The first of two volumes cosponsored by Brookings and the Hoover Institution carefully considers the extent to which polarized views among political leaders and activists are reflected in the population at large. It pays particular attention to factors such as the increased influence of religion and the changing nature of the media. The authors show that while the severity of the country’s “culture wars” is often overstated, significant fissures have opened. In Red and Blue Nation? leading journalists and scholars combine their different insights to enrich our understanding of the issue, offering thoughtful analyses of the underlying problems. This comprehensive and accessible discussion of the polarization debate will be an essential resource for policymakers, scholars, and anyone interested in the health of American public discourse.

Contributors: Alan I. Abramowitz (Emory University), David W. Brady (Hoover Institution), James Campbell (State University of New York at Buffalo), Carl Cannon (National Journal), E.J. Dionne, Jr. (Brookings Institution), Gregg Easterbrook (Brookings Institution), Thomas B. Edsall (Columbia University), Morris P. Fiorina (Hoover Institution), William A. Galston (Brookings Institution), Hahrie C. Han (Wellesley College), Gary C. Jacobson (University of California, San Diego), Andrew Kohut (Pew Research Center), Matthew Levendusky (Yale University), Thomas E. Mann (Brookings Institution), Diana C. Mutz (University of Pennsylvania), Pietro S. Nivola (Brookings Institution), Tom Rosenstiel (Project for Excellence in Journalism), and Alan Wolfe (Boston College).

Selected Chapter Summaries:

Chapter Four: Polarized by God? American Politics and the Religious Divide

Chapter Five: How the Mass Media Divide Us

Chapter Six: Polarizing the House of Representatives: How Much Does Gerrymandering Matter?

Related events and analysis:

“How Deep Is America’s Political Divide,” December 8, 2006.

“Do the Mass Media Divide Us?,” November 28, 2006.

“The Great Divide,” by William A. Galston and Pietro S. Nivola, The American Interest, November/December 2006. (Login required)

“Polarizing the House of Representatives: How Much Does Gerrymandering Matter?,” October 30, 2006.

“American Politics and the Religious Divide,” September 26, 2006.

Brookings Project: Red and Blue Nation

      

 

 

In The Marketplace of Democracy, top-tier political scholars also investigate the perceived lack of competition in arenas only previously speculated on, such as state legislative contests and congressional primaries. Michael McDonald, John Samples, and their colleagues analyze previous reform efforts such as direct primaries and term limits, and the effects they have had on electoral competition. They also examine current reform efforts in redistricting and campaign finance regulation, as well as the impact of third parties. In sum, what does all this tell us about what might be done to increase electoral competition?

Elections are the vehicles through which Americans choose who governs them, and the power of the ballot enables ordinary citizens to keep public officials accountable. This volume considers different policy options for increasing the competition needed to keep American politics vibrant, responsive, and democratic.

Brookings Forum: “The Marketplace of Democracy: A Groundbreaking Survey Explores Voter Attitudes About Electoral Competition and American Politics,” October 27, 2006.

Podcast: “The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics,” a Capitol Hill briefing featuring Michael McDonald and John Samples, September 22, 2006.

Contributors: Stephen Ansolabehere (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), William D. Berry (Florida State University), Bruce Cain (University of California-Berkeley), Thomas M. Carsey (Florida State University), James G. Gimpel (University of Maryland), Tim Groseclose (University of California-Los Angeles), John Hanley (University of California-Berkeley), John mark Hansen (University of Chicago), Paul S. Herrnson (University of Maryland), Shigeo Hirano (Columbia University), Gary C. Jacobson (University of California-San Diego), Thad Kousser (University of California-San Diego), Frances E. Lee (University of Maryland), John C. Matsusaka (University of Southern California), Kenneth R. Mayer (University of Wisconsin-Madison), Michael P. McDonald (Brookings Institution and George Mason University), Jeffrey Milyo (University of Missouri-Columbia), Richard G. Niemi (University of Rochester), Natheniel Persily (University of Pennsylvania Law School), Lynda W. Powell (University of Rochester), David Primo (University of Rochester), John Samples (Cato Institute), James M. Snyder Jr. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Timothy Werner (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Amanda Williams (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

      

 

 

Building on the findings of the first volume of Red and Blue Nation? (Brookings, 2006), which explored the extent of political polarization and its potential causes, this new volume delves into the consequences of the gulf between “red states” and “blue states.” The authors examine the impact of these political divisions on voter behavior, congressional lawmaking, judicial selection, and foreign policy formation. They shed light on hotly debated institutional reform proposals-including changes to the electoral system and the congressional rules of engagement-and ultimately present research-supported policies and reforms for alleviating the underlying causes of political polarization.

