In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton explains that the “vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty.” That phrase leaves open the question, what do we define as “vigor of government?” Since the nation’s founding, Americans have combined individual self-interest with the common good to establish an energetic and thriving government. For almost 250 years, the United States has served as a bastion of democracy for the rest of the world. Through a thriving civic life and passionate debate, American politics has been filled with elation, disdain, and everything in between.
Today, in our modern, interconnected world, the United States struggles to maintain respectful discourse in the public sphere. If we accept and welcome political gridlock, and regain trust in one another and the media, then we can restore civil and effective discourse in our republic. Political disagreement should not be feared, but desired, in our republic. However, gridlock combined with a lack of trust between social groups and declining faith in the media is detrimental to the health of our government.
The Reality of Political Disagreement
Intense political disagreement has existed since the very beginning of our nation. In the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, Adams was called a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Similarly, in the 1828 election, opponents of Andrew Jackson labelled his mother a prostitute and his wife an adultress.
Beyond the impassioned rhetoric of past presidential campaigns, structures of our government foster deliberation. The U.S. Constitution intends for political gridlock to exist, as evidenced by its antimajoritarian nature. The Senate, for example, provides a check against hasty legislation. In Federalist 62, Madison advocates for the Senate because “no law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states.” In addition, the Senate is designed to keep the government from yielding to “the impulse of sudden and violent passions.”
The Senate filibuster, first utilized in 1837, allows a senator to block or delay voting on a measure, allowing it to check the more popular impulses of the House of Representatives. James Madison desired the antimajoritarian role of the Senate in Federalist 51, in which he writes that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Furthermore, in Federalist 10, Madison claims that “liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” He acknowledges the existence of factions and suggests that they are necessary to perpetuate liberty. If gridlock is the natural product of partisan factions, this process counteracts the tendency for bad laws to be passed or controversial laws to be enforced. Clashing political interests significantly decrease the potential for bad policymaking.
The Failures of the Primary System
In contrast to the days of the constitutional framers, today’s polarization goes deeper than institutions and election rhetoric. Charles Murray, the F.A. Hayek Chair in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested in an interview with the HPR that “a great deal of the political polarization that we see now is quasi-religious, which is to say that people have attached concepts of good and evil to political positions. It is that ‘that guy is in favor of evil and my people are in favor of good,’ and there can be no compromise between the two.”
America’s primary system also contributes to political gridlock, and it has made liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats endangered species. Murray outlined the detrimental effects of the primary system: “The primary system is the work of the devil. The primary system systematically, ineluctably, pushes candidates in each party to the extremes of that party. You then get a situation in which people have won primaries and go to the convention with a lock, who would never have gotten nominated in a system in which primaries did not directly govern the allocation of delegates.“ Harvard government professor George Soroka also spoke about the effects of the primary system on polarization: “You basically have to run to the antipodes; run to the true believers who are clustered on the ideological left or ideological right. Then, you retreat to the moderate center as quickly as possible.”
The perils of the primary system are compounded by safe districts, where a seat in the legislature is regarded as secure for one party. Robert Leming, the national director of the Center for Civic Education’s “We the People” program, stated in a recent interview with the HPR that “through gerrymandering, you get a lot safer districts on both sides. No one has to really come together to compromise, because you don’t have anyone to bother you. This is the underbelly behind polarization.”
As a result, candidates often pursue more radical policies, riling up their party’s base while isolating ideological moderates. For example, as a result of the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former President Barack Obama, who was once considered solidly liberal, now appears more like a moderate.
The Dangers of Declining Trust
Beyond the primary system, declining trust among citizens also exacerbates political polarization. This phenomenon of distrust between social groups boils down to everyday human interactions. Robert Putnam, a Harvard professor and author of Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of the American Community, sheds light on bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital describes connections within groups characterized by similar demographics, attitudes, and values. Bridging social capital strengthens horizontal ties between social groups, and transcends demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Bridging social capital unites completely different social groups behind a common cause.
Therefore, when polarization exists, bridging social capital is lacking. This is because Americans see people that differ racially or socioeconomically as completely incompatible, and in some cases, as a threat to the nation itself. Bridging social capital is necessary for trust between completely different groups, not just trust within a homogenous group. It builds consensus among groups representing completely different interests and promotes the exchange of ideas.
Today, however, bridging social capital is difficult to find. A recent Pew Research Center study found that half of Americans connect a decline in interpersonal trust to the idea that people are not as trustworthy as they used to be. In effect, people are becoming increasingly cynical of both the federal government and of one another. This is due to the relative absence of bridging social capital. When people lose trust in one another’s ability to organize and act in a civil manner, they turn to more drastic alternatives such as hateful speech.
