Email your responses to Grace (gemurray@email.wm.edu) by 5/08 at midnight.
Professor Settle – White House imposes new rules on reporters’ credentials, raising concerns about access
It will be interesting to talk with the journalists about how their experiences have differed in the Trump Administration compared to the Obama Administration. In many ways, President Trump has been more transparent than past presidents, through his use of Twitter. But the White House Communications Office seems to be run very differently.
Jack Buchholz – Partisanship, Parasites, and Polarization
In this article, Paul Krugman investigates a cause of polarization that our class has not directly touched on: marketing. Political personalities like Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro gain publicity by attacking the left, and cash in by selling supplements or other novelties to their hooked viewers. Obviously, marketing is not the root of the political divide that chokes America, but it does exacerbate the problem. Krugman rests his argument on the idea that no one, or almost no one, works for the public good without expecting something in return. From there, he extrapolates to the political world, and states “political action is driven by people trying to shape policy in a way that benefits them personally.” The most obvious examples are the people like Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro, but Krugman points out that Fox News dabbles in this same strategy: attract old white males with sensationalized reporting and then follow up with an advertisement for catheters or John Deere tractors. While Krugman does not address this directly, it is important to note that this phenomenon is not completely one sided. Media outlets across the spectrum do this too. Maybe the campaign to take money out of politics should begin to broaden its focus to include the private sector.
Sam Burridge – Narcissism’s Role in Our Political Polarization
This is a really cool article that dives a little deeper into the nature of the affective polarization we’ve been studying and talking so much in the class so far. It goes right down to the biological and evolutionary roots of polarization and how it affects the human mind and human decision-making. While polarization isn’t completely natural—if it was, there’d be absolutely no way we could do anything about it—particularly interesting is that it gives the psychologist’s diagnosis to polarization: what is happening right now is rather than addressing the more complex issue, people are reacting to displays of what they perceive to be narcissism from the other side of the aisle by “doing exactly that” as the article puts it: “re-acting.” The subsequent vicious cycle of narcissism is especially contagious in group settings like political parties. While none of this is a surprise to any of us, or to most people we’ll meet in DC, this goes into great detail without becoming unintelligible to a non-psychologist about the actual mechanisms of affective polarization.
Claudia Chen – Is America Hopelessly Polarized, or Just Allergic to Politics?
Though the public seems to think that America is undergoing extreme political polarization, a recent article from the New York Times says the problem isn’t as bad as we think it is. The authors Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, and John Barry Ryan conducted over 6,000 surveys asking people whether they would be happy or not if their child married someone from the opposing party. Turns out, more people would be happy if their future in law just didn’t talk about politics at all. The only people who would be truly unhappy are those that are deeply involved in politics which is only about one-third of all Americans. Yet, the media frames political polarization as a huge issue. Thus, though actual polarization is a lot better than we think, what we read online leads the public to think it is a major problem.
David DeMarco – ‘I Love You, But You’re Wrong,’ And Other Salvos On The Front Lines Of Civility
This article depicts how gut-wrenching the reality of polarization can be as it starts to infect our personal lives. Grant walks us through multiple different relationships and gives us a glimpse of how political differences are affecting their daily lives. What’s interesting to see is how polarization can have the obvious negative affects on some couples’ relationships, but actually emphasize how close some couples are as well. While the first narrative shows one of the partners needing to walk out of the room because of their difference in political opinion, some of the other stories proved that it was actually their relationship’s ability to overcome stark ideological differences that has substantiated their bond. Overall, I think this article does an effective job proving that we do not know exactly how polarization is affecting our individual lives, and that many times the impacts can be situational.
Jane Geiger – Political Polarization & Media Habits
The article “Political Polarization & Media Habits” by Amy Mitchell, Jocelyn Kiley,
Jeffrey Gottfried, and Katerina Eva Matsa details the way in which media interaction differs
between liberals and conservatives, thereby influencing the political polarization of the two
groups. The study found that consistent liberals get their main news from four sources- CNN,
MSNBC, NPR, and the New York Times. They are more likely to unfriend someone on social
media over political beliefs and trust 28/36 of presented news sources. On the other side,
consistent conservatives get their main news from Fox News, are likely to follow individuals on
Facebook with the same political opinion as their own, and distrust 24/36 of presented news
sources. This demonstrates the way in which political polarization between the two parties can
be driven simply by the information seen on a regular basis. Finally, these “consistent” liberals
and conservatives are more alike than they think. Both groups are more likely to vote, donate to
campaigns, and participate in politics because they have fixed and pre-determined ideological
views.