While most discussion of polarization takes place in separate spheres of journalism and academia, Red and Blue Nation? brings together a unique set of voices with a wide variety of perspectives to enrich our understanding of the issue. Written in a broad, accessible style, it is a resource for anyone concerned about the future of electoral politics in America.

Contributors: Joel D. Aberbach (University of California – Los Angeles), Peter Beinart (Council on Foreign Relations), Sarah A. Binder (Brookings Institution and George Washington University), Deborah Jordan Brooks (Dartmouth College), Andrea L. Campbell (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), John Ferejohn (Hoover Institution), Christopher H. Foreman Jr. (Brookings Institution and University of Maryland), William A. Galston (Brookings Institution), John G. Geer (Vanderbilt University), Laurel Harbridge (Stanford University), Marc J. Hetherington (Vanderbilt University), Keith Krehbiel (Stanford University), Eric M. Patashnik (University of Virginia), Nelson W. Polsby (University of California – Berkeley), Jonathan Rauch (Brookings Institution and National Journal), Martin Shapiro (University of California – Berkeley), Barbara Sinclair (University of California – Los Angeles), Martin P. Wattenberg (University of California – Irvine), James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University), and Benjamin Wittes (Brookings Institution).

Book Launch Event: Red and Blue Nation?, February 15, 2008 at 10 a.m.

Event Transcript: Partisan Polarization and Foreign Policy, November 30, 2007.

      

 

 

Gridlock is not a modern legislative condition. Although the term is said to have entered the American political lexicon after the 1980 elections, Alexander Hamilton complained about it more than two hundred years ago.
In many ways, stalemate seems endemic to American politics. Constitutional skeptics even suggest that the framers intentionally designed the Constitution to guarantee gridlock.

In Stalemate, Sarah Binder examines the causes and consequences of gridlock, focusing on the ability of Congress to broach and secure policy compromise on significant national issues. Reviewing more than fifty years of legislative history, Binder measures the frequency of deadlock during that time and offers concrete advice for policymakers interested in improving the institutional capacity of Congress.

Binder begins by revisiting the notion of “framers’ intent,” investigating whether gridlock was the preferred outcome of those who designed the American system of separated powers. Her research suggests that frequent policy gridlock might instead be an unintended consequence of constitutional design.

Next, she explores the ways in which elections and institutions together shape the capacity of Congress and the president to make public law. She examines two facets of its institutional evolution: the emergence of the Senate as a coequal legislative partner of the House and the insertion of political parties into a legislative arena originally devoid of parties.

Finally, she offers a new empirical approach for testing accounts of policy stalemate during the decades since World War II. These measurements reveal patterns in legislative performance during the second half of the twentieth century, showing the frequency of policy deadlock and the legislative stages at which it has most often emerged in the postwar period.

Binder uses the new measure of stalemate to explain empirical patterns in the frequency of gridlock. The results weave together the effects of institutions and elections and place in perspective the impact of divided government on legislative performance.

The conclusion addresses the consequences of legislative stalemate, assessing whether and to what degree deadlock might affect electoral fortunes, political ambitions, and institutional reputations of legislators and presidents. The results suggest that recurring episodes of stalemate pose a dilemma for legislators and others who care about the institutional standing and capacity of Congress. Binder encourages scholars, political observers, and lawmakers to consider modest reforms that could have strong and salutary effects on the institutional standing and legitimacy of Congress and the president.

      

 

 

Long before most pundits and analysts considered the notion of a “culture war,” James Davison Hunter and Alan Wolfe were laying the groundwork for the debate. Now, for the first time, these two important thinkers join in dialogue to search for the truth about America’s cultural condition. Two other brilliant voices enter the forum, commenting on Hunter’s and Wolfe’s views—historian Gertrude Himmelfarb and Morris Fiorina, author of Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America.

