Red vs. Blue Is partisanship tearing us apart? The map that started it all, 2000 I. The “Red vs. Blue” Narrative: Some Propositions A. The Pundits’ Story (clarified): 1. 2. 3. 4. Identity: Party identity has become an important part of self-identity, so that Red (proRepublican) and Blue (pro-Democrat) are as salient as religion, race, place, etc. 50/50 Nation: The Red/Blue divide splits America down the middle Polarization: The Red/Blue divide has been growing over time Geographic Divide: Red America is a very different place than Blue America B. The Polarized Public? Abramowitz’s Argument 5. 6. 7. [Polarization is increasing among ordinary people] (included in # 3) Race, class, ideology, cultural views, and geography are reinforcing rather than cross-cutting cleavages The Tea Party movement is an example of a radicalized mass movement II. The identity thesis Have Americans become more attached to their parties? A. Party Images From Mark Brewer, Party Images in the American Electorate, 2009. 1. 2. Party image = “Mental picture” that individuals have about a party Can be treated as “likes” and “dislikes” a. Party images getting stronger – barely… b. What do Americans see in their major parties? See Handout c. Party images are more distinct, more salient B. Partisan Loyalty: Increasing or Decreasing? Increasing references in media But is it real or a myth? 1. Party Identification – Long-Term Increase in Independents 2000 2004 2008 2012 2. Party Leaners – Few “Pure” Independents but many “Independent” leaners 3. Leaners look like “closet partisans” (80% vs. 90% loyal) C. Party Salience – How important are partisan ties? 1. Civic engagement – how important is politics? a. Attention to political news: Historical Perspective b. Volunteerism: high… …but not usually political c. Salience of politics Question: “Suppose that you alone could determine whether a Democrat or a Republican represents your Congressional district by paying a specific dollar amount? How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that a Congressman from your preferred party will win the office?” Answer (yougov.com): 55% of respondents said “ZERO” d. Political Activity (2008) Turnout III. 50/50 Nation? Closeness and Depth A. Is the Country Closely Divided? 1. Multiple Scholars: Yes. Elections 2000 and 2004 were close, and… 2. House Vote: Much closer than most of 1950-1990 2010 3. Partisan Leanings (not ID) – Nearly Even B. Polarization: Are Americans Deeply Divided? 1. Issues (Fiorina): No. See Figures 3.2 and 3.4. Centrism on ideology and major issues. But see also Abramowitz. Further examples… Abortion: Most in the middle Gay Marriage: Substantial Center Exists Afghanistan (2009): Substantial Middle Ground Health Care: Evidence of Polarization 2. Changes in Party Identification Show Moderation Not Polarization 2000 2004 2008 2012 3. Ideology: a. Public much less divided than politicians (2006) b. State-level Ideology: no evidence of sharp divide. Centrists dominate most states Fiorina: Gap is an artifact of “winner takes all” – voters similar in both kinds of states c. Even partisans are crosspressured Most partisans disagree with own party on at least one salient issue (common in 20002004: abortion, gay marriage) Creates opportunities for persuasion during campaigns Many apparently divisive issues are really “wedge” issues meant to peel off crosspressured partisans, not (just) to excite the base 4. Comparative Evidence (2008): Larger gaps between partisans than other countries C. Conclusions Americans are closely divided competitive elections at national level Americans are centrists on many “wedge” issues creates cross-pressured voters Evidence on public polarization is mixed, depending on issue and measure of opinion Need more precise measures of polarization – would allow comparison over time IV. Is Partisan Polarization Increasing? A. Is Elite Partisanship Increasing? 1. Introducing NOMINATE scores: An unbiased method for measuring political differences a. Assumption 1: Political decisions are connected – position on one issue helps to predict position on other issues b. Assumption 2: Whatever connects issue positions is a continuum, so we can rank people on this underlying dimension 2. Finding the underlying dimension: An example Three legislators, four bills (A through D). What rankordering best explains these voting patterns? Jose Keisha Pat A Y Y N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ Jose Keisha Pat A Y Y N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP KPJ PJK PKJ Jose Keisha Pat A Y Y N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y a. Rank-Order the legislators Options: JKP JPK KJP Jose Keisha Pat A Y Y N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y b. Rank-Order the Bills Options: ABCD ABDC ACBD ACDB ADBC ADCB BACD BADC BCAD BDAC CABD CBAD Jose Keisha Pat A Y Y N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y c. Evaluate the RankOrderings to Predict Votes Iss. Rank JKP JPK KJP ABCD ABDC ACBD ACDB ADBC ADCB BACD BADC BCAD BDAC CABD CBAD A J Y K Y P N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y i. Check each combination First combination to check: JKP and ABCD J A K B P C D Implications: J more likely to vote for A than K 0 J more likely to vote for A than P 1 K more likely to vote for C than J 0 K more likely to vote for D than J -1 K more likely to vote for A than P 1 K more likely to vote for B than P -1 P more likely to