Just how bad (or different) are modern politics?
By Clint Talbott
Conventional wisdom holds that partisan politics are as noxious as ever, or perhaps worse. Political scientists and historians see a more nuanced picture.
Ken Bickers, chair of the political science department, noted that President Obama promised to soften the divisiveness, the coarseness, of politics. “If he does that, it will be a signal accomplishment,” Bickers said.
Bickers and other scholars discussed Obama and the political landscape during a May 15-16 Alumni College sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences and the Alumni Association of CU-Boulder.
The dominant political parties are locked in bitter opposition to each other. While surveys show that Obama has high approval ratings, he also has unusually high disapproval ratings.
Why? “There are very few people who don’t already have an opinion,” Bickers said.
That situation can be blamed partly on certain kinds of polarization. In one form, parties can be polarized on particular issues. In another, called conflict extension, parties start aligning on a broader range of packages and issues.
Traditionally, knowing where a person stood on issues of taxation didn’t necessarily mean you could predict what that person believed about other issues. “These days, it’s more predictive,” Bickers said.
Party polarization is worsened when party activists start aligning themselves across a broad range of issues. “We used to worry about single-issue voters,” Bickers said. “They are not the problem. The problem is when party activists start drawing their parties to the extremes.”
This “conflict extension” makes it harder to govern and forge compromises. “There are fewer moderates in Congress,” Bickers said, noting that it would be difficult for Obama to soften the tone.
E. Scott Adler, an associate professor of political science, suggested that politics have become more personal. “We’ve moved from what used to be party-oriented elections to campaign-oriented elections,” Adler said.
“Outside groups use hyperbole and scare tactics to mobilize voters,” Adler said. “So you make people believe whomever you’re opposing is a monster.”
Patricia Limerick, a professor of history and director of CU’s Center of the American West, said people are sometimes too quick to conclude that partisan rancor is at a peak. “History works well as a nostalgia blocker on this.”
She mentioned the lifelong enmity between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and the Republicans’ campaign slogan against candidate Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering an illegitimate son. The slogan was: “Ma, ma! Where’s my pa? Gone to the White House. Ha, ha, ha!”
Robert D. Schulzinger, a professor of distinction of history and international affairs and the organizer of the Alumni College, said he doubted that the divisions are significantly worse today.
Edward Greenberg, a professor of political science and behavioral science, argues that the political landscape may be changing in other ways. He noted that the Democratic Party dominated Congress and the presidency from 1932 to 1968, a period sandwiched by the New Deal and Richard M. Nixon.
The Reagan revolution in 1980 gave the GOP an advantage until 2004, Greenberg said. But things have changed, he said.
The Democrats made significant gains in 2006 and 2008, taking 13 seats in the Senate alone. In the ’08 election, Obama won a significant majority of moderate voters, new voters, minority voters and educated voters.
Greenberg attributed that change in part to the “de-legitimization of the low-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation agenda” of the Republicans. While acknowledging that Obama could fail, “I would argue that we are in the midst of a fundamental realignment that I think is on the scale of the New Deal.”
Schulzinger suggested that the nation may be experiencing a different sort of political transformation with Obama’s help.
Obama’s success can be partly attributed to his emphasis on ending “the petty distractions” of party politics, Schulzinger said. Obama suggested that it was time to transcend the anger of the Clinton years and the cultural divide heightened by the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
That message “really resonated across generations,” Schulzinger said. “He is clearly in that mode of getting beyond petty, sterile debates. It’s part of his appeal to that 65 percent of the population that approves of him and also why so many disapprove of him.”
Schulzinger also highlighted an anecdote about Obama’s recent visits to manufacturing plants, where the president was “thrilled and excited” by what he saw. Schulzinger noted that Obama, who has gone to top-notch schools and worked in academia, has not been exposed to the world of manufacturing.
But today’s college graduates should be fascinated by the way things work, ways to make things work better, and ways to make new things that never before existed. The spirit of invention, innovation and hope are needed in America, Schulzinger suggested.
Obama’s being thrilled by work of factories, and his being deeply impressed by the dedication of the military, shows that “he has this capacity for wonder at his advanced age,” Schulzinger said. “I think that’s very encouraging.”
