Gallup poll finds record level of independent non-partisan pretension.

The Independent / Centrist / Moderate Black Hole

Earlier this week Gallup reported a record high 42% of American chose to self-identify as independents rather than associate themselves with either the Republican or Democratic party:

"Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties."

This was greeted with the usual triumphalism from moderates, centrists and independents living in the hope of an imminent implosion of the political duopoly. But there is far less here than meets the eye.

Progressive Pundit Posits Prejudicial Political Polarization

Greg Sargent asks "How 'polarized' is the American electorate?":

"The American people are “polarized.” That idea is repeated so often as an explanation for why Washington seems mired in dysfunction and gridlock that no one even stops to question it anymore. Yes, the system is polarized, in the sense that we have divided government on the federal level, or, as Dan Balz recently noted, in the sense that state governments under an unprecedented degree of one-party control are moving in sharply different directions. But how polarized is public opinion on the issues themselves?"

Sargent makes a fair and balanced assessment of the American body politic by citing progressive pundits spanning the political spectrum from the left to the far left. Unsurprisingly he determines that the United States really is a left of center country with a broad consensus around progressive issues:

"E.J. Dionne’s latest column notes there is majority consensus behind ideas about ”economic justice” and the safety net, but that it’s obscured by the degree to which one party remains captive to a conservative minority that wants to unravel that consensus... Majorities support immigration reform with a path to citizenship. While people tell pollsters they don’t like Big Government, they support getting our fiscal house in order through a combination of spending cuts and tax hikes, as Democrats want, and majorities oppose cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Large majorities support federal spending on infrastructure to create jobs. Majorities backed the core ideas in the American Jobs Act, which included spending on road repair and tax credits for job training, paid for by taxes on the rich."

And of course, with all this broad consensus among Americans in support of a progressive agenda, there is no one to blame for Congress failing to embracing our progressive future but those illegitimately elected GOP cultists in the House of Representatives:

"As David Wasserman explained just after the 2012 elections, geographic voting distribution patterns and redistricting has created a GOP lock on the House by cossetting Republicans away in safe districts, where they enjoy the support of “an alternate universe of voters that little resembles the growing diversity of the country.” ...Add it up and the stalemate in D.C. in the face of major challenges is at least partly due to this unconventional, unbalanced situation, and may be partly in spite of the state of national opinion, not because of it."

"I don’t want to overstate this..." Sargent writes as he wildly overstates this and concludes:

Divided government is in the eye of the beholder

Over the last five years your loyal blogger has opined about what divided government is, what divided government is not, the reasons for supporting divided government, why divided government works, divided government and the founder's historical intent, why you should vote for divided government, how to vote for divided government, why divided government is good, why divided government is really good and the market implications of divided government. Your blogger has also taken great pains to defend divided government, review divided government books and pretty much document everything anyone has ever said about divided government.

Yet, over the entire life of this blog, the Dividist has never, not even once, mentioned "The Aesthetic of Divided Government":

"The showdown that almost lead to a shutdown is the aesthetics of divided government. We might as well get used to it. What we have, after all, are two political parties that hold different views and represent different interests, negotiating hard and down to the wire to get the best agreement they could. It isn’t pretty or perfect by any means, but it is the natural result of the system of government our founders put in place... The results matter more than the process—and the process really wasn’t quite as unseemly and upsetting as some would have it."

And in that one short paragraph Peter Wehner nets out everything that the Dividist has expended hundreds of thousands of word to say over the life of this blog. That he could distill it down so elegantly and easily is kind of annoying really.

Blogenfreude aside, Wehner's sentiment is simply true.

While she may be an acquired taste, once you get used to her divided government looks pretty darn good.

UPDATED: 4-18-2011
In the comments, Damon Eris of Poli-Tea takes exception to the excerpted Peter Wehner comment that "it is the natural result of the system of government our founders put in place" - "It" being two parties fighting down to the wire over competing budget proposals and finding a compromise at the last minute. This prompted a spirited discussion with Tully on whether or not our effective two party duopoly is a "natural" or "inherent" or "intended" consequence of our Constitutional form or - for that matter - any democratic form of government.

Re-reading Wehner's quote, it is not clear to me that he was asserting anything about whether specifically two parties are a "natural result of the system of government our founders put in place". Instead he was making the much less controversial point that given the two parties we have, each with a share of power under a divided government, we can and should certainly expect that they will fight for the best deal they can get - right down to the political wire. This strikes me as a brilliant stroke of the patently obvious, and I don't see how it is possible to argue to the contrary.

