The Torch Magazine

Why Are We So Divided?

Arthur Gunlicks

    We live in interesting and challenging times. This was especially true of our recent presidential election, on the eve of which the original version of this paper was presented. Election eve was the culmination of more than a year of presidential campaigning, beginning with the Republican presidential primary, and a year of mostly negative, often inaccurate or highly misleading, deeply annoying, and even vicious ads on radio and television. It is easy to forget, however, that we have a long history of conflict—even bitter conflict—over political differences. The relationship between the Federalists and Republican-Democrats, the former led by Washington and Hamilton and the latter by Jefferson and Madison, was not exactly cordial. The initial compromise by the founding fathers over slavery not only failed to last, but also led to a civil war. Some of the rhetoric during the Great Depression was far from fair and balanced, and the struggle for civil rights and school integration in the nineteen fifties and sixties was often acrimonious—and much of that acrimony remains.

    Today we have two parties that seem to be locked in a no-holds-barred struggle that has led to general political stalemate or gridlock. And the struggle is not limited to our elected officials at the national and state levels; rather, there is a close connection between elected representatives and their voters, who, in the final analysis, select the executive and legislative officials that are simultaneously held in such disdain today.

    What are the factors that have led to this division? A more complete and thorough answer to this question would require a paper several times longer than this essay (1) . We may begin, however, with a number of legal and institutional factors; proceed to political and economic issues; discuss certain social, economic, and racial divisions; and note the role of broadcast media.

Legal and Institutional Factors

    One important institutional factor is the separation of powers. Separation between the executive and legislative branches is typical of a presidential system, and we are taught in school that it was a major achievement of the founding fathers. But unlike parliamentary systems, where the head of government can usually expect legislative support for his programs from his parliamentary majority (even if it is a coalition of parties), there is no guarantee that the American president will have majority party support in either the Senate or House. Add to that the separation between the roughly equally powerful House and Senate, which may disagree even when both are controlled by the same party, and we have a recipe for conflict, if not stalemate. The founding fathers did not really account for political parties, which did not yet exist at the time (although there were groups of opposing politicians, such as Federalists and anti-Federalists). They apparently assumed that compromise would prevent gridlock between the two chambers. It should not be puzzling why other democracies that also have two legislative chambers have not made them equal bodies.

   A second institutional factor is the filibuster (2), which is a device used "to impede legislation by irregular or obstructive tactics, especially by making long speeches" (answers.com). It is based on Senate rules, not on any constitutional provision. Cloture, or cutting off debate, by a two-thirds vote of those voting, was adopted in 1917. The filibuster was seldom used until after World War II, when civil rights legislation began to be introduced. Since 1975, cloture requires a three-fifths vote of the members, or sixty votes; however, any change in Senate rules normally requires a two-thirds majority of the members. Since the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2006, there has been an explosion of filibusters or threats thereof, which may have the same effect. The filibuster gives Republicans in general and the most partisan Republicans in particular the means of blocking the less than 60-vote majority Democrats in the Senate. The additional factor of a Republican-controlled House has meant gridlock between the two chambers since the elections of 2010 and the virtual end of compromise on any controversial legislation.

    A third and increasingly crucial institutional factor lies in our primaries and methods for nomination of candidates. Unlike many other democracies, we do not have membership parties; rather, we identify with or support a party. We may donate money, place bumper stickers on our cars, or put up yard signs, but we are not dues-paying "members" who appear to have a commitment to the broader long-term goals of the party. Many of our candidates for state and national office in effect are self-nominated, by deciding to run for office regardless of official party support. Unless others file for a primary race, or there are state rules for nomination by party convention (which may itself be stacked with narrow-interest true believers), these self-selected candidates become the nominees. In any event, our nominating system—whether via primaries or conventions—opens the doors to single-issue candidates and/or the most partisan and militant "party identifiers" among us.

    A fourth important institutional factor—related to the above—is the practice of redistricting and, in particular, "gerrymandering" (3). Since the beginning of our country, state legislatures have drawn the district boundaries for state and congressional office so as to favor one party or the other. This is called gerrymandering, or mal-districting, in contrast to mal-apportionment, which is the conscious placement of more voters in one district than another. Mal-apportionment was outlawed by the Supreme Court by Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), but gerrymandering, so long as the districts are equal in population, not too absurdly shaped, and not drawn so as to discriminate against minorities, is still practiced with much zeal. It helps to insure that districts are drawn in such a manner that voters of one party are concentrated in one or a few districts, and those of the other party distributed so that it will win more districts, at least until the next census. Gerrymandering discourages voting by those who happen to live in districts where supporters of their party are heavily outnumbered, not only lowering turnout but also reducing competition and the need for candidates to broaden their appeal. Thus districts that are securely in the hands of one party provide little or no incentive for the favored candidate to moderate his or her views or to accept compromise in order to win more support from the center. Efforts to have bipartisan commissions draw boundary lines have succeeded in only a few states.