Karan Gupta – The Political Scientist Donald Trump Should Read
Increased Competition leads to Increased partisan conflict. The current era is among the most
competitive in American history. The Republican party dominated the 19 th century and early 20 th
century while the Democratic party dominated the post-New deal era. In the last 150 years,
there has been no period which is as tenuous as the present. Since 1980, American politics
started getting more and more competitive. In Lee’s view when there is increased competition
and “neither party perceives itself as a permanent majority or permanent minority”, this leads
to partisan conflict. When there is less competition between the parties and one party is
‘perpetually dominant’, the subordinate party has incentive to cooperate since this is the ‘only
realistic shot at wielding power.’ It has the option of either working well with the dominant
party or having no influence on policy and thus nothing to take home to his/her constituents. A
politician has three priorities (in order of importance): (1) win reelection, (2) win the majority
and (3) influence governance as much as possible’. This is because governing is not possible
without winning reelection and effective governance is not possible if your party is in the
minority. However, if there is no competition, one party is dominant and it is almost impossible
to win majority status, the calculus for minority party members changes. The priority is now to
(1) win reelection, (2) influence governance as much as possible. If a member brings money
home to his/her district, he/she can brag about it and other bills with their imprint on it.
However, a good relationship is needed with the majority party, he cannot engage in an all-out
effort of obstruction and sabotage. On the other hand, when it becomes possible to win the
majority, the cooperation dissolves. By signing onto the majority’s bills and showing off about
provisions you added to their bills, you’re becoming part of their reelection strategy. In other
words, you are undermining the possibility of your party becoming the majority and by
implication your ability to have a greater influence on policy. Increased competition thus leads
to increased partisan conflict.
Jack Helms – U.S. House panel accuses Barr of contempt as Trump invokes executive privilege
I have chosen this Reuters article about a house panel accusing Attorney General Barr of contempt. This comes mere hours after President Trump invoked executive authority on the report. This is important to polarization due to the way the vote played out. There were 24 democrats in the house panel, and 24 democrats voted to accuse. There were 16 republicans and 16 voted to not accuse. Trump’s invocation and the panels’ subsequent decision just show that polarization at the elite level is still as strained as it has ever been.
Taylor Jones – Extreme political polarization weakens democracy – can the US avoid that fate?
This article discusses the growing polarization in the government this midterm election. There is growing distrust in the country between opposing political parties, which resulted in us vs. them mentality between political parties. The article discusses how this is an inherently bad feature of democracy.
Cassidy Milne – Is America Hopelessly Polarized, or Just Allergic to Politics?
This article discusses affective polarization and perceived polarization in America, ultimately arguing that while Americans believe that polarization is a major issue in today’s society, they may actually just be fed up with politics altogether. They used a test where they asked people whether they would be okay with their child marrying some who identifies with the other political party, and found that the numbers vary greatly depending on a conditional aspect of how often their hypothetical in laws would talk about politics. While only 20% said they would be unhappy with their child marrying someone from the opposite party without an annoying in-law, they found that the number more than doubled when the hypothetical in-law was likely to talk constantly about politics. They further found that while a relatively higher number of people reported they would feel unhappy, less than 10% reported that they would feel happier if their child married someone from the same party. This shows affective polarization, where people fundamentally dislike the other party, but not as much ideological convergence within their own parties. Additionally, the overall numbers show that majority of Americans actually don’t care about politics at all, yet report polarization being a major problem, which demonstrates high levels of perceived polarization among the American public. As we have talked about in class, the article mentions that this is probably because more ideologically extreme individuals are more likely to be featured in media and make their voices more heard (like the annoying in-law), making polarization seem more common than it actually is and turning more people off politics altogether.
Graham Pfeiffer – Conflicting Partisan Priorities for U.S. Foreign Policy
There are very few things that Americans can agree upon, and foreign policy is no exception. While most Americans agree that U.S. Foreign policy goals should be focused on economic security and preventing terrorist attacks, the partisan divide is still quite stark. While 84% of Republicans believe that preventing terrorist attacks should be a top priority, only 61% of democrats agree, while it is a majority for both parties, the partisan difference is 23 points. There are only a handful of exception in which both democrats and republicans are in close agreement. These topics include dealing with WMDs, reducing military commitments overseas and preventing the spread of infectious diseases. When it comes to building stronger relationships with U.S. allies, democrats put it as a top priority (70%). Democrats also place global climate change as a top priority for foreign policy. A top priority for Republican respondents is maintaining U.S. military superiority (70%). When it comes to limiting the influence of U.S. adversaries (Russia, China and North Korea) the democrats place Russia as the top threat, Republicans place China as the top threat, and both see North Korea as the middle threat. Trade, promoting democracy, protecting human rights and many other topics have similar partisan divides. Overtime, we see that views that had lots of overlap, such as protecting human rights, have become polarized as the general American political system has become polarized. Overall, Americans have moved farther apart on foreign policy issues as we have moved into the 21st century. While many issues have been divided before, like climate change, the divide has only been expanded as time has passed from the Bush to the Obama to the Trump Administration.