As far as the historical basis for this outcome (again ignoring the question of a specific number of parties or factions), one must appreciate the inherent difficulty of gleaning founder intent 200+ years after the fact. Nevertheless, it strikes me as incontrovertible that exactly this kind of partisan/factional argument is exactly what the founders designed into our bicameral legislative system.

I am currently enjoying historian Joseph Ellis book "Founding Brothers." Ellis is a blog favorite, and I have quoted him here before. In particular I am enamored of a phrase he coined to describe the nature of our Constitution - the "enshrinement of argument":

"The ideological and even temperamental diversity within the elite leadership group gave the American founding a distinctly argumentative flavor that made all convictions, no matter how cherished, subject to abiding scrutiny that, like history itself, became an argument without end. And much like the doctrine of checks and balances in the Constitution, the enshrinement of argument created a permanent collision of juxtaposed ideas and interests that generated a dynamic and wholly modern version of political stability."

It is just a beautiful way to think about how and why our Constitution is designed as it is.

To return to the question of whether the founders intended or expected a two party duopoly to emerge, that seems unlikely. But the fact that it did emerge immediately with the first election after Washington, and has continued primarily as a two party contest from then until now does speak to something in the system or in human nature that makes it historically inevitable.

This from Ellis' "Founding Brothers" where Jefferson is contemplating the contest for the election of the next President after Washington's farewell address:

"In the present situation of the United States, divided as they are between two parties, which mutually accuse each other of perfidy and treason... this exalted station [the presidency] is surrounded with dangerous rocks, and the most eminent abilities will not be be sufficient to steer clear of them all." Whereas Washington had been able to levitate above the partisan factions, "the next president of the United States will only be the president of a party."

And so it goes.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Carnival of Divided Government - ûnus et trîcênsimus - Special St. Patrick's Day Edition

UPDATED: 03-21
Welcome to the 31st edition of the Carnival of Divided Government - The ûnus et trîcênsimus - Special St. Patrick's Day Edition. DWSUWF passionately supports all drinking holidays and in particular St. Patrick's Day. As motivation to get this Carnival completed ASAP, DWSUWF will forgo his first Guinness until such time that this Carnival is posted.

Alright. Lets crank this baby out. I'm thirsty.

Saint Patrick - The Patron Saint of Drunks.

I am not Catholic, or even Christian. I grew up in a mixed Jewish/Presbyterian household, ultimately identifying more strongly with the Jewish tradition. But I do like to drink and find myself drawn to this holiday. Perhaps it can be explained by the fact that there is Irish blood in my lineage. Growing up, my grandmother used to tell me we were Orangemen and insisted we wear orange not green on St. Patrick's day. Never really understood what she was talking about, but this 1880 New York Times article helped clear it up:

Those were the days when partisan polarization actually meant something. I don't know what my grandmother was thinking. I guess she expected me to take on the entire green-attired grade school and instigate a brawl on the playground during recess. Thanks Grandma.

But here at DWSUWF we are more concerned with the implications of Red vs. Blue government than Orange vs. Green religious squabbles. As explained in earlier editions, we have adopted Latin ordinal numeration to impart a patina of gravitas reflecting the historical importance of the series. In this the Carnival of Divided Government ûnus et trîcênsimus (XXXI), as in all of the CODGOV series, we select volunteers and draftees from the blogosphere and main stream media writing on the single topic of government divided between the Red and Blue parties (leaving it to the reader to sort out volunteers from draftees). Consistent with this topic, the primary criteria for acceptance in the carnival is to explicitly use the words and/or concept of "divided government" in submitted posts. A criteria that, to our endless befuddlement, is ignored by many of the bloggers submitting posts, which sadly results in DWSUWF reluctantly ignoring their fine submissions.

Today, two months into a great big blue legislative tsunami, we are beginning to see yet again the consequences of granting unfettered power to a single party. Awash in a sea of new spending programs, our children Grandchildren will soon be drowning in oceans of debt. DWSUWF can only offer a this selection of red, blue, and purple divided government posts as a life preserver to cling to during the spending flood. Just hold on and dream of that first Guinness of the night.