vote for D than K 1 P more likely to vote for D than J 0 A J Y K Y P N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y ii. Now re-check with different policy positions First combination to check: JKP and ABCD J K ABC A BC A A P D D BCD B CD Etc… A J Y K Y P N B Y N Y C N N Y D Y N Y iii. Repeat for every possible combination NOMINATE scores generated using a supercomputer Note that none of the possible orderings is likely to be correct all of the time, given dozens or hundreds of legislators and bills (all roll-call votes in which 2.5% or more disagree) d. Which combination performs best? Iss. Rank JKP JPK KJP ABCD 17 7 4 ABDC 23 11 -2 ACBD 11 -2 12 ACDB -5 0 17 ADBC 14 9 13 ADCB 9 12 9 BACD 4 17 22 BADC 2 6 26 BCAD 13 11 2 BDAC 19 -2 21 CABD 21 21 -4 CBAD -1 24 13 Possible Implication: K loves B and hates C, while P loves C and hates B. Everyone and everything else is moderate. Example: 110th Congress by D-NOMINATE Scores e. Now suppose there are multiple dimensions…. Examples: Social freedom vs Economic freedom International cooperation and international militancy All of the above (4 dimensions!) Authors find one or two dimensions are all that is needed: Currently just one (liberal vs. conservative). Very high (.81) correlation with hand-coded scores of liberalism vs. conservatism – the computer found something that matches our understanding! e. Now suppose there are multiple dimensions…. Examples: Social freedom vs Economic freedom International cooperation and international militancy All of the above (4 dimensions!) Authors find one or two dimensions are all that is needed: Currently just one (liberal vs. conservative). Very high (.81) correlation with hand-coded scores of liberalism vs. conservatism – the computer found something that matches our understanding! Sometimes a second dimension (Regionalism: North-South power balance, bimetalism/free silver, civil rights) Opposition to Civil Rights Example: 91st House (1969-70) Conservatism 3. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization? 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether there are two dimensions or one: Is the liberal-conservative continuum a good way to categorize politicians? How far apart each party’s legislators are from each other (party unity) How far apart one party’s legislators are from the other party’s legislators (polarization) Whether the parties have dramatically changed (realignment) 3. What can NOMINATE tell us about polarization? 1. 2. 3. 4. Whether there are two dimensions or one: Is the liberal-conservative continuum a good way to categorize politicians? How far apart each party’s legislators are from others in the same party (party unity) How far apart one party’s legislators are from the other party’s legislators (polarization) Whether the parties have dramatically changed (realignment) Video: Plotting scores over time by Party 4. Further Evidence of Party Polarization a. Party-line votes (previous lecture) b. Filibusters and Cloture c. Issue Positions 5. Explaining party polarization Politicians becoming more extreme? But why? Self-defeating to move away from median voter. Hypothesis: Party activists have become more extreme a. b. i. ii. Explains uncertainty about mass shift (would be delayed relative to elite shift) Also explains elite shift – activists are key to candidate success and are known to be more extreme than either the public or candidates themselves! Median Voter (M) Beats All other positions! 5. Explaining party polarization Politicians becoming more extreme? But why? Self-defeating to move away from median voter. Hypothesis: Party activists have become more extreme a. b. i. ii. Explains uncertainty about mass shift (would be delayed relative to elite shift) Also explains elite shift – activists are key to candidate success and are known to be more extreme than either the public or candidates themselves! c. Evidence: Activist polarization d. What polarized activists? Competing explanations: Realignment of the South in 1960s/1970s fails to explain continued polarization in 1990s Primaries: Internal democracy allowed party “capture” by activists using primaries (especially Congressional ones) Media change: End of “fairness doctrine” and rise of new media (from talk-radio to the Internet) allow politically-aware to hear only fellow ideologues Political blog polarization (2010) Ideologies of website readers e. Is mass polarization increasing? Probably. Abramowitz: More political engagement more polarization Consistent with a “trickle out” effect from party activists to informed voters But what factors cause increased polarization? (Abramowitz) Education will not eliminate polarization! Abortion (% Pro-Life) Evolution Climate Change (Existence) Climate Change (Would Be Bothered) Facts About Iraq (WMD) Economic Inequality (Has it Increased?) V. A Geographic Divide? The 2004 “Jesusland” Map: Red vs. Blue as a fundamental religious divide – or “closely but not deeply divided?” A. Voting History B. General Political Regions 1. West Coast Stereotype: Wealthy, elite liberalism. Reality: Elite liberal coalition with Latinos State-Funded Abortion 2. Rocky Mountains Libertarian Conservatives: No Taxes, No Government Regulation Seat Belt Laws 3. Great Plains Religious Conservatism But Economic Populism 4. Great Lakes In transition from Blue-Collar (Economically Liberal, Socially Conservative) to Suburban (Economically Conservative, Socially Moderate) Map