Download
1 / 52
520 likes | 521 Views
In this thought-provoking book, authors Marc J. Hetherington and Thomas J. Rudolph shed light on the polarization debate in Washington and why it seems like nothing gets done. They challenge the conventional wisdom and argue that while ordinary citizens may not be polarized, their choices are polarized. The book explores the difference between polarization and sorting, looks at polarization in Congress, and examines the impact of polarized feelings on policy development. The authors also discuss the role of trust and incentives in political decision-making, and explore the potential for consensus-building in the face of polarization. This insightful book offers a fresh perspective on the challenges of governance in the United States.
E N D
Why Washington Won’t Work Marc J. Hetherington Vanderbilt University Thomas J. Rudolph University of Illinois
Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: Mo Fiorina and Culture Wars? Ordinary citizens are not polarized. Only their choices are polarized.
Why Washington Won’t Work Co-author Tom Rudolph and I attempt to make sense of the polarization debate and explain why nothing gets done in Washington. If the mass public really is moderate, as Fiorina suggests, then why do they put up with immoderation from their representatives? We suggest that polarization actually does exist, but scholars have been looking in the wrong places.
Key terms • Polarization versus “Sorting” • We have sorting on issues, but few extreme opinions • Polarization suggests extreme opinions. Strong emotional reactions.
To date, many treatments of polarization in the electorate have adopted a pretty literal definition. Do we see clustering toward the poles? The focus has been almost exclusively on ideology and policy preferences. A Picture of Polarization?
This Shouldn’t Be Surprising • People who are extreme do not want to call themselves extreme because being extreme is not fashionable in the U.S. • People who do not know much about politics, which is a ton of people, choose the middle. • Furthermore, is there anything, beyond politics, that all Americans would express strong feelings about? • Baseball? Instant replay? • Food? Are some foods polarizing?
Is Polarization in Congress Exclusively Ideological? • When conservative/liberal ideas become liberal/conservative ones, do Republicans/Democrats support them? • Rarely. • Individual Mandate on Health Insurance. • Cap and Trade • Education Reform based on Federal Standards • Prescription Drug Benefit Under Medicare
Polarization in Congress is Perhaps Partisan as well as Ideological • Narrow majorities in Congress eliminate incentives for parties to cooperate on anything. • When the minority feels it can win the majority in the next election, providing the majority with any legislative victories is not in the minority’s best interest.
What about Polarized Feelings Instead of Polarized Issue Preferences?
Why Polarized Trust Matters • Its existence means that consensus in the public never develops on policy matters. • And, if consensus fails to develop, there is little pressure on office holders to compromise. • The key to our story are those who are opposite the ideology of the president’s party.
Why no compromise from our representatives? • Which members of the public are important to which members of Congress? • Republicans in Congress care about Republicans’ opinions • Democrats in Congress care about Democrats’ opinions • Without trust in government, those people follow their party leaders’ opinions on issues • No pressure from public to do something different than to follow their party leaders in Congress • Minority party leaders want to present contrasts with the president, not give him help.
Could a Great President overcome this? • Lincoln • Roosevelt • Reagan
I Don’t Think So • What incentives do minority party leaders have to work together with the president? • How do party margins in Congress affect those incentives? • The Story of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
The Politics of Strange Bedfellows • Partisan cues no longer work – Nixon can no longer “go to China”. • Cues from institutions not connected directly to political parties are the key. • Military and the Environment • Environmentalists and Nuclear Power • Business Community and Immigration Reform • The Pope and Government Spending on the Poor • Steve Jobs and Teachers Unions
Effective cue givers need two characteristics and the US Military have them both. 1) Trustworthiness (Lupia and McCubbins 1998) Americans trust it more than any institution, public or private (GSS 2012). 55 percent said they had “a great deal of confidence” in it. The two closest competitors over time have been the “scientific community” (confidence now 42), and “organized religion” (confidence now 21). Among political institutions, there is little confidence. Supreme Court (30 percent), executive branch (15 percent), Congress (7 percent). Lack of trust in political institutions is a stumbling block to government-sponsored policy innovation (Hetherington 2005). If Mitt can’t do it, maybe the US Military can
2) Knowledge. Military has this, too. Lots of large term planning about strategic implications (Center for Naval Analysis 2007; US Army 2007; US Navy 2010) Production of electric vehicles in Army “Great Green Fleet” for Navy by 2016 Air Force has 37 bases partially powered by wind and solar energy Navy and Air Force at the forefront of developing alternative fuels for their aircraft. And
Marc J. Hetherington and Cindy D. Kam Institutional Cue Giving and Persuasion: Enlisting the Military as Environmental Protector
Public opinion on the environment has not gotten much traction in political science journals We found only 2 articles published in the 3 major general interest journals since 2005 (Egan and Mullin 2012 JOP; Wood and Vedlitz 2007 AJPS). Odd, particularly as it relates to public opinion research. Both the study of public opinion and climate science are quantitative empirical matters. Furthermore, the issue is important. Not to be overly dramatic, but climate change could have a profound impact on human life in the not too distant future. Public Opinion About the Environment -- Little Scholarly Attention
2010 was the warmest year since the government started to keep records 130 years ago. The 10 warmest years on record have all taken place in the last 15 years. Scientists are pretty certain humans are contributing to this state of affairs. Indeed a scientific consensus has developed. Little attention -- But it has been toasty outdoors
A consensus among experts ought to cause consensus to develop in the public. However, Americans are not moving toward consensus. Public opinion has been polarizing since 2007, with Republicans and conservatives becoming more skeptical (McCright and Dunlap 2011). Most recent Pew data collected in May demonstrates 40 and 50 point gaps. This points up the importance of elite rhetoric relative to expert rhetoric to shape public opinion. Politics matters! Scientific, but not public, consensus
Cindy and I think the answer is yes, through cue giving and cue taking. Why? The issue is complicated. Knowledge on it is low. But, the cue giving environment has changed for the worse. With polarization, partisans follow out party cues more than in party cues (Nicholson 2012). Hence it is harder for partisan politicians to get people to follow them when they take a heterodox stand on an issue. Can Public Opinion on the Environment Change?
