THE CONSOLATIONS OF POLARIZATION.
There are a couple useful tidbits in EJ Dionne's column on Nancy Pelosi. First, he asks Pelosi why health reform is being considered for the reconciliation process but cap and trade is not. "The priority, of course, is to pass health care," Pelosi replies. To my knowledge, Pelosi hasn't said that before. More to the point, she's not signaled it. At a recent Maria Leavey breakfast, she implied just the opposite, and many folks I've spoken to on the Hill have suggested that her priority was energy rather than health care. Whatever those personal commitments and preferences, now everyone is signing from the same hymnal: Health care is the priority.
Dionne also offers a nice reminder of the changing composition of the House GOP, and the implications for bipartisanship.
[Pelosi] also faces a Republican Party that is much more conservative and Southern than it used to be. It's easy to forget how dramatic the shift has been over time -- and therefore easy to miss how much of the current nostalgia for bipartisanship is unrealistic.
In the Congress elected in 1960, there were 174 Republicans. Only seven came from the 11 states of the Old Confederacy, while 35 came from New York or New England, the heartlands of moderate Republicanism.
In the current Congress, 72 of the 178 Republicans come from the Old Confederacy. Almost all of them are deeply conservative. There is not a single Republican House member from New England, and there are only three from New York.
In other words, there used to be a lot of people who believed similar things and came from similar perspectives but were in different parties. A New York Republican was probably closer to a New York Democrat than to a Mississippi Republican. That environment was ripe for bipartisanship. But now there are fewer people who believe similar things yet serve in different parties. There's more ideological coherence across the parties. But it's always worth pointing out that polarization is the norm, not the aberration. The post-War consensus was the aberration. This graph tracking the distance between the two congressional parties tells the story well:
This halcyon era of bipartisanship was a short blip that was primarily the product of a grotesque alliance between the anti-civil rights Dixiecrats and the conservative Republicans who would eventually absorb them. There's very little to fondly recall about that.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (6)
The US has always been about urban vs rural, if it was coastal Virginia vs western Virginia, new England vs the Atlantic Coast, East vs West, North vs South, East vs West again, and now Coasts and Midwest vs south and plains
Posted by: Rob | April 9, 2009 2:10 PM
Why the big fall in polarization in the 1920s? That can't be the end of mass immigration, can it? What's going one?
Posted by: stefan | April 9, 2009 2:54 PM
Political polarization correlates well with income inequality as well.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/the-financial-factor/
Posted by: pneogy | April 9, 2009 8:45 PM
Why is consensus always such a good thing? There was siginificant consensus in the '40s and '50s, which perhaps only means that everyone was cool about our having set off two atomic bombs. Shouldn't there be more division, especially after such enormous decisions are made? And the bomb supporters even make some decent arguements (ie the war would have lasted longer, etc.) But wouldn't it be good for there to be a lot of challenge on both sides regarding such weighty issues? I want to hear debates about things that effect people's lives- not the silence of consensus.
Posted by: adina | April 9, 2009 11:16 PM
I don't disagree with the broader point, but it seems to me that the graph of "distance between the parties" doesn't do much work to prove it.
Rather than the parties being more ideologically pure these days (or temporarily less so for a period during the 1930s-1970s), it could simply be that the issues that get to a vote are now more ideologically divisive.
There are still issues that cut across party lines today (notably immigration and international trade, but perhaps increasingly also "social libertarian" issues like gay marriage), but perhaps these now get to a vote more rarely, for a bunch of different reasons.
I guess the overall point is, is it valid to equate polarisation of votes in Congress with polarisation of the parties themselves?
Posted by: andysbg | April 10, 2009 6:42 AM
Republicans are enforcing separation.
Take California as an example. It took an extra 6 months for the State Government to finally pass a budget. It took 3 Republican Senators to pass that budget. One of those three is now facing a recall campaign (prompted by the party, not the member's constituents) and the other two now are promised primary challengers and zero funding for their races.
Tom DeLay may be gone but the core of the party still acts like 1)he's calling the shots and 2)they have the power to subject the nation to their will. Even though they no longer do.
Posted by: kindness | April 10, 2009 12:25 PM