The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves…
Shakespeare penned those words; Nate Silver demonstrates their accuracy.
The increasing partisanship and polarization in Washington is making it more and more difficult to get anything meaningful done. The paralysis of government is real, and it is making all of us vulnerable–to economic recession, to climate change, to gun violence and all of the myriad challenges of contemporary social systems. Those in what Molly Ivins called the “chattering classes,” the punditocracy, bewail this state of affairs, and insist that the American public not only deserves better but deeply disapproves of this ideological rigidity.
Nate Silver begs to differ.
in a recent post for the New York Times, Silver demonstrates that the gridlock in Washington mirrors our own polarization. As recently as 1992, there were 103 swing Congressional districts; this year, there were 35. At the same time, the number of “landslide” districts doubled, from 123 to 242. As a result, most members of Congress now come from “hyperpartisan” districts where they face no general election threat. Any re-election challenge will come in a primary; in other words, Democrats must protect their left flanks, Republicans their right. As Silver notes, House members have little incentive to move toward the middle. Compromise with the other party simply makes them vulnerable to a primary challenge.
I have written about the pernicious effect of “safe” districts before, but I have generally assumed them to be the product of redistricting–gerrymandering. But Silver says the effect persists even if we ignore redistricting. He underscores what Bill Bishop reported in The Big Sort: people are voting with their feet, moving to areas they find congenial. The result is that Democrats are crammed into urban areas, and Republicans populate more rural districts. The result of that is the dilution of Democratic votes: in this year’s election, Democrats won the national popular vote by one point–an 8 point shift in their favor from 2010. But they gained only 8 House seats out of 435.
The results of these population patterns disadvantages Democrats by making continued control of the House by Republicans likely (absent a “wave” election), but it holds an even more serious threat to Republicans. As Silver points out, although individual Republican House members have little incentive to compromise, there are risks to the party if they fail to do so. Individual House members come from districts that reward them for being intractable, but that intransigence and hyper-partisanship make it increasingly difficult for the GOP to win either the Senate or the White House.
It seems appropriate, given how dysfunctional our government has become, to devolve from Shakespeare to Laurel and Hardy: this is certainly a fine kettle of fish we’ve gotten ourselves into!
Sheila,
I have taken the liberty of excerpting the core of your piece and posting to my FB page with the following heading.
To my friends left, right and center the following is an excerpt from a blog post by the thoughtful Sheila Suess Kennedy. It gives me pause and deepens my concern for our future as a nation. I think we must all listen to each other more directly instead of trying to listen to each other through our preferred sources (all of which tend to feed the beast). Let’s talk about how to do that.
I have to wonder if this migration leads to what has happened in the Senate and the Presidency, in reverse. While this gerrymandering helps Republicans in the House, the statewide numbers still benefit Democrats. In Wisconsin a Democrat can carry the state if they win Milwaukee and Madison solidly, because of the population density.
The thing with the fiscal cliff is that in three weeks time, I’ll get my W2’s from work. What my tax bill will look like depends on what the entire House does. See how slippery those hardliners become once working families out in the countryside are being squeezed. That’s the reality even the most strident fiscal conservative faces come next election. If they take money away from working families, that will not be forgotten.
I’m one of those people that have moved. I moved from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin and I can’t say I’ve regretted it one bit. I feel like I have a better life here.
Ultimately Republicans, even in
I have to wonder if this migration leads to what has happened in the Senate and the Presidency, in reverse. While this gerrymandering helps Republicans in the House, the statewide numbers still benefit Democrats. In Wisconsin a Democrat can carry the state if they win Milwaukee and Madison solidly, because of the population density.
The thing with the fiscal cliff is that in three weeks time, I’ll get my W2’s from work. What my tax bill will look like depends on what the entire House does. See how slippery those hardliners become once working families out in the countryside are being squeezed. That’s the reality even the most strident fiscal conservative faces come next election. If they take money away from working families, that will not be forgotten.
I’m one of those people that have moved. I moved from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin and I can’t say I’ve regretted it one bit. I feel like I have a better life here.