The Military’s interest is “surprising.” People do not instinctively connect the Military to the environment In fact, the public perceives the Military as conservative on the environment. Using a convenience sample we find . . . EPA, 2.55 on NES seven point scale question Democratic party – 3.58 US Military – 5.37 Republican party – 5.44 Military has other persuasive advantages
Being seen as conservative, especially by conservatives and Republicans, is a virtue. The effectiveness of “biased” advisors in opinion change (Calvert 1985). People attend more carefully to counter-stereotypical information (Chaiken and Maheswaran 1994). Nixon to China. Clinton on Welfare Reform. The power of “biased” advisors
2 X 2 Factorial Design – Step One, Endorser, The [U.S. Military/federal government in Washington] has pioneered a range of new plans to combat global warming. Part of the reason is self-interested – the [military/federal government] spends billions of dollars a year on fossil fuels to run its vehicles. Part of the reason is strategic – [military/government] experts believe that climate change might increase instability in the world, leading to more armed conflicts over scarce resources like oil. In fact, the [U.S. Military/federal government] has already taken many steps to deal with climate change, including providing funding to build thousands of electric powered vehicles, running some of its vehicles on biofuels, and running dozens of [military/government] regional and national control centers on electricity produced by solar and wind power. Let’s Test it Out – 2010 CCES
To address concerns about global warming, a proposal has been made that would provide the [U.S. Military/EPA] with a $2 billion appropriation to partner with businesses to develop the [military’s/government’s] recent innovations into products designed to increase energy efficiency. Supporters think the proposal has the potential to make a big difference in protecting the environment and America’s strategic interests. Opponents think it is a waste of taxpayer money. What do you think? Would you support or oppose such a program? Step 2, Implementer
Figure 2. Attitudes towards the Military, EPA, and Federal Government
Table 2: Attitudes towards Institutions and Support for Environmental Spending
Table 3. Global Warming Attitudes, Cues, and Support for Environmental Spending
The (U.S. Military/Federal Government) believes that climate change is occurring. It sees climate change as a serious strategic threat to American interests. Civil wars occur more often during warmer than average years, making climate change a “threat multiplier” that could require more military interventions in the future. The (U.S. Military/Federal Government) also is concerned that worsening conditions caused by climate change in unstable places like Somalia could produce fertile ground for terrorist recruitment. Given the marked unrest in the Middle East, the (U.S. Military/Federal Government) also sees clear advantage in increasing the nation’s energy independence, which the development of alternative fuels would allow. We then vary different plausible steps either the military or the government has taken to show that they are serious about the effort. Second Study: 2012 CCES
The U.S. Military is Al Gore is George W. Bush is Policymakers are advocating a $4 billion increase on spending to develop alternative fuels to oil and gas to combat the effects of global climate change. Endorsement
So What? Public opinion matters as it relates to government action (Page, Shapiro, and Dempsey 1987). If public opinion on climate change remains polarized, it is less likely that steps will be taken to mitigate it. Making matters worse, public trust in government is extraordinarily low. Since government will be a central part of any solution to climate change, low trust is a further stumbling block.
The Solution: The US Military • The Military provides a potential solution to the problem, turning a proposed program that not half of people think is worthwhile into one that over half think is worthwhile. • It “works” because the Military’s popularity is greatest among exactly those who are most skeptical about warming. Of course, these are also the folks who are most skeptical about the EPA and the federal government as a whole. • Even liberals like the Military these days, so they aren’t spooked by it playing this surprising role.
