Advertisement

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

  • Onawa Promise LacewellEmail author
  • Annika Werner
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Polarization Party manifestos Republican party Democratic party Tea party Occupy movement 

Literatur

  1. Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, L. (1998). Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. Journal of Politics, 60(3), 634–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, A., & Saunders, L. (2008). Is polarization a myth. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich, J. H., & Rhode, D. W. (2000). The republican revolution and the house appropriations committee. The Journal of Politics, 62(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binder, S. (1999). The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947–96. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budge, I., & Laver, M. (1986). Policy, ideology, and party distance: Analysis of election programmes in 19 democracies. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11(4), 607–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carmines, E. G., McIver, J. P., & Stimson, J. A. (1987). Unrealized partisanship: A theory of dealignment. Journal of Politics, 49(2), 376–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. Clinton, J., & Jackman, S. (2009). To simulate or nominate? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(4), 593–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope. J. (2000). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longmann Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, M. (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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/.
  19. Jacobson, G. C. (1996). The 1994 house elections in perspective. Political Science Quarterly, 111(2), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Key, V. O. (1955). A theory of critical elections. Journal of Politics, 17, 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Laver, M. (2001). Estimating the policy position of political actors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Laver, M., & Budge, I. (1992). Party policy and government coalitions. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  25. Laver, M., & Garry, J. (2000). Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 619–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayhew, D. R. (1991). Divided party control: Does it make a difference? PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(4), 637–640.Google Scholar
  30. Mayhew, D. R. (2000). Electoral realignments. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. McCarty, N. M., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal. H. (2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 666–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. Pomper, G. M., Foster, B. G., et al. (eds.) (1972). The performance of American government: Checks and minuses. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rhode, D. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stonecash, J. M., Brewer, M. D., & Marriani, M. D. (2003). Diverging parties: Social change, realignment, and party polarization. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Theriault, S. M. (2006). Party polarization in the U.S. congress: Member replacement and member adaptation. Party Politics, 12(4), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verba, S, Nie, N. H., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung Demokratie und DemokratisierungWissenschaftszentrum Berlin für SozialforschungBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations