Creation Project - Saxon

What effect has Congress’

increasing polarization had on the

jobs of recent presidents?

MIDDLE GROUNDTHE SHRINKING

By Michael Saxon

1 | Defining Polarization2 - 3 | Polarization in Congress4 - 7 | Comparing legislation by President8 - 10 | Comparing legislation by issue11 | ConclusionBACK | Sources

Table of Contents In this project, I will examine how Congress’

increasing polarization has impacted the jobs of recent presidents, specifically looking at how this polarization has made it more difficult for presidents to pass legislation as a part of their agenda. First, I will define the term polarization and present data that shows how individuals have become more coherent in their political beliefs over time. I will then shift to polarization in Congress, outlining the phenomenon and attempting to identify a few causes. I will then relate this polarization in Congress to the terms of presidents in two ways: 1. Comparing presidents’ ability to pass legislation during their respective terms 2. Comparing presidents’ ability to pass the same type of legislation over different periods

Introduction:

Polarization: the divergence of political attitudes caused by ideological views becoming

more and more consistent over time.

3 Facts about Modern

PolarizationThe share of Americans who express consistently conservative or

consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%.

1

Partisan antipathy has risen. The share of Republicans who have

very unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party has jumped from 17% to 43% in the last 20 years. Similarly, the share of Democrats with very negative opinions of the Republican Party also has more than doubled, from 16% to 38%.

2

The center has gotten smaller: 39% of Americans currently

take a roughly equal number of liberal and conservative positions, down from 49% in surveys conducted in 1994 and 2004.

3

Source: PewResearch Center

Over time, the political parties have become more and more defined.

Democrats have become more liberal, and republicans have become more conservative. Political scientists usually distinguish between two types of polarization: elite polarization in party organizers and elected officials, and popular polarization

in the electorate or general public. These two types of polarization can occur at the same time or independently of each other. In this project, I will assert that Congress has become more polarized due to increasing polarization among constituents (as exhibited in the graphs below), showing how popular polarization causes elite polarization.

Median Democrat

Median Republican

Liberal Mixed Conservative

2014

Median Democrat

Median Republican

Liberal Mixed Conservative1994

1

Polarization of Constituents

Polarization in Congress

2

Possible causes of polarization in Congress

1974

2012

In my opinion, Congress has become more polarized because the individuals who elect them have. But, what has caused Congress’ constituents to become more ideologically consistent?

1. The media. Stations such as Fox and MSNBC attract a large number of followers. Some assert that these followers watch stations such as these to reinforce what they already believe, thus causing them to be more ideologically consistent. Yet, some would argue that the

media only reflects the polarized public; either way, however, the public is still being fed information that reinforces their already consistent views. 2. The current state of the economy. Many would say that the economy is not as good as it was in years past, especially after the recent recession. The recent recession perhaps divided the parties further, as they each may blame each other for causing the recession. 3. Redistricting. Some scholars argue that the practice

of redistricting creates political polarization by making more homogeneous, ideologically distinct districts. People are surrounded by those with similar views. This results in elected representatives who represent more polarized beliefs. 4. The rise of social media. The recent increase of social media allows people to easily express and debate their views. Some studies suggest that this online debate can lead to the divergence of viewpoints, thus contributing to polarization.

The graphs to the right demonstrate how Congress has become more and more ideologically consistent over time. In 1974, a significant portion of Congress was toward the middle. Yes, there was still a clear distinction between parties, but it was not as defined. The graph for the 2012 Congress shows how the gap between Democrats and Republicans widened. Not only are there less members of Congress in the middle, but members of Congress have actually moved to the extreme sides of the ideological spectrum (shown in the graphs as -1 to +1).

So, in the next few pages, I will compare the main legislations of the five most recent presidents, using roll call votes to gauge how difficult passing their legislation was.

This polarization, thus, makes it harder for presidents to accomplish their political agenda. The ability of a president to pass a piece of legislation that is very important to him is much more difficult in this polarized Congress than it was 30 or 40 years ago. Brandon Rottinghaus, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Houston, examined this idea. Because Congress is so polarized, presidents cannot “reach across

Polarization’s effect on presidentsthe aisle” and engender support from the opposing political party. It is well known that it takes more than the support of party of Congress to pass a piece of legislation; for a bill

to be passed, “moderates” and at least a few members of the opposite party must support it. Yet, the number of “moderates” has been shrinking and members of Congress

are less likely to support legislation of the opposing party due to their increasingly consistent ideologies. Rottinghaus continues,

3

“The bad news for presidents is that fewer substantial policy innovations or major agenda items are likely to be initiated or maintained.”

- Rottinghaus

GOING PARTISAN:claiming that because presidents have been incapable of gathering support from the opposing party, they have resorted to “going partisan”: to directly mobilize local partisans and leaning partisans and indirectly engender greater party support of the president’s party within Congress. Yet, this strategy has been, for the most part, unsuccessful. Again, it takes more than the support of president’s party to pass his legislation. So, Rottinghaus concludes, “The bad news for presidents is that fewer substantial policy innovations or major agenda items are likely to be initiated or maintained.”

REAGAN

H.W. BUSH

CLINTON

Economic Recovery Tax Act

(Reaganomics)

Passed in House:323 - 107

Passed in Senate:67 - 8

Immigration Act of 1990



Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

(1994)



4

Comparing key pieces of legislation by president

W. BUSH

Economic Growth and Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2001



OBAMA

Affordable Care Act



5

By looking at the major pieces of legislation passed by presidents over the past 30 to 40 years, one can perhaps see a possible effect of Congress’ increasing polarization. The pieces of legislation selected show how as Congress has become increasingly more polarized, as presidents have had a more difficult time passing their main pieces of legislation. Reagan, the first president studied, didn’t appear to have a difficult time passing his legislation, while Obama, on the other hand, did. “Reaganomics,” a key piece of Reagan’s agenda during his first term, passed by large margins, while Obamacare, only passed in the House by seven votes. Even George W. Bush seemed to face significant opposition to his Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.

Conclusions on legislationsby president

Margins by which legislations passed

in the House

Mar

gin

of V

otes

President

Reagan

H.W. Bush

ClintonW. Bush

Obama

6

But, examining legislation by president is not the only way of observing polarization’s effect. Some types of legislation are just naturally more controversial while some are easily passed. This next portion will compare apples to apples, examining how difficult or easy it was for presidents of different time periods to pass legislation (some of which was already mentioned) of the same issue.

The chart to the left crystallizes a key takeaway from the previous data (pg. 4 - 5) presented on legislations by president. In the House of Representatives, legislation of earlier presidents such as Reagan and H.W. Bush passed by very large margins: Reagan’s by over 200 votes and H.W. Bush’s by nearly 150 votes. Yet, as time progresses, these margins become smaller and smaller. Both Clinton’s and W. Bush’s legislation passed by less than 50 votes, and Obama’s by only seven.

7

Comparing legislation of the same issueEconomic Stimulus:

1981 - Economic Recovery Tax Act



Total Margin Passed by:275

2001 - Economic Growth and Tax

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001




8

Healthcare Reform:

Energy:

1988 - Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act




2010 - Affordable Care Act




1976 - Energy Conservation and

Recovery ActPassed in House:

367 - 8



2005 - Energy Policy Act




9

Conclusions on legislationsby issue

Just as recent presidents’ passing of key pieces of legislation (pg. 4 - 5) reflected Congress’ increasing polarization, examining legislation by type of issue also proved to be in line with members of Congress’ increasing ideological coherency. Examining legislation in this way is perhaps better than examining it by presidents: as stated earlier, some types of legislation are easier to pass than others. By examining legislation of the same issue, this discrepancy is eliminated. The first type of issue, economic stimulus, showed how passing a piece of legislation on the economy has become more difficult over time. In 2001, Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation passed by a margin of 57 votes; in 1981, however, Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act - a piece of legislation with a similar intent - passed by 275 votes. The second type of issue, healthcare reform, is perhaps the most current. Obamacare, passed only four years ago, only passed through Congress by 28 votes. In 1988, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act passed by over 230 votes. The last legislative issue, energy/resources, demonstrated this increasing polarization the most. In 1976, legislation attempting to conserve resources such as fossil fuels was passed by a total margin of 444 votes. About 30 years later, a similar law was passed, this time by only 99 votes. By examining these three types of legislation, it is clear that because of Congress’ polarization, the most recent presidents have had a tougher time passing legislation that was very similar to legislation passed by their predecessors.

10

11

Editor’s Note:Conclusion

Dear Reader, In my U.S. Political Systems class, I found that I enjoyed the class the most when we discussed the trend of polarization: the increasing division of political parties is incredibly interesting to me, perhaps because it’s something I take note of frequently. Whether it’s watching the news or discussing current events among my peers, I’ve noticed how divided our parties are. But, just as my USPS class has taught me to think critically about various pieces of the American government, I wanted to dig deeper. While we examined some possible causes of polarization in class, I wanted to look at a possible effect of polarization. I’ve noticed, in the past six years, how much Obama has struggled to pass certain legislation. But, has it always been this difficult? So, for this project, I attempted to answer the following question: Has Congress’ polarization made the jobs of presidents harder by impacting their ability to pass pieces of legislation? After examining various legislation 1) by president and 2) by issue, I believe the answer is yes. The most recent presidents

such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama faced a more polarized Congress; therefore, their legislations passed by smaller margins than the legislations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Yet, there are limitations to my findings, which I’ve decided to outline: -I only examined a few major pieces of legislation, not all of them. -I focused on legislation that was passed. I was unable to find substantial research on policies that did not even make it through Congress. - I limited my research on the five most recent presidents (from Reagan to Obama). Nonetheless, I believe that my research shows a link between polarization and presidents’ ability to pass legislation. As polarization has increased over the years, it has also become more difficult to presidents to accomplish their political agenda by passing legislation. I have thoroughly enjoyed researching and developing this project. I hope that you have enjoyed reading it.

Michael SaxonGeorgetown University

SourcesDeSilver, Drew. “The Polarized Congress of Today Has Its Roots in the 1970s.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 12 June 2014. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. (used for graphs on pg. 2)

Doherty, Carroll. “7 Things to Know about Polarization in America.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 12 June 2014. Web. 15 Nov. 2014. (used for facts on pg. 1)

Lee, Jae. “The Political Consequences of Elite and Mass Polarization.” Iowa Research Online. Iowa Research Online, July 2012. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. (used on pg. 1)

“Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 11 June 2014. Web. 10 Dec. 2014. (used for graphic on pg. 1)

“Roll Call Votes.” GovTrack.us. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. (used on pg. 4 - 5, 8 - 9)

Rottinghaus, Brandon. “Going Partisan: Presidential Leadership in a Polarized Environment.” Governance Studies (n.d.): n. pag. Brookings. The Brookings Institution, Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. (used on pg. 3)

Documents

Creation Project - Saxon