Carnival

In honor of the day, we will begin with a blog and a book from the Old Country. Last summer, Darnoc - a UF student left these shores for Dublin University, kicked off a blog entitled True Divided Government, wrote five posts, and has not been heard of in the blogosphere since. How often do you get the opportunity to read the contents of an entire blog in one sitting? I was intrigued by the title, found some nice pictures, but not much political content. As he is an Obama supporter, I can only assume that, like Obama and most Progressives, he defines bipartisanship as compromises between the left and the far left while disparaging the right and offering sonly eyewash and soothing words to the independent centrists. Presumably Darnoc is in Ireland to study under the tutelage of Robert Elgie, the Paddy Moriarty Professor of Government and International Studies at Dublin City University and Editor of Divided Government in Comparative Perspective:

"Divided government occurs when the executive fails to enjoy majority support in at least one working house of the legislature. To date, the study of divided government has focused almost exclusively on the United States. However, divided government occurs much more widely. It occurs in other presidential systems. Moreover, it is also the equivalent of minority government in parliamentary regimes and cohabitation in French-style semi-presidential systems. This book examines the frequency, causes and management of divided government in comparative context, identifying the similarities and differences between the various experiences of this increasingly frequent form of government. The countries studied include Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland, and the US. "

Sound interesting. I'll read it as soon as the price drops by about 90% or so. $160 for a 256 page book? Really Robert? Really?

Lets bring this international Divided Government excursion back home by way of SJS and Team blogging at The Mighty Pen. This is an eclectic, oddly interesting anonymous political blog that claims to be a team of international writers, but is singularly focused on helping the rural poor of Malaysia. SJS had a very different take on Rush Limbaugh's recent infamous comments about supporting Presidents, divided government:

"The issue of separation of Powers does not seem to be confined to Perak these days. The following excerpt is from a transcript of a monologue from prominent American radio personality - Rush Limbaugh - who examines the concept of the Separation of Powers from a historical and current perspective for the United States (which could be also applicable for Malaysia..."

SJS reminds us, that unrestrained political power is a primary concern for most of world, and they do not think sacrificing checks, balances, and opposition to power on the alter of "getting things done" is a particularly good idea. The specific Rush Limbaugh quote that SJS references and finds relevant to Malaysia:

"The whole theory of the separation of powers, meaning legislative branch, judicial branch, executive branch, was ingeniously based on human nature. Our Founding Fathers had studied history, and they knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we divide power. We divide power between the states and the federal government. We divide power within the federal government. And we further divide power among three separate branches of government. We give each branch a different set of powers and incentives to protect their own prerogatives so they can keep an eye on each other. These are called checks and balances. The underlying assumption of this whole system is that the country functions better if everyone is of a skeptical bent of mind. That’s what keeps the next guy honest. The whole reason that we have divided government instead of a king is that the issue is not about one government official succeeding. This country was not founded on the principle that the president is a king and above all the king must succeed. In fact, the system is designed to ensure that the president fails when he is wrong. That’s the whole purpose of checks and balances."

There are few things I find as distasteful as quoting or defending the statements of a hypocritical partisan windbag like Rush Limbaugh, except maybe quoting or defending the statement of his hypocritical partisan wind bag doppelganger on the left - Michael Moore. Impossible to say which would be more likely to drive me to rip out my eyes and ears and run screaming into the night. That said, Limbaugh's statement, divorced from the man who said it, stands on it's own and is perfectly correct and absolutely true. James Madison was a bit more eloquent making the exact same argument when he wrote this in the Federalist Paper #51:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

I can't let Rush off the hook though. Regarding that hypocrisy bit, I recall that Rush Limbaugh responded on his radio show to a caller asking about divided government on the eve of the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections thusly:

"The media has put that notion out there, and they've done it for a number years. They tried it in 2002 and 2004 in the sense it would be good. "We have one-party rule. Why, that leads to corruption and leads to people becoming out of touch in Washington." They love one-party rule when it's them. The only reason they're against one-party rule is because they're not the party, and so they're trying to say it leads to all kinds of bad things. But that means they don't trust the democratic process. The democratic process delivers what it delivers, and if it delivers a Republican dominated House and Senate and a Republican president, then that's representative democracy at work. That is what you get in a representative republic, and to sit there and complain about it is to complain about the system itself."

At the time I called this an example of the "intellectual bankruptcy of the right". Nothing has happened since to change my mind about that characterization. However, that does not obviate the fact that we may still need the "intellectually bankrupt right" if only to counteract the "intellectually banrkrupt left", who incidentally currently hold all the power. I call this phenomena the DWSUWF Corrolary to Madison's Maxim:

"Assholes must be made to counteract assholes."

Ron Chisud of Liberal Values also had some thoughts about Rush Limbaugh, and responds to a commenter responding to his thoughts by explaining "Why I Blog About the Direction Conservatives Are Going":

"I have written of the dangers of one party, regardless of which party, having total control, and expressed a preference that the Democrats remain shy of sixty Senate votes. Ideally I would prefer that we do not even have one party control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. There is a problem with a preference for divided government when one party has ceased to be able to respond meaningfully to current problems. There is a reason why independents have been moving towards the Democratic Party in recent years. Rush Limbaugh is a showman. He has no coherent political views beyond a set of simplistic talking points. People like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity appeal to the worst parts of human nature and ignorance and do attract an audience. This does not mean that their views should become the guiding principles of a political party. Hoping to see the restoration of a viable two party system, I am interested when some conservatives support rejecting the anti-intellectual, authoritarian, no-nothing mindset which has taken control of the conservative movement."

I am in general agreement with Ron's post and thesis, but ... methinks he doth protest too much about the insufficiently intellectual nature of GOP opposition. In our system of government, it is important that a minority opposition party actually oppose the party in power. It is less important whether the opposition comes up to snuff on Ron's criteria of being a sufficiently intellectual opponent. If the Democrats had done their job as a minority opposition party in 2002, perhaps we would not be saddled with the crushing human and financial burden of the Iraq war. If the Republicans do their job as a minority opposition party in 2009, perhaps future generations will be able to avoid being saddled with the crushing debt and government entitlements being promoted and expanded by Obama and the Democrats.

If Ron Chisud can respond to commenters in a post, I guess I can too. Liz had some nice things to say about DWSUWF in comments to a recent post, but she took exception to our last:

"While I definitely agree that president Obama should not overstep his bounds as president, there is something to be said about a strongly democratic president and congress. Perhaps there will be less bickering, and more positive action (health care reform, ending of “torture”, etc…)! While no branch should be given the opportunity to rule completely without anyone to check them, the people did vote for a democratic congress majority and president. I don’t think it is fair to equate the idiocy of the bush administration to the progressive Obama administration. Let’s give the democrats a chance and perhaps we will have something to HOPE™ for!"

Here is the problem Liz - This is not about whether Obama takes advantage of and abuses the near monarchical powers claimed by the Bush/Cheney administration. He said during the campaign he would move to help restore the balance with Congress and the Judiciary. He isn't. He is doing the exact opposite by actively defending, continuing, and extending the power of the Bush/Cheney definition of the unitary executive. Even if you believe that Obama is a kind and good benevolent king, he won't be king forever. I hope you are as sanguine about the expanded power of the presidency when a Romney, or Palin, or - God forbid - if circumstances dictate that Biden has to take the reigns.

People were not voting for Single Party Progressive Democratic Ruleso much as they were voting against what Liz calls the "idiocy of the Bush administration".

Unfortunately, but predictably - Obama and Progressives now operate as if they have a mandate for radical progressive change, while the Independents and Centrists that voted for Obama are getting buyer's remorse. Too late. The left has the votes, the right is emasculated, and there is no telling how much damage will be done over the next four years to the budget, our economic liberties and our already broken economy. The least Obama could do is use his extraordinary executive power to restore the civil liberties lost under the Bush administration, but even that is not happening.

The way to achieve centrist government is not by electing politicians who will whisper sweet centrist nothings in your ear. The way to achieve centrist government is to never ever ever give either party all the power.

In a related post, Steven Germain asks a relevant question about how all this spending is going to be managed and postulates the probable answer in "There Is No Such Thing As Raw, Analloyed, Agendaless Kindness" - David Foster Wallace posted at Rough Fractals. Jim DeSantis has another answer in his post "You Are A Banker And A U.S. Automaker" posted at On Line Tribune | Front Page Blog, saying,

"What are we to do? We can do nothing except remember, at the next election, just who voted to put us and our heredity into hock and who voted against it. "

In other words, some of us will be voting for those who just said "No". Contrary to what President Obama asserted in his speech defending the budget today, "Just say no" is the exact right thing to say to this insane spending.

Break

I can't wait. I'm going out for that Guinness right now.

[TIME PASSES]

Carnival (continued)

Now I've done it. I am not sure that I will get this special St. Patrick's Day post actually posted on St. Patrick's Day. Let's just soldier on and see what happens.

