There's room for debate about whether U.S. government deficits justify Standard & Poor's downgrading last week of long-term U.S. debt, but the more important factor cited in S&P's report is that "the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened..." The S&P team emphasizes that "the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties ... makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration" to address the crucial problems the country faces.
Although these S&P judgments were intended to refer exclusively to fiscal policy, they really apply to a much broader set of issues, ranging from economic to health to environmental policies. The key reality is this: there is a widening gulf between the two political parties that is paralyzing sensible policy action.
Political Polarization
This increasing polarization between the political parties has shown up in a number of studies by political scientists employing a diverse set of measures that place roll-call votes by members of Congress on an ideological spectrum from extreme right to extreme left. This polarization — the disappearance of moderates — has been taking place for three decades. The rise of the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party is only the most recent vehicle that has continued a 30-year trend.
Why has this collapse of the middle taken place; why has party polarization increased so dramatically in the Congress over the past 30 years? In my view, three structural factors stand out.
Three Structural Factors
First, there has been the increasing importance of the primary system, a consequence of the "democratization" of the nomination process that took flight in the 1970s. A small share of the electorate vote in primaries, namely those with the strongest political preferences — the most conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats. This self-selection greatly favors candidates from the extremes.
Second, decades of redistricting — a state prerogative guaranteed by the Constitution — has produced more and more districts that are dominated by either Republican or Democratic voters. This increases the importance of primary elections, which is where the key choices among candidates are now made in many Congressional districts. Because of this, polarization has proceeded at a much more rapid pace in the House than in the Senate.
Third, the increasing cost of electoral campaigns greatly favors incumbents (with the ratio of average incumbent-to-challenger financing now exceeding 10-to-1). This tends to make districts relatively safe for the party that controls the seat, thereby increasing the importance of primaries.
These three factors operate mainly through the replacement of members of Congress (whether due to death, retirement, or challenges from within the party) — that is, the ideological shifts that cause increasing polarization largely occur when new members are elected (from either party, although a disproportionate share of polarization has been due to the rightward shift of new Republicans).
To a lesser degree, polarization has also taken place through the adaptation of sitting members of Congress as they behave more ideologically once in office. Such political conversions are due to the same pressures noted above: in order to discourage or survive primary challenges, Republican members shift rightward and Democratic members shift leftward.
A recent case in point is Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who evolved from being a moderate at the time of his 2008 Presidential run to being a solid conservative in 2010, in response to a primary challenge from a Tea Party candidate.
Long-Term Implications
If the increasing polarization of the Congress is due to these factors, then it is difficult to be very optimistic about the prognosis in the near term for American politics. This is because it is unlikely that any of these factors will soon reverse course.
The two parties are not about to abandon the primary system to return to smoke‑filled back rooms. Likewise, no state legislature is willing to abandon its power to redistrict. And public financing of campaigns and other measures that would reduce the advantages of incumbency remain generally unpopular (among incumbents, who would — after all — need to vote for such reforms).
Other Factors?
True enough, in addition to these long-term structural factors that have driven political polarization, shorter-term economic and social fluctuations have also had pronounced effects. In particular, significant economic downturns — whether the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Great Recession of the past several years — increase political polarization.
The 1930s saw not only the rise of American socialists and communists, but also the rise of American right-wing extremism. It took World War II to bring an end both to the economic upheaval of the 1930s and the destructive political polarization that had accompanied it.
U.S. participation in the war brought a degree of political unity at home, largely because U.S. action was precipitated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Under conditions of less clear motivation for U.S. military action abroad — such as the war in Vietnam — the result has not been political unity, but divisiveness and polarization. The ultimate impacts on domestic politics of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may hinge on whether they are perceived to be patriotic responses to a foreign attack (9/11) or the latest manifestations of U.S. military adventurism.
The Future
So, it's reasonable to anticipate — or at least to hope — that better economic times will reduce the pace of ongoing political polarization. However, in the face of the three long-term structural factors I've identified above — the increasing importance of primaries, continuing redistricting, and the increasing costs of electoral campaigns — it is difficult to be optimistic about the long-term prognosis for American politics.
