Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:19:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Long-Term Negative Consequence of the "Reagan Revolution"?  (Read 7679 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,916


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 01, 2004, 01:35:04 AM »
« edited: May 01, 2004, 01:36:37 AM by Senator Beet »

This article shows that America has become starkly more partisan over the past quarter century; and that the pro-partisanship forces are now becoming self-feeding, which is dangerous to a healthy democracy. Why might this be so? The beginning of the period of rising partisanship coincided precisely with the re-alignment of the parties on ideological bounds starting in the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan (of course Reagan himself had no idea such a thing would happen). Nevertheless, this shift is one of the most enduring & unforseen consequences of this "revolution", and it is not good for America.

Communities grow more partisan
Study finds counties politically segregated

AUSTIN [TEXAS] AMERICAN-
Published on: 04/03/04

Since the 2000 election, pundits have emphasized that the United States is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Nationally, this is true.

At the local level, however, that 50-50 split disappears. In its place is a country so out of balance, so politically divided that there is little competition in presidential contests between the parties in most U.S. counties, according to an Austin American-Statesman study of election returns since 1948.
 
By the end of the dead-even 2000 presidential election, American communities were more lopsidedly Republican or Democratic than at any other time in the past half-century.
 
The geographical division found by the Statesman and its statistical consultant, Robert Cushing, is a change from the recent past. From the end of World War II until the mid-1970s, U.S. counties became more and more politically mixed, based on presidential voting. Through the 1950s and '60s, Americans were more likely to live in a community with a relatively even mixture of Republicans and Democrats.
 
In 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford by only 2 percentage points, 26.8 percent of American voters lived in counties with landslide presidential election results, where one party had 60 percent or more of the vote.
 
Twenty-four years and six presidential elections later, when George Bush and Al Gore were virtually tied nationally, 45.3 percent of all voters lived in a landslide county. And now the nation enters a new election year divided both ideologically and geographically in ways few can remember.
 
On average, voters are less likely today to live in a community that has an even mix of Republican and Democratic voters than at any time since World War II. They are less likely to live near someone with a different political point of view and are more likely to live in a political atmosphere either overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic.
 
"I don't think we are at a really dangerous stage," said Cass Sunstein, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. "But if it's a case that people really are pretty rigidly Republican or Democratic, and that's widespread, that's not healthy. Our democracy is supposed to be one where people learn from one another and listen."
 
Sunstein's concern is rooted in more than 300 social science research efforts over the past 40 years that have found a striking phenomenon when like-minded people cluster: They tend to become more extreme in their thinking. They polarize.
 
This research predicted that the increasing physical segregation of voters in the United States would result in a more polarized and partisan political culture. And that is exactly what is happening.
 
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press late last year examined public opinion polls back to 1987 and found that the United States "remains a country that is almost evenly divided politically — yet further apart than ever in its political values."
 
In mid-March, the Gallup poll found that 91 percent of Republicans approved of President Bush's job performance, while only 17 percent of Democrats felt likewise. The gap between Republican and Democratic support for an incumbent — 74 percentage points — was the largest Gallup has ever observed at that point in a presidential election year.
 
Highly partisan presidential politics isn't the only sign of political segregation. As counties become more politically pure, they push their representatives in state legislatures and Congress to more extreme positions. Legislative compromise becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, election campaigns become less interested in convincing a dwindling number of undecided voters and more concerned with whipping up the enthusiasm of their most partisan backers.
 
Since the early and mid-1970s, the American political scene shifted dramatically from the independent-minded, ticket-splitting, nonpartisan landscape documented 30 years ago by Washington Post political reporter David Broder in a book titled, "The Party's Over."
 
• Voters have grown more partisan.
 
Party loyalties rebounded in the 1980s and '90s. Since 1980, party loyalty has increased to levels "unsurpassed over any comparable time span since the turn of the last century," writes Princeton University political scientist Larry Bartels. The percentage of people who see important differences between the parties went from 46 percent in 1972 to 66 percent in 2000.
 