Eric Michael Johnson takes issues with Yuval Levin's Newsweek article "Partisanship is Good" presents The Nature of Partisan Politics-Part I and The Nature of Partisan Politics-Part II posted at The Primate Diaries. His conclusion that Yuval is being hypocritical is not without merit:

"The day after the 2008 election, on November 5, when it was disclosed that Rahm Emmanuel would be the top pick for President Obama's Chief of Staff, Levin lambasted his choice as someone who was "a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient." This, for Levin, was a bad sign and he criticized the new President because it "suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works." Perhaps his essay should have been titled "Partisanship is Good (But Only If My Side Wins)". With such a statement it would seem that Levin’s view of human nature has no concept of hypocrisy. Such outright duplicity not only illuminates his approach as an advocate of Ethics and Public Policy, it is the very nature of partisan politics that we should all seek to avoid."

I would encourage you to read both of Eric's posts in totality, but I would distill his argument to this - "Conservatives are bad and wrong. Liberals are good and right. Therefore Conservative partisan opposition to Liberal proposals are bad and wrong. QED. " Perhaps Eric Johnson's essay should have been titled "Partisanship is Bad (But Only If My Side Loses)." DWSUWF has opined before on this topic, most notably in this historical meditation and the post Polarized Partisan Politics Promotes Popular Participation.

Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker takes a second look at the election returns in "Election Returns Redux" and concludes (among other things) that...

"Americans do not prefer divided government. They are not Broderists. Americans who are Democrats prefer Democratic rule; Americans who are Republicans prefer Republican rule."

Problem being, there is a glaring logical flaw in this statement. In order to conclude that Americans do not prefer divided government as Hendrik does here, one must conclude that all Americans are either partisan Democrats or partisan Republicans. Actual poll data does not support this premise. Depending on how you want to slice and dice the data, the general conclusion is that about 1/3 of the electorate identify Democrat, 1/3 identify Republican, and 1/3 identify as some version of Independent, Non-Affiliated, Libertarianish (Fiscal Conservative / Social Liberal), or Centrist. This center may register Democrat or Republican but will shift their vote from election to election, which means you cannot identify the electoral preference by looking at one election tally as Hendrik does here.

The simple fact is that voters who are philosophically aligned with fiscal conservatism, liberal social tolerance, live and let live diversity and limited government do not have much of a choice between big spending, big deficit, big government Republicans and bigger spending, bigger deficit, bigger government Democrats. They very well may decide that the real choice is between the unrestrained growth of government size and power under single party rule, or the relatively constrained growth that is only found under divided government.

I can't take this anymore. It is almost midnight. I am going to post this thing now, warts and all, just so I can say I got it posted on St. Patrick's Day, even if it is only St Patrick's Day somewhere the Hawaiian time zone.

I'll clean up the typos and graphics tomorrow, and there are a few more posts I'd like to add. Why don't we just call this the St. Patty's Season, and I'll just keep drinking Guinness and polishing this turd until I feel like moving on to another post.

Miscellany

Traditionally, we conclude this Carnival by including one "off-topic" submission, as a grudging acknowledgment and proxy for the many off-topic submissions received. Off-topic in this context meaning - no mentions of "divided government" or gridlock. For this issue we offer Angry Max presenting The Quests for Truth and Blood posted at Pterodactyl Puke, saying, "Concerning who, in both parties, is responsible for the economic meltdown, and what to do with them." The post could be considered thematically on topic, but that is not why I am including it. I am including it because it is funny, informative, deadly accurate, and borderline genius. Read it and enjoy it.

And on that happy note we conclude this edition. Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for all of the submissions (on-topic or not).

As previously announced - Since this carnival is focused on the topic of Divided Government, and seeing how voters spectacularly rejected the idea in the last election, and with no real prospect of restoring divided government before 2012, we have put this carnival on a reduced publication schedule over the next year. Instead of monthly, we'll go quarterly or - you know - whenever I feel like it.

Look for the next edition of The Carnival of Divided GovernmentXXXII - Special Memorial Day Edition sometime around - oh.. lets say May 25. Submit your blog article at carnival of divided government using our carnival submission form.

Carnivalingus

Some Carnivals and links of interest:

• Bobo presents "The Bobo Carnival of Politics" at The Bobo Files.
• Quisani presents the "Carnival of Conservatism" at The Quisani League.
• Stefanie presents "All Things Eco" at Focus Organic.
• U.S Common Sense presents Political Blog Weekly.
• Jonathon present the "Seventh Carnival of Modern Liberty" at Liberal England.
• Mark Raynar presents the "Carnival of Satire" at The Skwib.
  