    A fifth institutional factor is the Electoral College. Twice in the nineteenth century (1876 and 1888), presidents were elected by a majority of the Electoral College vote (today 270 of 538 votes) even though another candidate received a majority of the popular vote. It happened again in 2000, when Al Gore received about 550,000 more votes than George W. Bush but lost the election because the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore awarded the contested Electoral College votes of Florida to Bush (4). The election of 2012 could have led to bitter controversy over the Electoral College with various scenarios that included a popular vote win for Romney and an electoral college victory for Obama, a victory by one or the other candidate by only a few electoral college votes, or even a tie vote.

Political and Economic Differences

    These have always been major factors in American politics and are typical causes of conflict in all democracies. Since the New Deal, the American party system has been characterized by a division between those who generally support a larger government role and those who insist on less government. In our classical liberal tradition, both parties stand for individual rights and liberties, but differ in their interpretation and focus. American "conservatives" focus on individual liberty in the economic sphere, while "liberals" focus on individual liberty in the spheres of civil rights and equality. The conservative focus leads to demands for less regulation and control over the free enterprise system, less taxation, and thus a smaller government; the liberal focus demands that government policies protect individual human rights and promote equality, e.g., via a variety of social programs, public support for education, desegregation, affirmative action, etc., which require higher taxes and a larger government. The actions of Democratic liberals, especially in promoting racial equality, led to a major shift in Southern voting patterns to the Republican Party and contributed strongly to its more conservative orientation since the 1960s, while the withdrawal of Southern support for the Democratic Party turned it into a more unified liberal party.

    Today the Republican Party has become so anti-tax and anti-government that during a presidential primary election debate in November 2011, not one of the eight leading candidates expressed willingness to accept a compromise calling for ten dollars in cuts in federal expenditures in return for one dollar in tax increases. The vast majority of Republican office holders in Washington have also signed a pledge with Grover Norquist, the leading anti-tax lobbyist, not to vote for tax increases under any circumstances. These views have hardened since the rise of the Tea Party in the mid-term elections of 2010.

    Economic issues cannot be easily separated from political issues, and economic conflict is found in all democratic societies. In the United States, controversy grows over the increasing gap between the wealthiest five percent, especially the top one percent, and the rest of society (5). Questions about how large a gap a democratic society can sustain are being raised. The "Occupy Wall Street—We are the 99 percent" movement, a relatively mild and brief expression of popular dissatisfaction that created greater awareness of the extreme gap in incomes, may be a precursor of things to come. The recent controversy over increased taxes for the wealthiest Americans (which would amount to a return to the rates of the Clinton era) reflects both the dissatisfaction among Democrats and others over perceived unfairness in our economic system and the conviction among "Tea Party" supporters in the Republican ranks that a ban on tax increases is virtually an 11th commandment. (This in spite of the fact that Ronald Reagan, whom the Tea Partiers often cite as a model president, approved of increased taxes for social security in the reform of 1983 ["History of Social Security"] and approved tax reductions, tax increases, and reform measures in the tax reform of 1986 ["Tax Reform Act"].) The tax standoff led to the failure of the congressional super committee to reach a compromise solution in the debt negotiations of November 2011, and the continuing unwillingness to compromise on taxes has contributed to continuing gridlock.

The Divide on Social Issues, Racial Issues, and Others

    Deep divisions over social policies involving abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, and other "social issues" have reinforced regional and increasingly religious divisions and a growing unwillingness to compromise on moral principles. Conflict over social and cultural issues has led, of course, to sharp differences between the parties. At least since Ronald Reagan's run for the presidency in 1980, social conservatives have played an increasing role in the Republican Party, while liberals that are "progressive" on social issues identify largely with the Democrats. In both cases, these are people with strong views that do not lend themselves to compromise.

    Race remains a source of deep division in our society (and one reason for the hostility to President Obama). In the 2012 elections, 93 percent of blacks voted for Obama, along with 71 percent of Latinos and 73 percent of Asians. A majority of whites, on the other hand, and especially white males, voted for Romney. The relatively low percentages of support for Romney among Latinos is in part a reflection of the resistance of Republican legislators to a comprehensive immigration reform, a resistance that has resulted in the failure to pass immigration reform since the 2012 election.

