Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012 pp 85–108Cite as

Divided We Fall? Polarization in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The chapter emphasizes the “supply side polarization” of politics by comparing party policy positions. To develop their analysis, the authors use data from the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP/MARPOR). While in public perception there are huge differences between both parties (and even more, between the candidates), reviewed data do not separate Democrats and Republicans sharply. While the Republicans stayed relatively stable in their conservative ideological supply, Democrats moved back onto the liberal side for the first time after 2000. Hence, this election was indeed more polarized than the elections before. But, in a more long-term perspective, the 2012 election does not stand out as particularly polarized because the polarization of 2012 is smaller than the peak elections of 1964 and the 1980s. In general, cultural (morality, abortion) and social issues (welfare, healthcare) played a strong role in the 2012 election, revealing areas of distinction between the two parties. Additionally, the chapter discusses the influence of the Tea Party and the Occupy movement on the positions of Democrats and Republicans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g., NY Times 29.8. 2012, 05.09. 2012; Washington Times 27.08. 2012; Chicago Tribune 27.08. 2012, 05.09. 2012.

  2. 2.

    Abramowitz and Saunders actually identify three issue areas where party stances should become more polarized: cultural, social, and racial. However, the CMP/MARPOR party platform data does not include a separate coding of race issues.

  3. 3.

    See https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu.

  4. 4.

    A finding which corresponds to the results of, e.g., Klingemann et al. 2006, who find cyclical patterns of convergence and divergence in European party systems.

  5. 5.

    The scales of the y-axis of Figs. 5 and 9 range from 0 to 30 because of the frequent reference to libertarian values and social justice topics in the manifestos. For Figs. 4, 6, 7 and 8 this scale runs only to 10 for ease of visual interpretation.

Literatur

  • Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, L. (2008). Is polarization a myth. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rhode, D. W. (1997). The transition to republican rule in the house: Implications for theories of congressional politics. Political Science Quarterly, 112(4), 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., & Rhode, D. W. (2000). The republican revolution and the house appropriations committee. The Journal of Politics, 62(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–96. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., & Laver, M. (1986). Policy, ideology, and party distance: Analysis of election programmes in 19 democracies. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11(4), 607–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., Robertson, D., & Hearl, D. J. (1987). Ideology, strategy and party change: Spatial analyses of post-war election programmes in 19 democraties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Tanenbaum, E., Fording, R. C., et al. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Parties, elections, and government: Estimates for parties, electors and governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., McIver, J. P., & Stimson, J. A. (1987). Unrealized partisanship: A theory of dealignment. Journal of Politics, 49(2), 376–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chicago Tribune. (2012). Democrats backpedal and change language on Jerusalem. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-05/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-israelbre8841jc-20120905_1_obama-and-jewish-voters-aipac-platform-language. Accessed 5 Sept 2012.

  • Chicago Tribune. (2012) The GOP’s rage platform. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-27/news/ct-oped-0827-milbank-20120827_1_platform-writers-platform-committee-shariah-law. Accessed 27 Aug 2012.

  • Clinton, J., & Jackman, S. (2009). To simulate or nominate? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(4), 593–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies, 41(7), 899–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope. J. (2000). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longmann Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, M. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzmann, S. (2010). The change of ideology: How the left–right cleavage transforms into issue competition: An analysis of party systems using party manifesto data. PhD Dissertation, Universitaet Koeln. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/3033/.

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1996). The 1994 house elections in perspective. Political Science Quarterly, 111(2), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (2000). Reversal of fortune: The transformation of U.S. House elections in the 1990s. In W. Brady, J. W. Foster, J. F. Cogan, & M. P. Fiorina. (Eds.), Change and continuity in house elections (pp. 10–38). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V. O. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics, 17, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I., & McDonald, M. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M. (2001). Estimating the policy position of political actors. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., & Budge, I. (1992). Party policy and government coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., & Garry, J. (2000). Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 619–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 311–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (1991). Divided party control: Does it make a difference? PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(4), 637–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. R. (2000). Electoral realignments. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2005). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. UC Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal. H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., Miller, W. E., Raine, A. S., & Brown, T. (1976). A majority party in disarray: Policy polarization in the 1972 election. American Political Science Review, 70(3), 753–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NY Times. (2012). Party platforms are poles apart in their view of the nation http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/us/politics/how-the-party-platforms-differ.html?_r=0. Accessed 5 Sept 2012.

  • NY Times (2012). Platform’s sharp turn to right has conservatives cheering http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/politics/republican-platform-takes-turn-to-right.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2012.

  • Pomper, G. M. & Weiner, M.D (2000).Toward a more responsible two-party voter: The evolving bases of partisanship. American political science association meeting. Washington, D.C., September 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomper, G. M., Foster, B. G., et al. (eds.) (1972). The performance of American government: Checks and minuses. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, D. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Marriani, M. D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundquist, J.L (1973/1983). Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2006). Party polarization in the U.S. congress: Member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S, Nie, N. H., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Times. (2012). SCHLAFLY: Republican party platform best yet http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/27/republican-party-platform-best-yet/. Accessed 27 Aug 2012

  • Werner, A., Lacewell, O. P., & Andrea, V. (2011). Manifesto Coding Instructions (4th edn). The manifesto project (MARPOR). https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/information/documents?name=handbook_v4.

  • Werner, A., & Lacewell, O. P, & Promise, L. O. (2012). Programmatic supply and the autonomy of US state parties in 2008 and 2010. Regional & Federal Studies, 22(5), 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Demokratie und Demokratisierung, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Reichpietschufer 50, 10785, Berlin, Deutschland

    Dr. Onawa Promise Lacewell & Annika Werner Ph. D

Authors
  1. Dr. Onawa Promise Lacewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annika Werner Ph. D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onawa Promise Lacewell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Christoph Bieber

  2. HdM Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Klaus Kamps

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lacewell, O., Werner, A. (2016). Divided We Fall? Polarization in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. In: Bieber, C., Kamps, K. (eds) Die US-Präsidentschaftswahl 2012. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19767-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19767-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19766-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19767-8

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation