MatthewCraffey.com

Crisis and Political Polarization

Does crisis lead to political polarization? Its effects to society are highly detrimental and felt in everything from sagging consumer confidence, to the raging gridlock in congress. What can be done to prevent political polarization? The first step is to understand what causes it. I will be studying the relationship between political polarization and a country in crisis to answer the question “Do countries become politically polarized during periods of crisis?”

The topic of political polarization and its relationship with crisis has fascinated me since shortly after 9/11. Like many around me, and in the country, issues such as safety and terrorism became very black and white. The grey I use to see in most things disappeared. I think 9/11 made me look at all the “other “ issues that formed my Centrist, nuanced political philosophy (gay rights, education, religious separation), as less important than the only one that now seemed to count; security. What good were any of these issues if there is no country left to debate them in? What good is gay marriage if a nuke goes off in my city? I strongly felt we were in the struggle for civilization’s survival. Part of me still does.

I found myself going back to the conservative, Republican values that I was raised with. I watched my parents go even further to the right than before, and people who never cared about politics all of sudden became amateur pundits, passionate about everything political.

I believe most people in America, liberal and conservative, felt like me in those weeks and months following 9/11. But then slowly things began to change. Those that leaned conservative before 9/11, or were raised conservative, became increasing conservative and partisan about it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I watched those that had skewed slightly left prior to 9/11, go further to the left with the rhetoric and actions of the other side. Soon these friends of mine were talking about ideas I had never heard before; that American Policies contributed to 9/11, or that people need to wake up to the atrocities the U.S. was committing, and has committed around the world, or that most of the world took some comfort in the U.S. knowing they were no longer invincible. Lastly, I learned that people in other countries have hated us for some time. It was a very strange gulf of ideas I found myself sandwiched between, and it was quite confusing and disturbing for me.

From that, I decided to learn more about what was going on in our world. I went back to school, and took a particular interest in Latin American history and politics, as well as the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Middle East. I started to see a pattern emerge in many of these countries. It seems they too have experienced a similar polarization during times of crisis. Whether the government turned left or right, it would go further in that direction than it ever would during times of peace and prosperity when the both left and right courted the center. It is with this experience, and observations, that I hypothesize “crisis leads to political polarization.”

I don’t believe society is ever well served by going to either political extreme. Because there does seem to be some connection between these two variables, and because the consequences of political polarization are very damaging to society, I think it would be beneficial to find out if there is connection and why. With education, hopefully political polarization can be contained or minimized.

I also have some theories as to why the tendency is to go to one extreme or the other during times of crisis. Culturally, I think as young adults we tend separate our political philosophies from our parents, and like to think of ourselves as more independent than anything else. When something happens that shakes a country to its core, we go back to what’s safe and clear to us, and that’s the political philosophy instilled in us by our parents. In terms of research, that reason might be difficult to study beyond parent/child party identification, which would only give a partial picture.

Structurally, when it comes to the issues a populace must be “for” or “against” during times of crisis, there’s often very little middle ground. You’re either for going to war or against. You’re either for a new system of government, or you’re against it. Many of the decisions the voters face in a period of crisis, don’t have the option of a middle path, simply because the politicians creating the issues believe they look stronger and clearer when their message is “us versus them.”

For the purposes of my research, I will be defining “Politically polarized” as a country’s political landscape taking an uncharacteristically sharp turn towards both the right and left in terms of its policies, public opinion on issues, and its support for candidates; a period where the usually dominate moderate electorate is either nonexistent, or has no voice in the political process.

“Periods of crisis” will be defined as period of time where a country is experiencing serious political, social, structural, or economic strife, terrorism, or war.

I will examine eras of crisis throughout United States history, and see if a general pattern emerges that supports my hypothesis.

I found that much research exists on crisis and polarization, but the research does not generally connect the two directly. Essentially, there are plenty of studies on what causes a crisis and what causes polarization, but very little research that directly connects crisis to political polarization.

Based on this gap in research and the good that can come from people knowing what causes political polarization, proves to me that there is an importance and relevance to my question and my hypothesis. The consequences of political polarization can be devastating; mistrust between the parties, disillusionment of the political process and institutions by the electorate, political and economic instability, political gridlock and inability to pass legislation, and so much more. If research can help minimize or eliminate political polarization, society will benefit from it.

The types of theories I have found that propose some connection between crisis and political polarization are mostly structural. The first Structural theory says that a countries political system is the most important factor in determining how a country responds to crisis. Author Karen Remmer studied the political effects of economic crisis in Latin America from 1982 to 1990. 21 election cycles were studied and the author determined that crisis conditions hurt support for incumbents and create high levels of electoral volatility. However, this seems to happen without necessarily creating political polarization. The results also seem to say that the correlation between economic conditions and electoral instability is created more often by the country’s political structure than anything else. According to Remmer, her research supports the idea that there is a political shift that occurs when a country is in crisis. The reaction, according to her research, may not be as simple as just a dramatic shift to the left and/or right for the country’s electorate, and political parties (1991).

However, Latin America is a perfect example of how each region and culture is unique, and thus has different variables that must be taken into account when looking at cause and effect relationships. Latin America during the 70’s and 80’s, became a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both were asserting their influence in the region at best, and at worst, were supplying weapons and money to competing factions. That is to say, the very thing Remmer blames for political and economic crisis in Latin America, political structure, was the very thing the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were fighting to control. Remmer doesn’t seem to take this into consideration when stating her conclusion.

Heavy handed activities by either the Soviets or the Americans, could galvanize a country’s populace, that prior to the conflict was more moderate, towards an authoritarian dictatorship, or a communist regime. The citizens in these situations were caught in the middle, many times influenced positively and negatively by these external forces. The outside variables associated with Latin America during this period of time, are not a factor for every country, but outside influences, should never the less factor into this research. In the case with Latin America, the proxy war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was itself the crisis. I still believe that a structural case has validity in that it was the political structure of many of these countries that allowed such a crisis to occur. Had the governments been more self-sufficient, transparent, and less corrupt, they would never have allowed outside players such as the United States and the U.S.S.R. to carry the cold war into their country in the first place.

Unfortunately, Remmer’s research just doesn’t examine this aspect of the situation. Furthermore, her research doesn’t go the next step and explain how parliamentary, presidential, communist etc. systems each respond differently to crisis. In fact, I was not able to find such data at all.

Another Structural theory involves the role that uncertain political outcomes play in creating crisis (usually financial), and in turn, creates a political polarization. In an article titled Political instability and economic vulnerability, in the International Journal of Finance & Economics, Matthieu Bussière and Christian Mulder seem to support the link between economic crisis, and political polarization. According to the article, countries are generally more vulnerable to economic crisis immediately following election periods where the out come does not have a stabilizing effect on the country. However, the authors conclude that it is a string of events that lead up to the polarization, and in a way, political problems in the first place, create the crisis (2000). This is the reverse of the cause and effect of my hypothesis. I believe the authors make a decent case that one can cause the other, and in their assessment, Bussiere and Mulder do not say one has to come before the other, only that one often times leads to the other. I believe history however supports my hypothesis that crisis causes political polarization, and not the other way around.

Another structural theory says it’s our two party system, and the way they’ve come to operate that is responsible for polarization. Richard Walker of the Brooking’s Institute writes in Political Polarization-A Dispatch from the Scholarly Front-Lines that “the real danger is that political leaders will continue to give a disenchanted and cynical electorate more and more vitriol-and few solutions to real problems (2006: 9). Walker goes on to talk about the fact that in the past, liberals and conservatives could find their place within both the Republican and Democratic parties in this country. That isn’t so much the case any more, as both parties have taken stances either for or against controversial issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, or the war in Iraq. If you are pro-gay marriage, you will not find much company with the newly activated Christian Conservative base of the Republican Party. If you are a Democrat, and pro-Iraq war, you aren’t going to be very comfortable among the left-of-center base, that now speaks for most of the modern Democratic Party. Essentially, there is less diversity now within the political parties, which allows the base (usually the extreme wing of the party) to have the most say in policy making and message.

Political strategies by Karl Rove, and Howard Dean have also played to people’s fears, and people’s anger. Taking issues like 9/11 or the war in Iraq, and turning it into a political strategy has done nothing to reduce cynicism, and has done a lot to make things much more contentious between the two main political parties in this country.