• Danny Jack presents the "Carnival of Ohio Politics - St Patricks Edition" at Ohio Politics
  

UPDATED: 03-21-09
Added unacceptably delayed and unfairly overlooked carnivals and links.
Fixed even more typos (Where do they come from??)

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, CODGOV, blog carnival, rush Limbaugh, libertarian, partisan

Polarized Partisan Politics Promotes Popular Participation

Early American political bloggers Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton were active participants in a polarized political discussion.

For political bloggers and readers, there are few things as interesting as an analysis of umm... political bloggers and readers. In recent weeks three studies have been getting attention from bloggers, focusing on the polarized political web, polarized political book buyers, and polarized political blog readers.

Presidential Watch 08 is showcasing their latest Map of the political blogosphere:

"Our new map... will reveal:- the 500 most influential websites of the U.S. political webosphere;- the newcomers to this online territory;- the locations of the candidates’ websites;- a refined categorisation of websites that abandons traditional media categories (Mainstream Media vs. Social Media) to offer an accurate view of this territory as one of mainly partisan websites..."

The map is automatically generated based on links between political websites, and includes news organizations and candidate websites as well as blogs. However, the website labels (conservative, progressive, independent) are manually assigned, which introduces opinion and the possibility of bias and distortion in the graphical display. It also certainly gives short shrift to independent and centrist blogs (Moderate Voice and Andrew Sullivan are labeled as Progressive, Memeorandum and Cato are labeled Conservative and the only sites to be labeled Independent are Roll Call and FactCheck.) The bias against Independent/Centrist blogs may be an artifact of their selection algorithm which determines influence by mutual links. One might posit that Independent/Centrist blogs will link to partisans of both sides, but partisan blogs of either stripe are less likely to find independent blogs worthy of links. The study is also sadly deficient in that DWSUWF is inexpicably not included in the data or the map.

Still,the partisan polarized nature of the political blogosphere clearly emerges in the map and the interactive nature of the presentation makes it the coolest of the three studies and the biggest potential time sink.

Vlaldis Krebs, blogging at The Network Thinker looks at political readers of political books, and produces visual maps of their purchase patterns. He compares past and present clusters in his recent post "New Political Patterns":

"In the past we saw a divided nation in our book buying data. We saw then a distinct red cluster and a distinct blue cluster with very little holding them together in terms of cross-links or books in common. Now, in June 2008, after the major party candidates have been selected via the long primary season, we again probe the predictive patterns of political polemics..."

We learn from Vladis that there is as pronounced a clustering in 2008 political book buyers as there was in in 2004, but with a wrinkle. While the polarized clusters are similar, they split on a distinctly different fault line. In 2004 book buying patterns clustered around a traditional red/blue Republican/Democrat fault line. This year the cleanest split is between the books that are for and against the War in Iraq.

Henry Farrell (blogging at Crooked Timber), Eric Lawrence, and John Sides (blogging at The Monkey Cage) are distributing a draft paper, entitled “Self-Segregation or Deliberation? Blog Readership, Participation, and Polarization in American Politics.”[PDF] and soliciting comments. The study shares the same deficiency as Presidential Watch '08, shockingly excluding DWSUWF from the data. While the paper presents the most visually boring graphics of the three, it has the most interesting conclusions. From the abstract:

"...we find strong evidence of polarization among blogreaders, who tend to be more polarized than both non-blog-readers and consumers of various television news, and roughly as polarized as US Senators. Blog readers are also substantially more likely to participate in politics than non-blog readers. However, in contrast to previous research on offline social networks, we do not find that cross-cutting exposure to blogs of different ideological dispositions lowers participations."

And their conclusion:

"... there is a general tradeoff between deliberation and participation among blog readers, an increasingly important group of highly politically aware individuals. Blog readers are more likely to participate in politics than non-blog readers, but also very likely to read only blogs whose political leanings accord with their own."

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway is not surprised by the results, observing in "Blog Polarization and Self-Segregation":

"After all, we’re a polarized polity right now, so it stands to reason that we’d see the same in the blogosphere. Given that the mass media outlets to which blogs are compared in the chart above are ostensibly “neutral” whereas the blogs are openly biased, it’s remarkable how polarized the audiences of the former are."