• The parties have become more ideological.
 
The percentage of conservatives who call themselves Democrats, and liberals who call themselves Republicans, has been declining since 1972. The two parties once were a stew of conflicting ideologies — mixtures that included northern liberal Republicans and conservative rural Democrats. Now they are growing more ideologically pure.
 
• Congress compromises less often.
 
Despite the rancor caused by war and the civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were fewer strict party-line votes in those years than at any time since World War II. Since then, the number of times a majority of Republicans in Congress have voted opposite a majority of Democrats has steadily increased. The percentage of these party-line votes in the 1990s was higher than for any 10-year period since 1950, and the parties "differ more on issues now than at any time since the early days of the New Deal," wrote Colby College political scientist Mark Brewer.
 
• Voters cast more straight party tickets.
 
In the 2000 and 2002 elections, ticket splitting — where voters cast ballots for both Republicans and Democrats — "declined to the lowest levels in over 30 years," according to University of Missouri-St. Louis political scientist David Kimball.
 
A gradual switch
 
Los Angeles County, Calif., was Republican from 1948 through the end of the Reagan administration in 1988. The only blip was a vote for Johnson in the 1964 landslide election.
 
The elections were close, however. The 1960 Kennedy/Nixon contest was a toss-up in Los Angeles County, just like the rest of the country.
 
But since Los Angeles tipped toward the Democrats in 1988, the county has grown more and more Democratic. In the 50-50 election of 2000, 66 percent of the voters in L.A. were for Al Gore.
 
What happened in L.A. is typical of what's happening in thousands of U.S. counties.
 
Counties tip to one party or another, staying with that party election after election. Republican counties, on average, are becoming more Republican. Democratic counties are becoming more Democratic, according to the Statesman's analysis of more than 50 years of presidential voting results.
 
There aren't just a few counties that have tipped Democratic or Republican. Most American voters live in counties with presidential party preferences that haven't changed in a generation, according to Cushing's analysis. And the majorities in those counties are growing.
 
In metro Atlanta, such trends are more difficult to spot, in part because native son Jimmy Carter attracted unusual numbers of Democratic votes in 1976 and 1980, and Southerner Bill Clinton did the same — but to a lesser degree — in 1992 and 1996. The area's largest county, Fulton, has remained fairly competitive since World War II, never delivering more than 60 percent of its votes for one party, except for the Carter years. Al Gore won the county with 58 percent in 2000.
 
The area's second-largest county, DeKalb, has become a landslide county. DeKalb was competitive, but it delivered GOP victories from 1964 to 1984, not including the Carter elections. But starting in 1988, when it tipped to the Democrats, it has grown steadily more Democratic, giving Gore 70 percent in 2000.
 
Across the country, 60 percent of Republican voters live in counties that have voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 1980. Sixty percent of the Democratic voters live in counties that have voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since 1988.
 
"If you don't have anyone in your network of associates who thinks the least bit different from you, then it's pretty easy to grow confident in the correctness of your views," said University of Maryland political demographer James Gimpel. "There is no opportunity in those . . . neighborhoods for dissonance to arise. And so by keeping dissonance out, you wind up gravitating toward a more extreme political position. This is one explanation for the increase in ideology you see not only in the public, but in Congress."
 
Eric Sundquist of the Journal-Constitution contributed material for this article.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2004, 01:42:20 AM »

Great article.  I wonder if you think the advent of cable news networks around the same time period has contributed?  The 24 hour news netwroks just blab on and on about personalities and scandals, I think it just serves to anger voters who might otherwise be sensible.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2004, 02:04:52 AM »

They missed the primary cause of polarized counties - self-segregation by moving farther out into the suburbs.  Newer, richer suburbs are overwhelmingly Republican, leaving cities and older more established suburbs to become more Democrat because that's who's left.  

I would agree however that 'rural america' has become more polarized towards the GOP than in the past, without any major migration factors.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2004, 06:05:37 AM »

A lot of this article is true, but I don't see what any of it has to do with the Reagan revolution.  The country was far more polarized after 8 years of Clinton than 8 years of Ronald Reagan.

I think that in the last decade or so, liberals are more aggressively pushing their agenda, particularly their social agenda.  The conservative agenda on social issues is essentially a status quo agenda - traditional family values, traditional marriage, etc.  There's nothing in the conservative social agenda that wasn't accepted as mainstream until relatively recently.

I think it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that a ban on gay marriage as proposed by conservatives is a big turn to the right.  Gay marriage has always been banned, and it's liberals who have made it an issue, not conservatives.

Liberals have created polarization by pushing for things like gay marriage and the acceptance of "alternative families" that many in the country believe are destructive to our social fabric.  Liberal crusades like feminism have had a big effect on society, and it has not all been positive.

This is not to say that liberals are wrong on all issues, but that for the most part, it is they who have initiated the push for certain changes.  I think some of them are good and some bad.

One thing that is highly polarizing is the use by liberals of the courts to push through unpopular social initiatives like legalized abortion and gay marriage.  I think it would be far better and less polarizing if these issues were handled through the democratic process.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2004, 07:38:17 AM »

Reagan really divided America, more so than anyone before him.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2004, 07:54:52 AM »

Reagan really divided America, more so than anyone before him.

How?  Please elaborate.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2004, 08:04:14 AM »

Reagan really divided America, more so than anyone before him.

How?  Please elaborate.

He was loved by 60% and hated by 40%...Carter was hated by 99% but that's different, he was a bad president.  Reagan is held by many as the best president ever, and ebcause of his divisive qualities, his Approval ratings neve rclimbed above 60%.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2004, 09:16:40 AM »

What I don't understand is how this can be true, when we have states that tend towards one party in certain elections and towards another party in others.  The Dakotas are the most extreme example- always vote Republican for President, but with 4 Democratic senators.  ND's House member is Dem, and SD appears poised to elect a Dem next month.
Logged
ShapeShifter
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2004, 09:22:20 AM »

The country has become polarized ever since Republicans went on a witch hunt to get rid of Clinton for lieing about a hummer.
Logged
ShapeShifter
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,711


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2004, 10:09:14 AM »

The country has become polarized ever since Republicans went on a witch hunt to get rid of Clinton for lieing about a hummer.

H2?

H2O ?? Sorry don't follow.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2004, 01:04:09 PM »

We need a new third party to shake it all up Smiley Wink Smiley
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,916


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2004, 01:04:41 PM »
« Edited: May 01, 2004, 01:22:21 PM by Senator Beet »

John D. Ford- good point. Though I don't watch TV, the new cable formats do seem to be more effective in riling up emotions in a shallow but addictive fashion. The media as a whole has gone to crap over the past 50 years, but that's a another story. Right now they spend less time covering the substance of the issues (in fact by past standards, they spend virtually no time covering the substance) and all the time covering the "horse race".

opebo- yeah but that doesn't address the deeper question, why is all this self-segreation starting now? Its not like there was no geographical mobility in the past. And considering the high incomes of at least some Democrats, they should be moving into the outer suburbs too.

A lot of this article is true, but I don't see what any of it has to do with the Reagan revolution.  The country was far more polarized after 8 years of Clinton than 8 years of Ronald Reagan.

Disputable, but the process of becoming more party-polarized (I agree the nation was more party-polarized in 2000 than 1988) started around 1980- it's not Reagan's fault per se, it's just that the parties aligned themselves ideologically starting around then.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except for gay marriage, I don't see the conservative "agenda" as the status quo agenda (just as the liberal "agenda" is status quo except for abortion for the most part). The status quo agenda would be to support the status quo. The conservative agenda is to push America socially back into the 1950's. So neither the liberal or conservative "agenda" is status quo.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this may have been true in the past, but today, except for gay marriage, which is now stalled, it is the conservatives who are pushing their agenda through the Bush administration & Congress. Conservatives have had the legislative initiative since 1994 and the administrative initiative since 2000. Therefore it is both liberals pushing for things like gay marriage & revising the pledge, and conservatives pushing for things such as censorship, rolling back reproductive rights, school vouchers, trying to put prayer in schools. Overall I think the country is better off now than it was in the 1950's. I would rather live today than then. Even though there seemed to have been few social problems then, it was really the social problems being pushed into the background and not addressed, which is why they exploded later.