It appears polarization can happen with or without crisis, though it at least appears to always happen after a crisis. I believe it can be influenced by the media, cultural and social changes, immigration, and political party election strategies. I suspect that a moderate populace becomes polarized in the aftermath of a crisis because of these factors, or at least more so because of these influencing factors.

Jack Goldstone, who writes for The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an article titled How to Construct Stable Democracies, that economics, and the openness of a country’s government play the largest roles in determining the severity of crisis and political polarization in a country. If a country has a stable economic and political system, even if the majority of the citizens are poor, and if the government is an open democracy with a high level of transparency, serious crisis, and serious polarization, is unlikely to occur (2004). This maybe true, but it doesn’t say what happens politically when a crisis not brought on by a dysfunctional economic or political system, strikes a country.

I couldn’t find any research showing the effect that culture has on responding to crisis, as well as the effect of different religions. It is reasonable to think that Britain would respond politically to a crisis, differently than a country with different cultural and religious traditions, such as Iran. The same goes for the effects different political systems (monarchy, democratic, communist etc.) and yet again, I was unable to find research showing how a political system can play a role in the way a country responds to crisis. Education is another possible variable as well.

Having said that I think the reasons a country polarizes after a crisis is mostly structural and cultural. I believe that our reactions to crisis are highly influenced by our family, upbringing, and cultural norms. I also think that the political structure of government can play an important role in setting that polarization into motion. In a democracy, leaders in power can play up fears in order to have them vote in their favor. How a government reacts, and what it tells its people will either appeal to the best or the worst in its populace. Chances are, if history tells us anything, it will be a bit of each.

For my quantitative research, the codebook used was the American National Election Study 1948-2004 – Cumulative. I ran a test using the concern for our country going to war to represent a form of crisis, and the respondent’s 7pt political party identification to represent political polarization. If a correlation exists between an increase in the public’s fear of a war, and an increase in identifying themselves as “Strong Democrats” or “Strong Republicans”, I feel the results will support my hypothesis that crisis, in this case war, leads to an increase in political polarization.

The number of valid cases studied was 16,371. The results are cumulative, based on responses from every 2 year election cycle from 1952 to 2004. Respondents classified themselves as either “Strong Democrat”, “Weak Democrat”, “Independent Democrat”, “Independent Republican”, “Weak Republican”, “Strong Republican”, and “Apolitical”(1966 only).

When asked about how worried they are about our country going to war, respondents could choose “Not Worried”, “Somewhat Worried”, “Very Worried”, and “Don’t Know” (1966 only).“Concern for our country going to war” was my “Row” variable in my analysis. The “7pt. Party Identification” scale was the “column” value.

I believe fear of war is a good measure of crisis in a country. War is definitely a crisis, and an increase in the public’s fear of an upcoming war is likely a measure of this crisis. How that increase impacts people’s party identification is a good indication of whether or not the crisis is connected to political polarization.

The results of my analysis demonstrate a somewhat mixed view of the correlation between my two measures. There was high Chi Square value of 464.34, and significance with p=0.00, but the Pearson’s R value is a rather weak r= -.10. Because there was a negative correlation with the Pearson’s R value, that means that as fear of war decreased, the respondents describing themselves as Republicans increased more than the respondents describing themselves as Democrats when fear of war increased. Basically, the results seemed to show that Democrats fear war more than Republicans. From this standpoint, the measures I used might not have been the best in showing a link between crisis and polarization, but they were the closest measures I could find for my research. However, I do believe that this gap in how Republicans and Democrats fear war, demonstrates just how much our 2 party political system and cultural values set us up for polarization in times crisis.

Among those surveyed who were only “Somewhat Worried”, “Weak Democrats” were tied with those who were “Weak Republicans” at 47.1%. It appears when fear of war is not imminent, moderate Democrats and Republicans still dominate the electoral system, as they poll higher in this category than any other political identification.

However, when the concern changes to “Very Worried”, the category with the most respondents are those who identify themselves as “Strong Democrats”, at 24.2%. Only 10.5% of those identified as “Strong Republicans” fell into this category, which is a 13.7% point difference. A similar spread occurs when the respondent is “Not Worried”. 46.4% of “Strong Republicans” fell into this category, meanwhile only 30.8% of “Strong Democrats” did. That’s a 15.6% difference!

These results suggest that there is correlation between how people identify themselves based on what’s going on in the country. It also seems that different crisis move the majority of the populace away from the middle, to either left or right, not left and right. This was something I had recognized, but because the long-term consequence seems to be political polarization, I didn’t focus on it probably as much as I should have.

While I learned some things from my results that I wasn’t totally expecting, I believe the research still shows the correlation between crisis and a change in people’s voting habits, which is likely connected to political polarization. My research results showed significance and correlation, therefore I reject the null hypothesis stating that “crisis does not lead to political polarization.”

After the results of my research, I feel more confident in my earlier assumptions that multiple variables can cause or at least influence political polarization. Qualitative Diversity Research would likely be the best way to find out what variables and why.

I’ve examined 5 different periods of polarization in United States history; 1860 to 1890, 1950 to 1954, 1960 to 1970, 1980 to 1999, and 2001 to today.

Post 9/11-2001 to Today

It could be that crisis, such as a terrorist attack, without any other dominating variables present, leads to extremism, not polarization. For example, immediately after 9/11, both Democrats and Republicans were fairly united in wanting Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive. Both were okay with giving up certain civil liberties. Both were unanimous in their support for war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Society as a whole moved far to the right. Liberals and conservatives were still on the same page even a year later, as demonstrated in their bi-partisan authorization for President Bush to go to war with Iraq. The bi-partisanship seemed to end when other variables were thrown into the mix. The first variable was Republicans capitalizing on 9/11 as a campaign tool. As the party in power, and the President with an 85% approval rating, they stood the most to gain by touting the government response to 9/11, and by making the case that they were the party to keep America safe. “Don’t change horses in mid stream” they’d say. Democratic unity with the Republican congress and administration started to turn to mistrust. Initially, the message was “we are all Americans and we are all in this together.” Eventually though, a tragedy was being used to increase congressional majorities.

Democrats recoiled against the President and Republicans in congress. The President’s approval rating began to drop. Questions started being raised about his policies that were never questioned previously. As the war dragged on, the Democrats saw an opportunity for exploitation themselves. Turning the war into a political tool alienated many moderates and Republicans. In the span of 3 years, we went from a country more united than it had ever been, to one more divided than anyone can remember. This supports Richard Walker of the Brooking’s Institute quote that, “the real danger is that political leaders will continue to give a disenchanted and cynical electorate more and more vitriol-and few solutions to real problems (2006: 9). That is exactly what’s happening here, and our political structure is allowing it to continue.

So, crisis(9-11), plus political opportunism from both parties, equal polarization.

1860-1890-Civil War and aftermath

The only other time the country has appeared more divided than it is today, is during the Civil War, and post Civil War era. A singular issue defined what party you belonged to and what part of the country you lived in. If you were pro-slavery, you were a Democrat, and likely from the Southern United States. If you were against slavery, you were from the party created ostensibly to end slavery, the Republicans. This also meant you were likely from the Northern United States. Economics played a role in people’s position on this issue as well. It was much easier for the North to take its position against slavery, since its economy and industry differed greatly from that of the south. The south had relied for hundreds of years on the cheap slave labor to tend the thousands of farms in the south. There was simple economics tied to their moral reluctance to give blacks equal rights.

The nation nearly split in two over this issue. According to civilwarhome.com, more than 61,800 people lost their lives over in the war that ensued because of this issue. The political parties have never stood for more different things then they did then. After the war, the reconciliation process was slow, and some people to this day feel resentment over the outcome of this war. In this case, crisis(civil war), plus a divisive issue decided along party lines(slavery), plus, the different economic necessities decided along party lines(north and south) equals polarization.

1950 to 1954-Cold War and McCarthyism

During this period, the cold war between the U.S.S.R. and the United States was in full force, with threats of destruction from Joseph Stalin, who was still Premier. A nuclear showdown seemed imminent. Along came Joseph McCarthy, who played to the public’s fears, and declared that the Soviet’s were infiltrating every aspect of U.S. society in order to destroy it from within. People were accused of being spies without any supporting evidence. McCarthy generally turned his accusations towards liberal politicians and those in the entertainment industry, quickly making the whole affair a partisan one. McCarthy, a Republican, was generally supported by his fellow Republicans even if his accusations made some of them uncomfortable. Even President, Dwight D. Eisenhower distanced himself from his fellow Republican. The Republican Party won the White House and Congress in 1952, and many started to see the McCarthy trials as a partisan political stunt. As his unsubstantiated attacks dragged on, most in the country either supported it or were against it based on the party they subscribed to. Crisis (Cold War, threat of Nuclear War with U.S.S.R.), fear mongering (accusations of spies within our midst), perceived political opportunism (only liberals or those in the entertainment industry were among the accused), equals political polarization.

