Is the Polarisation of US Politics a Myth?
Baverly and Pack (2009)
From the Declaration of Independence, to the adoption of one of the most enduring constitutions of the modern era, the United States (US) has throughout its history fostered a particularly unique and innovative political system. This system, and the society that has developed in symbiosis with it, have cultivated innate characteristics that differ greatly from those of other Western nation-states. Due to the nature of its history and ideological foundations, the US has developed a social and political context characterised by high levels of individualism. This essay will argue that both the individualism that lies at the heart of the US system, and the history of its party dynamics, drastically inhibit serious political polarisation, thus the polarisation of US politics is a myth.
Philosophical and Political Foundations: Individualism and the Constitution
Substantial debate has identified the political philosophies that underpinned the American Revolution. Many scholars have noted the influence of Lockean liberalism on the founding fathers in their ideation of a constitutional framework for the nascent republic. Locke’s vision, elucidated in Two Treatises of Civil Government, provides an abstract and a a priori conception of government as a contract in to which individuals enter to secure their natural rights. Fundamental to this concept is the idea that the social contract between government and the governed is entered on a singular basis, rather than as a pre-constituted social group. This conception is echoed in the Declaration of Independence which espouses the notion of government as an institution agreed upon by individual actors, each seeking to secure individual ‘unalienable’ [sic] rights. These natural rights, expressed succinctly in the revolutionary motto ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, set the tone for a subsequent constitution marked by the ideation of a polity composed of atomized, and often competing, interests.
Markedly different is the republican motto that emerged in the following decades after the French Revolution: Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). This provided the foundations for republicanism in France, and later much of Europe. While the notion of Liberty was also of pre-eminence for the révolutionnaires, Égalité emanated a more prescriptive social justice tone, while Fraternité catered to the notion of a preconstituted and unified society collectively establishing a new social order. The works of Montesquieu and Rousseau fundamentally influenced the constitution of the first French republic; both of whom approached the institution of government as a form of administration of the collective popular sovereignty. In The Social Contract Rousseau’s emphasis on citizen participation and the sovereign general will is in stark contrast with the republican philosophy (originating in the works of Plato) of checks and balances on majoritarian rule, envisioned by Madison in the federalist papers. These checks and balances, present particularly in the decentralizing discourses of federalism and the separation of powers, foresee a political framework characterised by adjudicated competition, both among private interests and between public institutions. The ideological differences upon which the two Atlantic republics were founded is made apparent by Knapp and Wright who note that in France “the state, rather than holding the ring between a plethora of competing interests, was placed above them as the expression of the general will”. Subsequent European constitutions have also emphasized the location of the state firmly above private interests, often readily providing for the expropriation of private property when in the public interest, and the active removal of economic and social differences present among citizens.
The Fragmentation of Power and Society
Responding to the fear of tyranny present in revolutionary anti-British discourse, US society has continuously been reluctant to allow government an active role in the shaping of social structures. It has been noted that the Lockean individualism that permeates much of US social discourse has contributed to building a highly diversified society consisting of a vast amount of cultural and ethnic identities, often in conflicting relationships with one another, and that threaten to undermine the cohesiveness of society itself. Considerable contemporary sociological theory has presumed the existence of an interdependent relationship between heightened individualism and the proliferation of multiple social identities.
In the political arena, this heightened individualism and the social diversity that it assumes translates in to a highly diversified electorate whose interests and political orientation are often hard to decipher. Some sociologists have argued that at the centre of the fragmented political structure of contemporary society are ‘the individualisation of political behaviour and the waning capacity of the old large organisations for integration and aggregation’. In the US, political scientists regularly note “high levels of independence from the major parties and the political system more generally”: a phenomenon that has gradually increased throughout the twentieth century. At the electoral level, Burden and Kimball have highlighted the phenomenon in which millions of US citizens regularly split their tickets between the Presidential and Congressional levels; essentially disregarding the party identities that have traditionally lead to the political polarisation of society. While some analyses of party affiliation have noted the ability of the two major parties to incorporate and accommodate a variety of ideological groupings into their political platforms, conversely the vastly diverse nature of these groupings inhibits both the Democrats and Republicans from assuming strong polarised stances on particularised issues.
In addition, another factor seen to inhibit the party polarisation of US politics is a strong tendency towards the personalisation of political candidacies. Stemming from prevalent individualism, the US electorate is often assumed to strongly evaluate the personal characteristics of political candidates, rather than focussing solely on ideological orientation. In her seminal study of US elections, Sandy Maisel emphasizes the role candidate affability plays in electoral success, and how current procedures benefit candidates with established name recognition. This phenomenon could explain the high rates of success currently experienced by incumbent candidates at all levels of government. It is interesting to note from a historical perspective how the personalisation of candidates ties in with the republican ideals central to the work of James Madison. Madison in fact argued for a form of republicanism governed by enlightened statesmen, to whom power should be delegated according to an inherent disposition for public office, rather than political affiliation. At the root of this conception was a profound distrust of majoritarian democratic rule, and the suggestion that government should act as more of a control on, rather than a representative of political factions.
The influence of Madison’s attempts to temper the polarising forces of faction can be found throughout the US Constitution, particularly in the federal framework of tiered government and the separation of powers. Some recent political debates have emphasized how this federal framework currently allows for excessive party polarisation at the national level. It is suggested that severe legislative stagnation occurs when a partisan majority in opposition to that of the executive dominates Congress. While these debates highlight domestic polarisation between the two dominant parties vying for political power in the US, they do not pose the question as to whether those two parties are truly polarised on an ideological level. When placed in a comparative international context various analysts have posited that mainstream political discourse in the US does not present much ideological polarisation at all.
From a structural perspective, three key elements of the US political system are often cited as inhibiting serious ideological polarisation. First, it has been noted by some theorists that the division of legislative power between the state and federal levels of government means that many polarising issues of a potentially national scale are often absorbed by state legislatures, and therefore do not receive due political attention at the federal level. Consequently the current constitutional framework is seen as preventing certain ideological groupings from mustering the popular support and representative power needed to raise certain issues to the federal level. In addition to this, theorists have speculated on the role played by the electoral system in moderating the diversity of US politics. In his comparative analysis of five major western democracies, Pasquino examines electoral systems with first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all voting methods, such as those used by states (except Maine and Nebraska) to determine the members of the Electoral College. He argues that these electorates develop into two party systems, as they encourage voters to vote tactically for one of the two candidates expected to win, rather than voting sincerely for a preferred candidate with the political platform most suited to the voters’ interests. Thus the Presidential and House elections, both characterised by single member districts, are seen to reduce ideological polarisation by barring entry to the full spectrum of political interests that exist outside of the two major parties.
Furthermore, the financial conditions, under which the two major parties campaign, prevent access to a variety of political forces and inhibit serious competition at the national level. In her work on US elections, Maisel estimates the ‘cost of entry’ needed to be competitive in the presidential race to be around US100 million, raising various questions about the ability to represent political causes unable to garner significant financial backing.
Conclusively, it is suggested that the separation of powers enshrined in the constitution has contributed to a culture within Congress of legislative independence resistant to political polarisation. At the centre of this conceptualisation is the notion that by separating the executive from the legislature the US model guarantees members of congress an institutional independence that encourages individuality in decision-making. Here comparisons can be made with parliamentary systems in which parliamentarians are bound to the dictates of cohesive party platforms in order to maintain executive power.
Party Polarization in the US and Europe: A Comparative History
When looking at political polarisation in any nation-state, it is important to examine the historical dynamics that permeate its party system. Writing on the development of Western political systems in the wake of the industrial revolution, Lipset and Rokkan developed cleavage theory as a method for interpreting the formation of modern political parties. The theory identifies four basic cleavages that have historically generated political polarisation, serving as foundations for the party systems of modern states. These are known as Centre/Periphery, State/Church, Urban/Rural and Capital/Labour, and provide comparative insights in to the differences between the party system of the US and those of European nations.
The Centre/Periphery cleavage is thought of as the divide that opens during the building of the nation-state between the elites of the politically centralised areas (often the administrative capitals) and those of outlying areas. In European politics this cleavage has often manifested itself in the form of regional nationalisms, such as those found in Spain, Belgium and Scotland, among others. On the North American continent however, this cleavage is perhaps more pertinent to Canada than the US, given the concentrated and often polarised nature of its linguistic and cultural diversity. Centre/Periphery is, save the exception of the civil war, arguably less of a polarising force in the US, perhaps due to the ability of its federal system to absorb decentralized state-based policy needs. The State/Church divide is also a source of polarisation arguably more pertinent to European political systems. While the divide between secular and religious values has been at the core of mainstream politics in various European nations, among others France and Italy, in the US religious values tend to garner some support from both of the major parties, with some theorists noting a broader acceptance generally of the role of religion in politics.
The third cleavage, Capital/Labour, finds its strongest expression in Marxist analysis, and is seen to generate political parties that align with particularised class interests. While the two major US parties have historically represented different normative values regarding the role of government in wealth redistribution, the US has never seen drastic nation wide challenges to its free market economy comparable to those of many European nations. This is due to the entrenched constitutional role of Lockean individualism, discussed earlier in this article, as compared to the potential for governmental interventionism present in many European constitutional frameworks. Lastly, the Urban/Rural cleavage is central to debates surrounding protectionism and the politics of tariffs, it is seen as the building block for agrarian based political movements. Here polarisation has been relatively limited in both the US and Europe, though while agrarian interests may find political representation at a state level in the US, this proves more challenging in the majority of European nations, characterised as they are by higher levels of political centralisation.
Concluding Remarks
This article has examined the philosophical and political foundations of US republicanism, emphasizing the role Lockean individualism has played in developing a constitutional framework resistant to government intervention and political polarisation. The fragmented nature of US society and government, the personalisation of politics and the nature of the electoral system have all placed barriers on serious ideological polarisation in the US. By comparing the US party system to different party systems in European nations, it is observed that European political systems have historically been more profoundly influenced by polarising systems of cleavage.
Guy Kelleher is a Postgraduate Juris Doctor student at Melbourne Law School.