    Other issues that divide us include the regional tensions seen in the distinction between strong red states (Republican) and strong blue states (Democratic), a distinction connected to urban-rural differences; strong generational differences; differences over climate change; differences over the death penalty; and, of course, bitter divisions over gun control. Gun control is perhaps even less amenable to compromise than social issues, because the National Rifle Association, with its ability to mobilize voters in primary elections and back gun-supporting challengers, is in a position to intimidate even moderately conservative candidates.

Electronic Media

The media make a major contribution to our divisions. In contrast to the days when there were three TV channels, all of which made an effort to provide unbiased news, there are hundreds of channels today, some identified with a particular ideology, if not a political party. As a result, many people get their news and commentary strictly from those channels that support and reinforce their ideological preferences, sometimes in a highly biased manner. And talk radio is even worse. Much of it is contemptuous of contrasting or more nuanced views, ridiculing them and condemning them in the most inflammatory manner. The extreme partisanship and vitriol that we see and hear today on many talk shows did not exist in past decades.

Some of the special e-mail messages we receive today also deal with partisan issues. Most of these are misleading, and one can usually confirm their falseness on "snopes.com," the fact-checking website. Even when they contain a kernel of truth, they are usually self-righteous, vicious, and full of simplistic charges and "solutions" to real or mostly imagined problems. This is where one will find claims that Obama is not a citizen, that he is a dangerous Muslim, that he wants revenge for the Western treatment of former colonies, or—if you are on a different kind of mailing list—that Mitt Romney said he was "too important to go to Viet Nam" or claimed to be able "to relate to black people" because his ancestors owned slaves.

Conclusion

    Americans are divided today by numerous factors. Some of these may be transitory, but I fear most are not. Some of these issues were discussed during the campaign in 2012, but others were largely ignored. It was clear that whoever won the election would be met with bitter opposition and increasing public anger and frustration concerning the political process. In Texas, for example, more than 100,000 people have signed a petition in favor of secession.

    Some readers might ask, "All right. What should we do?" It was not my purpose to propose ways of overcoming our divisions. They will likely be with us for a long time, because the factors outlined above are not short-term. It may be possible in some states to introduce non-partisan commissions to redraw electoral boundaries after the next census, and some compromises might be reached that seem improbable at the moment, but these will at best reduce, not eliminate, the divisions that we have.

    There is an old Chinese curse that says, "May you live in interesting times." I'm afraid we live in interesting times.

Footnotes

(1) For a thorough analysis by two well-known authors, one liberal and one conservative, see Thomas Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It's Even Worse than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books, 2012.

Return to Text

(2) For a detailed discussion of the filibuster, see Beth and Heishusen.
Return to Text

(3) In 1812, a political cartoonist decided one of the districts created by a redistricting plan that favored Massachusetts politician Elbridge Gerry resembled a salamander, and a key term in the American political lexicon was born.

Return to Text

(4) A similarly controversial Supreme Court decision affecting our electoral processes was the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, which allowed unlimited anonymous contributions to "super pacs" that support a political candidate without coordinating the ads with the candidate's official campaign or revealing the names of the sponsors. The Court seemed again to confirm the impression of bias, this time in favor of big money.

Return to Text

(5) There have been many reports and studies of the growing income gap in the United States over the past decades. For example, see "Living Standards in the Shadows as Election Issue," New York Times, October 24, 2012, p. A 1; for a more recent commentary, see "Inequality in America: The Data Is Sobering," New York Times, July 31, 2013, p. A 1. See also Roland F. Moy’s Torch article, "The Thirty Years’ Class War: How the Rich Have Won," in the Fall 2012 issue.

Return to Text

Works Cited

Answers.com. "Filibuster."

Beth, Richard S., and Heishusen,Valerie. "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate." Congressional Research Service (http://www.senate.gov), November 29, 2012.

"History of Social Security." Social Security Reform Center (http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm).

Mann, Thomas, and Ornstein, Norman J. It's Even Worse than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books, 2012.

Moy, Roland F. "The Thirty Years' Class War: How the Rich Have Won." The Torch 86:1 (Fall 2012), 2-5.

"Tax Reform Act of 1986." Wikipedia (http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986).

Woodward, Bob. The Price of Politics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2012.

Biographical Sketch

Arthur Gunlicks is a native of North Platte, Nebraska, and received his B.A. from the University of Denver in 1958. Following a year at the University of Freiburg, Germany, he served for two years as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He did his doctoral coursework at Georgetown University and wrote his dissertation at the University of Göttingen in Germany with the help of a Fulbright grant. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Georgetown in 1967. After teaching for two years at East Tennessee State University, he became a professor of political science at the University of Richmond, from which he retired in 2005. He is the author or editor of seven books and numerous book chapters and articles. He and his wife, Regine, have two grown sons and three grandchildren.

Presented to the Richmond Torch Club on November 6, 2012.