1960-1970-Vietnam, Kennedy, Civil Rights revolution

The political and social landscape changed so much between 1960 and 1970. In that time, the United States experienced one of its closest elections in history, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a presidential assassination on live T.V., a deadly, divisive, and unpopular war with Vietnam, protests and riots relating to civil rights for blacks as well as against the war, mainstream drug usage, and the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Malcom X. It seems that every day brought something new and potentially unsettling. The party whose message clicked with those who did not want this new society, was the Republican party. The party who reluctantly embraced the dissenters was a very fractured Democratic party. I believe that change in culture (drugs, civil rights, women’s rights), and multiple crisis (war, assassinations, riots, protests etc.), clear differences in what the political parties represented (status quo with the Republicans, change with the Democrats), equals political polarization.

1980-1999-Reagan/Clinton era

Since 1980, political polarization has increased. Its most drastic increase has been post 9/11, but even prior to that it was steadily increasing. According to research by Keith T. Poole, whose data supports that the periods discussed were highly polarized, the data also shows that in the 1980 to 1999 time frame, not only did polarization increase, but the election of Moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans during this period plummeted. This period of time was dominated by two incredibly charismatic and controversial presidents; Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both served out the majority of their terms with a congress from the opposite party, and that often caused the partisan rhetoric to hit new levels. At stake were the moderates. Moderate Democrats often voted for the conservative Reagan, enough so to coin the term “Reagan Democrats.” Clinton’s strategy of co-opting Republican values such as smaller government, welfare reform, and “defense of marriage”, stole the moderate Republicans away from their presidential candidates. Unfortunately for both Presidents, their own parties could never convince the American public that their’s was the one that should control congress as well. The pattern was also true of one term president, George H.W. Bush. The result was 16 out of twenty years of one party controlling the white house and the other controlling congress. During Reagan’s tenure, the congress happened to be particularly liberal, and particularly incongruent to his conservative agenda. During Clinton’s, the congress was aggressively conservative, and was often demonized by Clinton as wanting to “starve children, and throw old people out on the street.”

So, even without crisis, but with a politically divided government, (White House and Congress of opposite parties), and high level of political rhetoric from both sides, you get political polarization.

What I have learned from doing my research is that causal relationships are never as simple as “this causes that”. I’ve learned that political polarization is not the most immediate or direct effect of a crisis, but rather a longer term consequence of crisis, if the right variables are at work. Numerous variables that differ with a country’s culture and political structure play largest role in determining whether that crisis leads to a political polarization. Nothing happens every time, and crisis doesn’t always cause political polarization, just as political polarization isn’t always caused by a crisis. However, it is fair to say that there is enough of a long-term pattern of crisis being the trigger of political polarization, that the causal link can be made.

I believe my research is a good first step at showing that there is a link between crisis and political polarization, and what, how, and why this link exists. For sure, more research should be done, by those who have the resources, time, and expertise to conduct it. Enough evidence is here to warrant such additional research, and its results could prove incredibly valuable to the health of society. If society, politicians, and scientists know more about what causes political polarization, and why a crisis sets this into motion, the process toward restructuring our political system so that it does not so easily fall into this trap can begin. If individuals know what, how, and why political polarization happens, they can begin the process of responding to it in informed and educated fashion.

Citations

Remmer, K. (Sept. 1991). The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 3 , pp. 777-800.
Walker, R. (Dec. 2006). Political Polarization—a Dispatch from the Scholarly Front Lines. Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.
Goldstone, J. A., Ufelder, J. (Winter 2004-05). How to Construct Stable Democracies. The Washington Quarterly - Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 9-20.
Poole, K. (June 2006). Polarized America-The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Retrieved November 29, 2007 from http://www.voteview.com/Polarized_America.htm
Bussière, M., & Mulder, C. (2000). Political instability and economic vulnerability. International Journal of Finance & Economics. Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 309 – 330.

Back to list.