      

 

 

Brookings Briefing: Redistricting Reform After the Ohio and California Initiatives, November 15, 2005. Featuring Thomas E. Mann, Bruce E. Cain, and Michael P. McDonald.

“For Election Reform, a Heartening Defeat,” by Sam Hirsch and Thomas E. Mann, The New York Times, November 11, 2005.

The legitimacy of the American electoral system depends on sustaining reasonable levels of fairness, accountability, responsiveness, and common sense. Recent Congressional elections fly in the face of those requirements, however, with a startling lack of competition, growing ideological polarization, and a fierce struggle between the parties to manipulate the electoral rules of the game. Party Lines addresses these problems head on in an authoritative and timely analysis of redistricting in the United States.

The practice of state legislatures redrawing district lines after the decennial census has long been a controversial aspect of our governing system. Recent developments have added new urgency to earlier debates. The sorry spectacle of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in Texas renewed public attention to the potential problems of redistricting, reinforcing the view that it is unfairly dominated by self-serving elected officials and parties. The perfunctory character of Congressional elections is another growing problem: in 2002, only four House incumbents were defeated in the general election, the lowest in American history. Despite a hotly contested presidential contest in 2004, that number increased by only three.

In Party Lines, eminent political analysts explain the legal and political history of redistricting since the one person-one vote revolution in the 1960s and place it in the larger context of American politics. The authors document the impact of redistricting on competition, polarization, and partisan fairness, and they assess the role technology played in the redistricting process. The final chapter analyzes options for reform, including most importantly the use of independent redistricting commissions as an alternative to the normal state legislative process. Redistricting reform is no panacea but it is a start toward ensuring that American voters still have the largest say in who will represent them.

Contributors include Micah Altman (Harvard Universtity), Bruce Cain and Karin MacDonald (University of California—Berkeley), Cherie Maestas (Florida State University), L. Sandy Maisel (Colby College), Thomas Mann (Brookings Institution), Michael McDonald (George Mason University), Nathaniel Persily (University of Pennsylvania ), and Walter Stone (University of California—Davis).

      

 

 

The filibuster has achieved almost mythic proportions in the history of American politics, but it has escaped a careful, critical assessment for more than 50 years. In this book, Sarah Binder and Steven Smith provide such an assessment as they address the problems and conventional wisdom associated with the Senate’s long-standing tradition of extended debate.

The authors examine the evolution of the rules governing Senate debate, analyze the consequences of these rules, and evaluate reform proposals. They argue that in an era of unprecedented filibustering and related obstructionism, old habits are indeed undermining the Senate’s ability to meet its responsibilities. Binder and Smith scrutinize conventional wisdom about the filibuster—and show that very little of it is true. They focus on five major myths: that unlimited debate is a fundamental right to differentiate the Senate from the House of Representatives; that the Senate’s tradition as a deliberative body requires unlimited debate; that the filibuster is reserved for a few issues of the utmost national importance; that few measures are actually killed by the filibuster; and that senators resist changing the rules because of a principled commitment to deliberation. In revising conventional wisdom about the filibuster, Binder and Smith contribute to ongoing debates about the dynamics of institutional change in the American political system.

The authors conclude by suggesting reforms intended to enhance the power of determined majorities while preserving the rights of chamber minorities. They advocate, for example, lowering the number of votes required to end debate while increasing the amount of time for senators to debate controversial bills. Reform is possible, they suggest, that is consistent with the Senate’s unique size and responsibilities.

      

 

 

If that proposition seems perverse, consider these simple facts. Whatever else Americans say about the country’s soaring and unsupportable debt, clear majorities have expressed two sentiments: (1) If taxes are to increase, the burden should fall on “the rich.” Fully 64 percent favored higher taxes on households earning above $250,000, according to a Pew poll taken in October. (2) Serious spending reductions are mostly anathema. The resistance to changes in Social Security and Medicare is strong. The same Pew survey found 57 percent opposed to raising the amount Medicare recipients contribute to their health care; 56 percent disapproved of gradually raising the Social Security retirement age.