Also see: Mixed reviews, cloudy outlook for Obama
Conventional wisdom holds that partisan politics are as noxious as ever, or perhaps worse. Political scientists and historians see a more nuanced picture.
Ken Bickers
Ken Bickers, chair of the political science department, noted that President Obama promised to soften the divisiveness, the coarseness, of politics. “If he does that, it will be a signal accomplishment,” Bickers said.
Bickers and other scholars discussed Obama and the political landscape during a May 15-16 Alumni College sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences and the Alumni Association of CU-Boulder.
The dominant political parties are locked in bitter opposition to each other. While surveys show that Obama has high approval ratings, he also has unusually high disapproval ratings.
Why? “There are very few people who don’t already have an opinion,” Bickers said.
That situation can be blamed partly on certain kinds of polarization. In one form, parties can be polarized on particular issues. In another, called conflict extension, parties start aligning on a broader range of packages and issues.
Traditionally, knowing where a person stood on issues of taxation didn’t necessarily mean you could predict what that person believed about other issues. “These days, it’s more predictive,” Bickers said.
Party polarization is worsened when party activists start aligning themselves across a broad range of issues. “We used to worry about single-issue voters,” Bickers said. “They are not the problem. The problem is when party activists start drawing their parties to the extremes.”
This “conflict extension” makes it harder to govern and forge compromises. “There are fewer moderates in Congress,” Bickers said, noting that it would be difficult for Obama to soften the tone.
E. Scott Adler, an associate professor of political science, suggested that politics have become more personal. “We’ve moved from what used to be party-oriented elections to campaign-oriented elections,” Adler said.
“Outside groups use hyperbole and scare tactics to mobilize voters,” Adler said. “So you make people believe whomever you’re opposing is a monster.”
Patricia Limerick, a professor of history and director of CU’s Center of the American West, said people are sometimes too quick to conclude that partisan rancor is at a peak. “History works well as a nostalgia blocker on this.”
She mentioned the lifelong enmity between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, and the Republicans’ campaign slogan against candidate Grover Cleveland, accused of fathering an illegitimate son. The slogan was: “Ma, ma! Where’s my pa? Gone to the White House. Ha, ha, ha!”
Robert D. Schulzinger
Robert D. Schulzinger, a professor of distinction of history and international affairs and the organizer of the Alumni College, said he doubted that the divisions are significantly worse today.
Edward Greenberg, a professor of political science and behavioral science, argues that the political landscape may be changing in other ways. He noted that the Democratic Party dominated Congress and the presidency from 1932 to 1968, a period sandwiched by the New Deal and Richard M. Nixon.
The Reagan revolution in 1980 gave the GOP an advantage until 2004, Greenberg said. But things have changed, he said.
The Democrats made significant gains in 2006 and 2008, taking 13 seats in the Senate alone. In the ’08 election, Obama won a significant majority of moderate voters, new voters, minority voters and educated voters.
Edward Greenberg
Greenberg attributed that change in part to the “de-legitimization of the low-tax, anti-government, anti-regulation agenda” of the Republicans. While acknowledging that Obama could fail, “I would argue that we are in the midst of a fundamental realignment that I think is on the scale of the New Deal.”
Schulzinger suggested that the nation may be experiencing a different sort of political transformation with Obama’s help.
Obama’s success can be partly attributed to his emphasis on ending “the petty distractions” of party politics, Schulzinger said. Obama suggested that it was time to transcend the anger of the Clinton years and the cultural divide heightened by the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.
That message “really resonated across generations,” Schulzinger said. “He is clearly in that mode of getting beyond petty, sterile debates. It’s part of his appeal to that 65 percent of the population that approves of him and also why so many disapprove of him.”
Schulzinger also highlighted an anecdote about Obama’s recent visits to manufacturing plants, where the president was “thrilled and excited” by what he saw. Schulzinger noted that Obama, who has gone to top-notch schools and worked in academia, has not been exposed to the world of manufacturing.
But today’s college graduates should be fascinated by the way things work, ways to make things work better, and ways to make new things that never before existed. The spirit of invention, innovation and hope are needed in America, Schulzinger suggested.
Obama’s being thrilled by work of factories, and his being deeply impressed by the dedication of the military, shows that “he has this capacity for wonder at his advanced age,” Schulzinger said. “I think that’s very encouraging.”
Also see: Mixed reviews, cloudy outlook for Obama