The top one percent of Americans now control 24 percent of national income, yet recent statistics from the Census Bureau suggest that more American are living in poverty than ever before. The economic disparity in the United States is the greatest it has been since 1928, and, if current trends continue, the gap between rich and poor will exceed the historical peaks. This growing inequality occurs within a polarized political atmosphere, as demonstrated by Congress’s public wrangling over basic budgetary issues.
Yet the extent to which economic factors derive political ones remains complex. While some democracies with high inequality vote in favor of redistributive policies, political polarization and economic inequality in the U.S. largely maintain each other. The growing income gap drives the rich and poor into political and social conflict, pushing them into polarized positions in separate parties.
From Inequality To Polarization?
The relationship between inequality and political polarization is not constant, but an outgrowth of the political climate. Economic inequality in the United States has ballooned since the 1960s, yet today’s polarization stands as a historical anomaly. Bart Bonikowski, assistant professor of sociology at Harvard, told the HPR that the political opinions of the general public remain largely moderate, despite the visible exploits of extreme movements like the Tea Party. Instead, the inequality revealed by the economic crisis has only recently fueled disapproval with the political process. “There’s always been inequality,” Bonikowski said. “But when times were good, the people who weren’t suffering didn’t notice. Now that we’re in this Great Recession, everyone notices. That causes frustration and resentment.”
Evidence from recent social movements and the changing compositions of Republican and Democrat constituencies suggest that political elites may citizens’ ire to advance their own agendas, leading to the perceived increases in polarization. Bonikowski suggests, “Economic crises create the perfect conditions for the political elite to drive opposing social movements.” In particular, the Great Recession, and the apparent lack of recovery therefrom, have allowed political elites to capitalize, through their party platforms, on a public desperate for solutions. Such strategies have historical roots. For instance, before the right-wing “Moral Majority” of the late 1970s, abortion was much less politicized. With the development of interest groups, abortion supporters and opponents, once split relatively equally between Republicans and Democrats, began to identify with one party or the other. The need to be different in order to win voters has become a major theme of modern campaigns, as evidenced by debates over economic recovery between low-tax Tea Party members and social-safety-net Democrats.
From Polarization To Inequality?
While perceptions of economic inequality depend on the political climate, polarization can also prevent the government from effectively combating inequality. According to Nolan McCarty, professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, polarization can lead to more extreme policies that sway the relative welfares of competing groups, causing gridlock and paralyzing the decision making process.
McCarty believes that polarization is a severe problem in the U.S., where a supermajority in Senate is often required to pass legislation. “In Europe, where there are many smaller parties and where parties often form coalitions, political polarization is less of a problem. But because the United States has a polarized two-party system that can only take action in supermajorities, gridlock has much greater severity.”
Changing The Policymakers
While inequality and polarization are both complex problems, policymakers still enjoy the ability to affect the root causes. David A. Moss, professor at the Harvard Business School, points to evidence that there is a “correlation between increased civic engagement and declining income inequality.” After World War II, inequality declined significantly. Many theorize that the vast rise of civic engagement and the ensuing interactions between usually disparate groups during this period provided the impetus for this change. As Moss argues, “There are alternatives to the traditional policies such as tax cuts and government spending, which attempt to directly target income inequality.”
Andrew Liu ‘15 and Benjamin Lopez ’15 are Contributing Writers