In my previous blog I discussed that elections have become increasingly close in recent years and tied this to advancements in technology. Despite the fact that elections have become closer, polarization in the country has become greater. How is this possible? It would seem that as elections become closer, i.e., more closely contested, that the differences between the political parties would decrease, resulting in less polarization. Why has this not happened? Again, advances in technology play a key role.
As discussed in my previous blog, advances in technology in the gathering and processing of data, in communications, and in artificial intelligence have better enabled political parties to identify and communicate with likely supporters, Also, it has better enabled them to identify the issue or issues that are most important to any particular group of voters and then tailor their message to emphasize that issue or issues to those voters. Parties can frame these messages to arouse the greatest possible reaction from those targeted and create the maximum animosity and fear towards the other political party. It is in the interest of political parties to portray these issues in an us against them framework because it creates greater commitment to the party and opposition to the other party. The greater the differences that voters believe exist between political parties, the more consequential and important elections become to the voters, and the greater the likelihood that party supporters will actually turn out and vote.
A consequence of this is that when political parties precisely identify the issue or issues that are of the most importance to any particular voter and then emphasize that particular issue or issues, voters become increasingly focused on only that particular issue or issues. It can be virtually the only thing that matters to the voter. The result is that other issues are of much less importance to them. As voters focus on fewer and fewer issues as being by far the most important to them, the fact that there may be agreement on other issues becomes less and less relevant.
Bi-partisanship, on the other hand, is based on the idea that politicians should focus on areas of the greatest potential agreement to work together to attempt to get something done. Compromises are more easily reached on less contentious issues. So there is a vision that if politicians will simply reach across the aisle and work with each other on less contentious issues, we can begin to move forward, avoid gridlock, and work to solve problems,
Unfortunately the very process of getting into power poisons the well of bi-partisanship. Again, ensuring voter turnout means emphasizing issues of the greatest disagreement and demonizing the other party as dangerous and extreme. This makes it more difficult to reach across the aisle in bi-partisanship because the other party has already been cast as untrustworthy and evil.
It also becomes increasingly difficult to find any issues that compromise can reached for two reasons. First, even on issues where agreement might be reached, it pays political parties and candidates to find disagreement on these issues in order to draw distinctions between them and the opposition. Who would ever have thought that an issue like wearing a face mask during a pandemic could become so politicized and polarizing?
Second, the issues that compromise might be reached on are the very issues that have been de-emphasized in the election, Therefore reaching agreement on them is seen as being relatively inconsequential to voters. As a result, politicians gain little goodwill from their voters for passing such legislation, so they have little incentive to work with legislators across the aisle on these issues. In fact, it may be more beneficial not to reach agreement and continue to paint the other side as uncompromising, difficult to work with, and even evil. This keeps party supporters engaged and fired up for future elections. We end up gridlock in Washington and a political system full of vitriol.
Of course, these types of issues have plagued our democracy from the beginning. Political campaigns of the past were often bitter and full of vitriol. The problem is that technology has amplified the ability for political parties to focus their efforts on the types of divisive, polarizing strategies in a manner that simply was not possible in the past.
There is no easy way out of this problem. Despite Joe Biden’s best efforts, there is very little likelihood that his former Republican colleagues will have any sort of “epiphany” and become willing to work with him in a bi-partisanship manner. The system just no longer is capable of working in that way. The solution probably lies in one of two directions.
The first is that one party sweeps the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. However, even this is not enough as long as the 60 vote filibuster exists in the Senate. With each party now receiving so close to 50% of the popular vote, it is extremely unlikely either side will be able to muster 60 Senate seats in the foreseeable future. This means that to actually pass meaningful legislation, either the 60 vote filibuster needs to be reduced to a more reasonable number, like 52, or the filibuster has to be eliminated altogether.
The second option is to have the President increasingly bypass the legislative process and rule through executive order. This has been an increasing tendency of Presidents over the last several administrations.
As the legislative process breaks down, the courts will take on an ever more important role in determining the future of the country. As a result, political parties will increasingly turn to the appointment of judges as a path to political control. The judicial appointment process will become more and more politicized. Aspirants to federal judicial appointments will feel ever greater pressure to commit to a particular political view to secure a judgeship. The courts could become more and more political. We have already seen this begin to happen.
Can the election process be changed so that the political process is less polarizing, parties can move closer together, and actually work together in a bi-partisan manner to deal with the issues our country faces? It seems like a long shot.