of Industrialization – Great Lakes = Old Industry 5. Northeast Big-Government Liberalism: Both Social and Economic c. State Taxes a. Sex Ed: Cultural Liberalism in the Northeast b. Liberal Crime Policy: Northeast and Victims’ Rights c. Values: Women’s Age at First Marriage (Darkest = 27+) 6. The South States Rights and Limited Welfare but Big-Government Conservatism (Pro-Business) a. North-South Divide: Origins b. The “Southern Strategy” Note difference between Nixon’s 1960 and 1968/1972 positions Democrats able to attack Nixon on NAACP membership in South during 1960 campaign c. The Southern Shift: 1950-1980 Wallace for President 1968 b. The “Southern Strategy” Note difference between Nixon’s 1960 and 1968/1972 positions Democrats able to attack Nixon on NAACP membership in South during 1960 campaign Note the stop-start nature of the transition: Ford still writes off the South in 1976… Moral issues slowly replaced racial issues in Republicans’ strategy d. Southern uniqueness today i. The “Bible Belt” – Moral issues coincide with racial issues of 1970s Southern Religious Homogeneity ii. High poverty, Low welfare Poverty Rates 2004: Darker = Higher Rate % Households Receiving Cash Welfare Alabama Arkansas Louisiana West Virginia Indiana Texas* Virginia Missouri Florida Idaho Mississippi Illinois Nebraska * Kansas Colorado Georgia Maryland New Jersey Michigan Oklahoma Kentucky North Carolina South Carolina New York Utah* New Mexico New Hampshire Wyoming South Dakota(4) Montana Pennsylvania California (1) Tennessee Wisconsin Minnesota Ohio Vermont Washington Alaska Maine Hawaii ** assachusetts ** Rhode Island $2,500 Medicaid Eligibility by State (2008) $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 iii. Still lower education Percent Completed High School or GED By Age 25 iv. Hard-line anti-crime policy (2009) Example of Southern Uniqueness: Execution of Juveniles (2004) 7. Summary: Alignments Exception to Region C. How stable and homogenous are these regions? 1. Economic Issues a. Anti-Union: “Right to Work” Union Membership b. Economic Protection State Minimum Wage Laws Parental Leave Policies (A = Most / F = Least) State EITC (2008) c. State Balanced Budget Laws 2. Energy Policy a. Renewable Energy (RPS) b. Gasoline tax rates 3. “Moral Issues” a. Abortion: Legal everywhere but laws differ… “Partial Birth” Abortion Bans (2007) Pro-life State Governments (2011) Abortion Rates (2010-2011) Stem Cell Research Support b. Religion in Schools: Moment of Silence Laws State Treatment of Evolution c. Family Structures Gay Adoption Banned (Blue) or OK (Orange) Gay/Lesbian Rights Scale includes: same-sex marriage 2nd parent adoption for same-sex couples civil unions health benefits for same-sex partners job antidiscrimination hate crimes protection housing antidiscrimination. Gay/Lesbian Rights (2009) SUPPORT POLICY Gay Marriage (2012) st 1 Cousin Marriage Divorce Rates – indicator of attitudes toward marriage? 4. Liberty vs. Safety a. Motorcycle Helmet Laws b. Crime Policy Imprisonment Rates Marijuana Laws Laws Against Racial Profiling Gun Tracking 3. Multiculturalism. “Official English” Laws D. What underlies the regional divides? 1. Smaller cultural regions? 2. Patterns of Issue Salience? Many regions have multiple loyalties (opportunities for change or new regional divides). Possible examples: Rockies values low taxes over less social regulation Great Lakes values economic performance/policy over social issues Great Plains values religiosity over economic populism VI. Case Study: The Tea Party Movement If statistical evidence is inconclusive, perhaps process-tracing a single case will provide more insight A. Is the Tea Party a Mass Movement? 1. Note: Most mass movements are small, compared to the general public 2. Tea Party supporters = about one-fourth of Americans (opinion surveys) mass support 1 in 5 of these (2.5%) has donated money or protested mass participation Donors generally vastly outnumber protesters unclear if mass activism 650 national organizations, fewer than half “active.” Most of these = 500 members or less B. How Does the Tea Party Get Anything Done? Fragmentation usually reduces influence of mass movements Two main groups set the agenda using media and money: FreedomWorks (Tea Party Patriots) “Our Country Deserves Better” PAC (Tea Party Express) Other GOP groups often support Tea Party activities / candidates C. What Mobilized the Tea Party? See exercise (and Abramowitz) VII. Assessing the Propositions 1. 2. Identity: Political identification may be increasing, but its salience is still low. BUT: Other issues increasingly correlate with political views. 50/50 Nation: Americans are closely divided, but disagreement over depth BUT: Tea Party suggests elite polarization can produce mass polarization VII. Assessing the Propositions 3. 4. Polarization: Appears to be increasing, but could be “sorting” (next lecture on individual political attitudes) Geographic Divide: Political regions can be drawn which match partisan divides BUT: More regions than red/blue, regions are not homogenous and seeds of change exist Assessing the Propositions 5. Geography seems to be a reinforcing cleavage, but we need additional evidence on the political significance of race and class 6. Tea Party movement is a mass movement with aspects of a top-down movement and other aspects of a decentralized movement, which has evolved closer alignment with its sponsors’ priorities