Americans’ distrust in media also transforms healthy political debate into fiery polarization. Soroka outlined how this works, explaining how “by gradually feeding Americans a steady diet of polarized and political stances, the elites are splitting the public opinion in a sharp way.” According to a 2019 Gallup poll, only 41 percent of Americans have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the media. President Trump routinely questions the integrity of the media. He and his supporters believe that the media has a clear left-leaning bias and generally holds a negative view of Trump. Neither side makes an effort to reconcile, so Trump’s supporters are pitted against liberals, who have more trust in the media.
Furthermore, following the embarrassment of the mainstream media in predicting the outcome of the 2016 election, there has been a decline in journalistic standards. News and opinion boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred, and partisan silos further reinforce humans’ tendency to seek out the information they want to hear rather than what is actually true.
How the System Should Work
The declines in both bridging social capital and trust in the media are detrimental because they have led to legislative breakdown and impaired the functioning of our government. Our leaders must be able to pass meaningful legislation, even during periods of divided government. Some of the most successful legislation in our history was passed during periods of significant political divide. The 1983 Social Security reforms, negotiated between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill, demonstrate this. The 1996 welfare reform package, a compromise between President Clinton and Congressional Republicans, also passed during a period of divided government. Divided government is healthy for democracy, as it allows both parties to take credit for bipartisan legislation. Legislation decreed from a single party typically incites the wrath of the minority.
Partisan dissent also inspires greater political participation; it mobilizes the minority party to form groups, volunteer, and take other necessary steps to vault their representatives back into power. Furthermore, voter participation skyrockets during periods of political gridlock. Both parties mobilize their bases, as people desire to alter the existing system. Between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections, for example, voter turnout increased 11.5 percentage points, from 41.9 percent to 53.4 percent. Crucially, among 18-29 year-olds, voter turnout experienced a 79 percent jump, larger than any other group.
This result was expected, since the Republican stronghold over Congress in 2017 encouraged Democrats to go out and vote. When power dynamics are shifted, the same result ensues. In 2014, voters, dismayed by the progress of the Obama administration, flipped the Senate to Republicans, granting Republicans control of both houses of Congress.
Additionally, partisan disagreement creates a robust civil society that encourages volunteering. In his 1835 work, Democracy in America, Alexander de Tocqueville comments that “as soon as several inhabitants have taken an opinion or an idea they wish to promote in society, they seek each other out and unite together once they have made contact.” Once these individuals unite, then, they “they are no longer isolated but have become a power seen from afar whose activities serve as an example and whose words are heeded.”
The altruistic notions of volunteering unite people around a common cause and encourage them to act on a large political issue. In 2018 alone, more than 77 million US adults volunteered, bringing in an estimated $167 billion in economic value. Volunteering strengthens the fabric of our nation, as freshly invigorated political groups take action.
Remedies for Political Polarization
To restore a healthy political culture balancing deliberation and progress, we must restore trust in one another. One way to resolve political polarization is to develop superordinate goals, which are goals that require the cooperation of two opposing parties and usually reward both parties in the end. Historical examples of this have been nuclear disarmament, space exploration, and the American war effort in World War II. Developing a sense of national identity around a large issue would bridge smaller differences. Superordinate goals today could include working together to fight climate change, lowering prescription drug costs, and funding advanced medical research.
Another solution is a refocus on civic education. In an interview with the HPR, Robert Leming noted that “you want citizens understanding the government that they’re actually giving their power up to. A civic education gives a better of way judging government, and then advocating for the changes that need to be made when they need to be made.”
Leming teaches a course called “Constitution 101” for adults. “What I’ve gleaned from these classes, is that the students themselves are frustrated with government these days. They don’t know something, and say ‘can the president do that?’ Well, let’s look at the powers of the presidency in Article II. Where does it say this, where does it say that?” Leming is hopeful that civic education will empower the future citizen-leaders of society to enact meaningful change in government.
Murray, however, is less optimistic. For him, “it’s very hard to see how these wounds are healed. It’s very hard to come up with a scenario that stitches together the polity. The hope is that an extremely attractive candidate will come forward, either Republican or Democrat, who has the kind of attraction that will also heal. You can’t manufacture that kind of candidate, that just takes time.”
Overall, there is a fine line between thoughtful, political disagreement, and full-throated political polarization. In order to avoid polarization, it is crucial that we as Americans gain trust in one another and in media institutions. Obama once famously claimed: “There is not a liberal America and conservative America. There is the United States of America.” We should do our best to harness the values we share, rather than focus on what separates us, in order to create a more perfect union for all.
Image Credit: pixabay/alex80