No matter how one feels about the wisdom of Standard & Poor's downgrading of long-term U.S. debt, the issue of greater concern should be their assessment of the state of the U.S. body politic.
Already municipal bonds, tied to the nation's former triple A rating, are being downgraded, which will cause issuers to scramble to put up more cash to secure their bonds. Worse rating = need for more securitizing of debt. At a time when local tax revenues are crumbling around the nation.
And the major banks' own capacity to pay down debt will likewise be downgraded, if I understand things correctly, because their ratings and solvency are likewise tied to the nation's overall credit rating. Which may cause interest rates on credit card and unfixed mortgage debt to be raised. At a time when many millions have no work, and many millions more are under-employed.
I don't mean to belittle the systemic problems of American politics. But right now, the ripple effect of the downgrade has begun. The consequences are near-immediate, and the nation is unprepared at every level to respond, beyond blaming politics and the agency which declared the downgrade.
If there was any polarization at all, we'd have social democrats like Bernie Standers running one side of the government.
The Democrats have rushed to the right, the Republicans have rushed to the right. Any difference between the parties merely reflects the time lag between D and R in adopting the extreme right-wing agenda.
SHORT TAKES:
40 million was spent in the Wisconsin election to recall 6 Republican State legislators. Most of that 40 million came from outside those 6 districts from unknown donors who no doubt were America's Robber Barons and there is no way the people can consider such elections fair or right.
*****************************************************************************************************************
If Obama is wise he will warn the Israeli government not to attack Iran and if they do they will be on their own and of course Obama is not stupid enough to attack Iran!!!
While we're fighting and arguing about who's right, who's left etc. those at the top are continuing to sabotage the country. Big corps/big money run the country nowadays no matter who's been elected.
The US needs a new strong, TRUE leader to rise from the grassroots. There's been alot of damage done over these past few years and the people are at their breaking point. Enough is enough. Too bad the empty suits in charge are completely oblivious the this fact. They should check out the rest of the world and see what's going on. If Obama continues to guide the ship down to the bottom, (which I suspect he is going to do) the US people just very well may say "we've had it" and throw the b.u.m.s out!
High Crime.
Surf over to the well-respected site, http://www.opensecrets.org, and have a look around. As you do so, bear in mind that, if we take all three Branches of Government and a handful of important commissioners, we are talking about ... all told ... slightly less than 700 people in all.
This site will tell us that, last year, those 700 people consumed more than 3.6 billion dollars, and that 12,000 people made it their full-time "job" to "feed" them.
"The Tea Party, Inc." is a well-funded and therefore highly visible instrument ... not of solidarity ... but, of further division. It is only one such example of many.
"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand." That's more than a slogan: it's a political strategy.
700 people. or, 312 million. Who wins?
"30-year trend"?
I've been around for much longer than thirty years, and can remember the Weathermen of the '60s. They weren't polarizing. FYI, they weren't rightists.
I think that you have an excellent question here. I'll try to answer it.
The national debt became a staggering sum by the end RR's second term (even before). Many of us were quite alarmed then because we were borrowing vast sums of money, despite the fact that times were good. As the 80s gave way to the 90s, it was apparent that this was a long term trend.
It was such an alarming issue in the 90s that legislation was passed (Graham-Rudman) to try to stem the tide of red ink. There were other smaller initiatives as well, such as the Repubs threatening to shut down the government unless fiscal sanity were restored.
But the credit rating agencies didn't sound the alarm because the US government was not having any difficulty in getting bonds sold here and abroad.
But, now, we have a different story. Deficits have gotten completely out of control and, if one reads the entirety of S & P's statement, the deficit and debt trajectory that we are on is completely unrealistic and unsustainable for even the coming ten year period. In other words, if the folks who lend money for a living are alarmed at the amount of lending taking place, you KNOW we have a MAJOR problem on our hands.