So, there you have it. The fiscal deal duly followed both of these popular mandates; it raised taxes on the wealthy, and then predictably kicked the can of spending cuts, and entitlement reform, down the road.

One can denigrate this answer ad nauseam. It raises too little revenue for the long haul. (Hiking income tax rates only on the rich, while permanently letting 99 percent of us off the hook, is a sure recipe for an enduring revenue shortfall.) Ducking an imperative to rein in entitlement spending is an especially unsustainable policy for the long term. It is easy to bemoan the way Democrats seem unprepared to face up to those issues. It is equally easy to pan Republicans for not really having the courage of their convictions—that is, for having flirted with meaningful entitlement reforms (such as increases in eligibility age, means-testing, altering cost-of-living adjustments, or Ryan’s premium-support idea), but then in essence waiting for the president to buy in first, to provide them with bullet-proof political cover. It is easy to chastise both political parties for, ever so opportunistically, shirking responsibility.

But without popular consent, it is also utopian to expect elected politicians to be casting heroic profiles in courage. They are, after all, representatives of the people, not Platonic philosopher kings. This is true in any democracy, but particularly in this one. With its system of exceptionally frequent elections (and almost continuous electioneering), America’s regime is keenly sensitive to public opinion. Hence, like it or not, until the voters send a very different message—one that asserts, in effect, “We are finally ready to share the pain of higher taxes, and of lower spending!”—the political process is, at best, likely to keep grinding out sausages like last week’s.

And, by the way, that’s not all bad. Look on the bright side; thanks to the public’s misgivings—and, yes, some helpful “gridlock”—at least the compromise that was reached avoided the clearest, most present danger: a draconian lurch toward precipitous austerity measures and broad tax increases that would run the economy back into a ditch. At least for the time being, let’s just breathe a sigh of relief.

      

 

 

To assess this highly polarized political climate, the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program and the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs will hold the first of five roundtable discussions that will take place this fall in connection with the 2004 election campaign.

Panelists will discuss the current state of partisan attachments in the American electorate, how these attachments develop and change, and how they shape political attitudes and perceptions. In addition, panelists will also assess how partisanship affects voting behavior and whether or not “swing voters” and competitive districts are disappearing from the American political landscape.

      

 

 

9:00 am – Morning Sessions co-chaired by William Frenzel and Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution

Panel 1: Political Consequences of Redistricting

Papers: Bruce Cain and Karin Mac Donald, UC, Berkeley, and Michael McDonald, George Mason University, “From Equality to Fairness: The Path of Political Reform since Baker v. Carr”

Sandy Maisel, Colby College, Cherie Maestas, Texas Tech University, and Walter Stone, UC, Davis, “Candidate Emergence in 2002: The Impact of Redistricting on Potential Candidates’ Decisions”

Discussant: John Petrocik, University of Missouri-Columbia

10:30 am – Panel 2: The Impact of Technology

Paper: Kimball Brace, Election Data Services, “The Impact of Technology on Redistricting: An Insider’s Perspective”

Discussant: Clark Bensen, POLIDATA

11:15 am – Panel 3: The Law of Redistricting

Paper: Nathaniel Persily, University of Pennsylvania Law School, “Forty Years in the Political Thicket: Evaluating Judicial Review of Redistricting Since Baker v. Carr”

Discussants: Sam Hirsch, Jenner & Block LLP, and Dale Oldham, Free Enterprise Coalition

12:15 pm – Lunch

1:15 pm – Afternoon sessions co-chaired by Bruce Cain and William Frenzel

Panel 4: Alternatives to Traditional Redistricting Processes

Paper: Thomas E. Mann, “Redistricting Reform: What is Desirable? Possible?”

Discussants: Steven W. Lynn, Chair, Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and Alan Rosenthal, Rutgers University

2:30 pm – Panel 5: Practical Perspectives on the Politics and Law of Redistricting

Participants: Lisa Handley, Frontier IEC; Tom Hofeller, USDA – Farm Service Agency; Nina Perales, MALDEF; and Jeff Wice, National Committee for an Effective Congress

4:00 pm – Adjournment

Note: All presented papers are conference drafts. They are not for citation or publication.