I agree with Joyner that the blogosphere is a reasonable reflection of the political sphere at large, so the finding that political blog readers (like political book readers) are also polarized is perhaps a blinding flash of the obvious. Still, the degree to which blog readers are polarized is surprising, as the authors find that 94% of blog readers are classified as "Carnivores" seeking primarily sites in agreement with their views, leaving only 6% omnivores that seek a more balanced diet of political perspective.

Joe Windish at The Moderate Voice worries in "Study: there aren’t many blog readers in the ideological center" that this polarization "makes us a niche read here at TMV!"

I am among the 6% omnivores as I do read blogs from both the right and left. However, as some of the Crooked Timber commenters point out, the source data is from 2006, and the results could be highly time and context dependent. Since I advocate for divided government on my blog, in 2006 I spent more time flocking with left of center blogs who at the time were big fans of the divided government meme. Now, not so much. I find myself now spending more time on right-of-center blogs, who are in the midst of an epiphany about the wisdom of voting to maintain divided government into 2009. Funny how that works.

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish laments the author's findings in "Bloggy Homophily" saying "A new study of blog readers finds a depressing amount of polarization..."

By focusing primarily on the polarization of blog readers, both Joyner and Sullivan overlook an equally important point in the paper. Blog readers are much more likely to be active participants politically. This is not new. I’ll note this historic parallel to the authors’ conclusions, linking increased participation and polarization as going hand in hand:

“The period from 1840 to 1890 has been labeled “the party period” and “the golden age of parties” because the major political parties (Democrats and Whigs until the mid-1850s, then Democrats and Republicans) were the strongest they have been in American history. Party leaders used patronage and campaign practices that aroused partisan enthusiasm to gain wide membership and keep them loyal and active. It worked. Voter turnout during this period was the highest in American history: between 70 and 80 percent for presidential elections and sometimes higher in state and local contests.”

Different self-selection and organizing principles, but the more things change, the more they remain the same. Point being, when you lament political polarization, you are lamenting political participation. In American politics, polarization and participation are not just linked, they are one and the same. When you argue against "bad" political polarization, you argue for decreased political participation - you argue, in effect, for political apathy.

NOTE: The title of this post is DWSUWF Rule #1 (we never got around to writing rule #2), cribbed from the last time that DWSUWF was compelled to rise in defense of the great American tradition of political polarization: "Fellow travellers Tony Snow and David Gregory promote Un-American activities."

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Republicans, Divided Government, Democrats, Partisan, Polarized, Politics

Polarized Partisan Debate - An Optical Metaphor

Find two friends, one Republican and one Democrat. Have them close their eyes, and seat one directly in front of the screen, and place the other looking at the screen from at least fifteen feet (five meters) away. At a safe distance, find a comfortable seat, open a bottle of scotch and pour yourself a stiff drink. Tell your friends to open their eyes and ask them these three questions:

1. Is the person in this image smart or sexy?
2. Is the person in this image young or old?
3. Is the person in this image a man or a woman?

Without changing positions or perspective, or permitting either to move closer to or further from the screen, have them discuss and debate their views until they agree -or- the bottle is empty -or- you fall off the chair.

Welcome to the world of polarized, partisan, political debate in the United States today.

Hat tip to Dr. X and Neurophilosophy for the image.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, polarized, partisan, politics, Republican, Democrat, Iraq.

Unity08 and fellow travellers Tony Snow and David Gregory promote Un-American activities.

This gem by way of QandO blog and Think Progress:

"NBC News’ David Gregory bemoaned how political coverage has “become so polarized in this country…because it’s the internet and the blogs that have really used this White House press conferences to somehow support positions out in America, political views.” Tony Snow admitted he sometimes reads blogs (”I’ll occasionally punch it up”) only to find “wonderful, imaginative hateful stuff that comes flying out.”

So... Gregory and Snow agree that the blogosphere has exacerbated these new extremes of "hateful" partisan "polarization" in American politics. Bloggers at QandO and ThinkProgress take umbrage (as did blogs from across the political spectrum including Starked, The RNC Blog, Noisyroom.net, RedState, TexasFred, Hullaballoo, Shakespeare's Sister, Crooks and Liars, etc.) And just like that, Gregory and Snow have swept away all political partisanship in the blogosphere in a unified display of bi-partisan outpouring of scorn heaped on umm... Gregory and Snow.

