since 2000, has become sharply polarized between ‘red’ and ‘blue’ territories. But is this more hype than reality? In this introductory chapter, we provide an overview of literature on partisan and geographic polarization. Democratic and Republican political elites have increasingly become more ideologically homogenous and extreme since the 1990s; the extent the partisan public has followed suit remains in debate. Research on public partisan behavior, however, relies heavily on survey and, increasingly, experimental methodology. Although these methods can yield valuable insight, they are ill suited to examine the spatial and historical dimensions of partisan behavior and change. In contrast, and as outlined in this chapter, we use spatial analysis and a dataset of county-level voting behavior and demographic variables dating to 1828, to place the modern consensus of partisan and geographic polarization in historical context. Across the chapters that follow, an overarching theme emerges—the modern partisan political landscape is not uniquely polarized when one looks at the full run of U.S. history. And the factors that drive partisan conflict today are the same as in the past.

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2012). The big sort that wasn’t: A skeptical reexamination. PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(2), 203–10.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, J. H., & Rohde, D. W. (2001). The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (7th edn.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  4. American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system. American Political Science Review, 44(3), 2: i–99.Google Scholar
  5. An, J., Quercia, D., Cha, M., Gummadi, K., & Crowcroft, J. (2014). Sharing political news: The balancing act of intimacy and socialization in selective exposure. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2006). Purple America. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review, 104(03), 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barber, M., & McCarty, N. (2013). Causes and consequences of polarization. In J. Mansbridge & C. J. Martin (Eds.), Report of the task force on negotiating agreement in politics (pp. 19–53). Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  9. Bentley, A. F. (1908). The process of government: A study of social pressures. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  10. Binder, S. (2015). The dysfunctional Congress. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bishop, B., with Cushing, R. G. (2008). The Big Sort: Why the clustering of like-minded Americans is tearing us apart. Boston: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  12. Brady, H. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79(4): 1061–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks, D. (2016). How to fix politics. New York Times, April 12, 2016, Web edition. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/opinion/how-to-fix-politics.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks
  14. Burnham, W. D. (1965). The changing shape of the American political universe. American Political Science Review, 59, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burnham, W. D. (1971). Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, J. (2016). Polarized: Making sense of a divided America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–61). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cramer, K. J. (2016). The politics of resentment: Rural consciousness in Wisconsin and the rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darmofal, D. (2005). Elite cues and citizen disagreement with expert opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darmofal, D., & P. F. Nardulli. (2010). The dynamics of critical realignments: An analysis across time and space. Political Behavior, 32(2): 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, N. T., & Dunaway, J. L. (2016). Party polarization, media choice, and mass partisan-ideological sorting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 272–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans now about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiorina, M. P. (2009). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in American politics. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2010). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  28. Frank, B. (2012). Party polarization is now complete. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 19(5), 10–12.Google Scholar
  29. Frank, T. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas?: How conservatives won the heart of America. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  30. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galston, W. A. (2014). Americans are as polarized as Washington. Wall Street Journal. June 3, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/articles/william-a-galston-americans-are-as-polarized-as-washington-1401837373
  32. Gelman, A., & Little, T. C. (1997). Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression. Statistics Canada, 23(2), 127–135.Google Scholar
  33. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Green, J. C., Kellstedt, L. A., Smidt, C. E., & Guth, J. L. (2007). How the faithful voted: Religious communities and the presidential vote. In D. E. Campbell (Ed.), A matter of faith: Religion in the 2004 presidential election (pp. 15–36). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Repubicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hetherington, M. J., Long, M. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2016). Revisiting the myth: New evidence of a polarized electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 321–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hill, S. J., & Tausanovitch, C. (2015). A disconnect in representation? Comparison of trends in congressional and public polarization. Journal of Politics, 77(4), 1058–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(01), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huder, J. (2013). Our very unproductive Congress. Government Affairs Institute: Georgetown University. http://gai.georgetown.edu/our-very-unproductive-congress/ Google Scholar
  41. Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jamieson, K. H, & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Johnston, R., Manley, D., & Jones, K. (2016). Spatial polarization of presidential voting in the United States, 1992–2012: The “big sort” revisited. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(5), 1047–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones, D. R. (2010). Partisan polarization and congressional accountability in house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Key, V. O., Jr. (1949). Southern politics in state and nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  48. Key, V. O., Jr. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics, 17, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Key, V. O., Jr. (1959). Secular realignment and the party system. Journal of Politics, 21, 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, F. E. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, lost: How money corrupts congress and a plan to stop it. New York: Twelve/Hatchette Book Club.Google Scholar
  55. Levendusky, M. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levendusky, M. S., Pope, J. C., & Jackman, S. (2008). Measuring district-level partisanship with implications for the analysis of US elections. Journal of Politics, 70, 736–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lowande, K. S. (2014). The contemporary presidency after the orders: Presidential memoranda and unilateral action. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 44(4), 724–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2016). It’s even worse than it looks (2nd edn.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Martin, G. J., & Webster, S. (2017). Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Unpublished manuscript. http://polisci.emory.edu/faculty/gjmart2/papers/partisan_sorting_density.pdf Google Scholar
  61. Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mason, L. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 351–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mayer, K. R. (2001). With the stroke of a pen: Executive orders and presidential power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Myers, A. S. (2013). Secular geographical polarization in the American South: The case of Texas, 1996–2010. Electoral Studies, 32(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Park, D. K., Gelman, A., & Bafumi, J. (2004). Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls. Political Analysis, 12, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parker, C. S., & Barreto, M. A. (2013). Change they can’t believe in: The tea party and reactionary politics in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Petrocik, J. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Philpot, T. (2007). Race, Republicans, and the return to the party of Lincoln. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Riffkin, R. (2014). Public faith in Congress falls again, hits historic low. Gallup. http://www.gallup.com/poll/171710/public-faith-congress-falls-again-hits-historic-low.aspx
  73. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rogowski, J. C. (2014). Electoral choice, ideological conflict, and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 479–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  76. Sinclair, B. (2008). Spoiling the Sausages? How a Polarized Congress Deliberates and Legislates. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? (pp. 55–87). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  77. Skocpol, T., & Williamson, V. (2012). The tea party and the remaking of Republican conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spalding, M. (1996). George Washington’s farewell address. The Wilson Quarterly, 20(4), 65–71.Google Scholar
  79. Strickler, R. (2018). Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Political Research Quarterly, 71(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tesler, M. (2016). Post-racial or most-racial? Race and politics in the Obama era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tesler, M., & Sides, J. (2016). How political science helps explain the rise of Donald Trump: The role of white identity and grievances. Washington Post, 3 Mar 2016, sec. Monkey Cage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/03/how-political-science-helps-explain-the-rise-of-trump-the-role-of-white-identity-and-grievances/?tid=a_inl
  82. Theriault, S. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Theriault, S. M., & Rohde, D. W. (2011). The Gingrich senators and party polarization in the U.S. senate. Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1011–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism and American life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Darmofal
    • 1
  • Ryan Strickler
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceColorado State University PuebloPuebloUSA

Personalised recommendations