Stefan Pruessmann – What is polarizing legislatures? Probably not what you think.
In this article, Seth Masket examines polarization in state legislatures, both where it has increased (such as California and Colorado) and where it has decreased (such as Kentucky and Connecticut). Masket finds that polarization isn’t caused by chamber size, redistricting, how open primaries are, or customs of representatives. Rather, he pins it on economic inequality, the distribution of public opinion, and lack of media coverage of state legislature. I find the mention of sparse media coverage contributing to polarization interesting, as I noticed a lack of coverage of Virginia’s General Assembly, until of course the nationally controversial abortion bill, and that was only covered by national media organizations because of the parallels with the NY abortion bill and also because abortion is a hot button issue. Masket’s finding that less press coverage means representatives aren’t as faithful to their constituents makes perfect sense, as it is the job of media to keep politicians accountable. Economic inequality causing polarization is also unsurprising; I’m no Marxist, but there is a long history of class struggle, and it makes sense that income inequality would make Democrats more ideologically extreme
Mary Olivia Rentner – Don’t blame our polarized politics on voters. Blame it on who runs for office in the first place.
An article by John Sides titled, “Don’t Blame our Polarized Politics on Voters. Blame it on Who Runs for Office in the First Place,” discusses the role of the moderate voter in polarization. The main claim of the article says that even if the most moderate candidates won every election, Congress would still be polarized due to the types of people who run for office. People with extreme ideologies tend to seek office more than moderates because they have stronger incentives to run against someone with opposite ideologies. Making running for office more attractive for moderates is the article’s proposed solution to polarization in Congress. This could be done by reevaluating the money needed during a campaign. An increase in salaries and a decrease in campaign fundraising could lead to a larger number of moderate candidates. The article suggests reducing financial barriers by setting spending limits and limits on corporate contributions. This solution is based on the idea the moderate members of Congress, or the lack of extreme members, will reduce polarization.
Tyler Swartzell – Waiting on article
Political Independents outnumber Republicans and Democrats, yet less than 10% of Independents have no partisan leaning. Most Independents are not truly “independent” and lean towards either party. True Independents are less politically engaged than partisans and are more likely to be men. Many of the views among Republican and Democrat leaning independents mirror the position of their respective party, though at smaller margins. This article dives further into policy and social positions of the different groups such as views on the border wall, size of government, gay marriage, and marijuana legalization.
Kelsey Vita – Don’t blame our polarized politics on voters. Blame it on who runs for office in the first place.
This interview is with Andrew Hall, a political scientist from Stanford University, who has just released his book, “Who Wants to Run?”. Hall argues in his book that “legislative polarization is already baked into the set of people who run for office,” and states that understanding political polarization will require understanding why moderates are less inclined to run for office. Hall believes that if more moderates ran for office, there is a strong chance they could win. I thought this interview could be an interesting addition to our class, considering there is some debate as to whether or not polarization is driven by the electorate or the political elites.
Daniel Xu – Is America Hopelessly Polarized, or Just Allergic to Politics?
This New York Times article explores the idea that America is not as ‘polarized’ as most news media would have us think. Rather, the authors assert that Americans are simply tired of talking about politics. They ran a list experiment in which two groups were asked questions regarding affective polarization, the tendency for individuals to dislike people with opposing viewpoints. The control group was asked if they would be upset if their child married someone of the opposing viewpoint. The treatment group was asked the same questions, but was also given an additional one about how often that new in-law would talk about politics. In the first situation, over 40% of respondents indicated that they would be unhappy. When given the option of a new, quiet, in-law of the opposing party, less than 20% of respondents said they would be unhappy. This disparity indicates that the issue is nuanced and complex, connecting well with our readings about affective polarization. In order to depict the issue fully and accurately, further research must be conducted.
DCSI - American Politics 