QandO blogs reaction serves as a proxy:

"Blogs aren't the reason that political coverage has "become so polaraized in this country", they're the result. The reason for such polarization lies with the political and journalistic class in this country."

While they may differ on who is to blame for the polarization, all agree that this political polarization is really, really bad. Indeed, I just received another e-mail from Sam Waterston, the trusted face of the Unity08 promoters (noted anti-polarizers) asking for donations to help fight this scourge of polarized partisan politics in America. Unity08, despite having no candidates, and no actual positions on any issues facing this country, is garnering all kinds of publicity, built a slick web-site with a large community, and working on raising millions of dollars. All this on the strength of nothing but taking a principled stand against partisan polarized politics. Here Unity08 speaks out boldly on "What We Believe":

"Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people."

So this is what I don't get. Exactly when in our history did this golden era of partisan comity, respectful debate, and political unity (which we are apparently so nostalgic for) actually occur?

Just tell me - when was it like that? When?

I wonder, because my understanding of our history is that the kind of rancor and political polarization in the United States we see today is the rule, and not the exception. In fact, it strikes me that in historical context, we are today quite a bit less polarized and extreme than these examples:

"During the nation's first contested presidential election in 1796, supporters of Vice President John Adams charged his challenger, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, with atheism, sexual improprieties, and dangerous revolutionary intentions. For their part, Jefferson backers accused Adams of plotting to establish a monarchy, crown himself king, and ally the country with its foe, Great Britain."

"In the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson was tarred as an agent of the French Revolution..."

"Opponents of Andrew Jackson accused him of murder, while Old Hickory’s men whispered that his rival John Quincy Adams had been, while U.S. minister to Russia, a pimp for the tsar.."

"In 1864 the Lincoln reelection campaign equated opposition to the president and the Republican party with disloyalty to the Union..., depicted the Democrats essentially as traitors."

"Democrats also got personal, characterizing Grant as an alcoholic, uncouth, simple-minded, unprincipled, Negro-loving tyrant... "

"After the Civil War the Republicans would "wave the bloody shirt"-that is, associate the Democratic party with secession and opposition to the Union war effort-in every presidential election into the 1880s. The 1868 Democratic presidential nominee, Horatio Seymour, was an especial target of the "bloody shirt" because while New York governor in 1863 he had addressed the New York City draft rioters as "My friends." Others labeled his links to the Peace Democrats as the equivalence of treason."

"Democrats accused Rutherford Hayes of stealing the pay of deceased soldiers while he was a Union general, opposing citizenship for all immigrants, and income tax fraud. One Democrat encouraged the Tilden camp, to no avail, to investigate the question, "Did Hayes shoot his mother in a fit of insanity?"

"An Oct. 26 headline in the New York Times: "President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascists’ Tool."

And of course there is the particularly divisive 1860 election, when we as a country, actually decided to spend the post election environment literally shooting and killing over 600,000 of our fellow citizens.

One is tempted to suggest that unity, political civility, and polite debate is downright Un-American.

This interesting fact is from the same excellent HarpWeek website quoted above:

"The period from 1840 to 1890 has been labeled "the party period" and "the golden age of parties" because the major political parties (Democrats and Whigs until the mid-1850s, then Democrats and Republicans) were the strongest they have been in American history. Party leaders used patronage and campaign practices that aroused partisan enthusiasm to gain wide membership and keep them loyal and active. It worked. Voter turnout during this period was the highest in American history: between 70 and 80 percent for presidential elections and sometimes higher in state and local contests."

By comparison, the Voter turnout in the recent 2006 midterm election was slightly over 40%, an increase over the 39.7% turnout in the 2002 midterms. In the 2004 and 2000 presidential elections the turnout was 55% and 50% respectively.

Sure, this is only a couple of data points, but being a polarizing blogger I have no problem leaping to a sweeping conclusion. It seems pretty obvious to me, that if we want more participation by the American voting populace, we want more, not less, political polarization. And conversely, a unified, politically correct, socially acceptable and boring form of partisan discourse, will inevitably result in less participation in the political process.

What to do ? I suggest we just don't pay attention to those Un-American unifiers.

Instead, I submit for your consideration - Divided We Stand United We Fall Rule #1:

Polarized Partisan Politics Promotes Popular Participation.

Divided and Balanced.™ Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: divided government, David Gregory, libertarian, Tony Snow, 2008 election, polarized,partisan, politics, Unity08, Democrat, Republican, libertarian, It's the war stupid.