Starting around 1995 the conservatives on balance captured the agenda-setting and framing initiative (ironically this was soon after all the social indicators started to head in positive directions). So I would say the opposite that you said, around the last ten years or so it is the conservatives who have become more aggressive in pushing their agenda.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legalized abortion is supported by a large majority, and elective abortion is supported by a majority or plurality, and gay marriage is supported by a large minority. Judges generally do not go against the popular will here, contrary to myth. Thus only in the liberal areas of SF and MA, where there is widespread support for gay marriage, do you see balanced judicial involvement.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2004, 01:54:41 PM »


Thanks Smiley
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2004, 02:54:42 PM »

Okay, this whole idea is just stupid.  The only reason why things are the way they are now is because we are in a period of deallignment heading into a new realignment.  It has nothing to do with the Reagan Revelution being bad for America, although the realignment is being caused by it..  Here are some of the signs that realignment is taking place:

1)  Many party switchers, ticket spliters and independents

2) 3rd party candidates become more important in deciding elections

3)The Electoral College Misfires

4) Special interests groups become as important as goverment institutions in governing.

5) Courts become more important than legislature in deciding issues facing the country.

6) Increasing partisanship by the two parties in Congress.

7) Long periods of divided government or slim party control.

Gee, that sounds a lot like today doesn't it?  Realignment has happened 6 times in our nations past and we have always emerged from it in the past.

If Bush wins, common consensus says that the realignment will be sealed and we will enter what serious Political Scientists are already calling the "Republican Era".

If Kerry wins, then we will continue in a period of dealignment, perhapes for the next two decades.
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,903


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2004, 03:27:35 PM »
« Edited: May 02, 2004, 08:39:52 PM by TheGiantSaguaro »

I'd certainly say that we were far more divided in 1980 and 2000 (at the close of the last two Democratic President's terms) than we were in 1990. All Reagan did was fight back (against high taxes, weak military, weak foreign policy, socialism, etc.) and give a rather large percentage of the American population hope. After having been stuck with LBJ, Carter (and their policies as mentioned above), and the Nixon scandals, I would say Reagan and his strength and appeal united the country a great deal. The only way he could have divided the country in the present is if people, having realized what Reagan did for the country, do not want to go back to the days of weak military, high taxes, socialism, run-and-hide foreign policy, etc.

I mean Clinton got elected in 1992 because he (along with Perot) was successfully able to divide the country. That's how he campaigned. It's like a good old classic liberal strategy - make people angry and resentful.

Still, good article.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2005, 06:34:50 PM »

Reagan really divided America, more so than anyone before him.

How? Please elaborate.

He was loved by 60% and hated by 40%...Carter was hated by 99% but that's different, he was a bad president. Reagan is held by many as the best president ever, and ebcause of his divisive qualities, his Approval ratings neve rclimbed above 60%.

Actually, he 65% around November of 1986, and something like 80% had a favorable opinion of him personally. So I don't think you can say he was 'hated.'

A significant portion of the country also hated FDR.

The country is a lot less polarized today than in, say, 1920.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2005, 10:03:56 AM »

Reagan really divided America, more so than anyone before him.

How? Please elaborate.

He was loved by 60% and hated by 40%...Carter was hated by 99% but that's different, he was a bad president. Reagan is held by many as the best president ever, and ebcause of his divisive qualities, his Approval ratings neve rclimbed above 60%.

Actually, he 65% around November of 1986, and something like 80% had a favorable opinion of him personally. So I don't think you can say he was 'hated.'

A significant portion of the country also hated FDR.

The country is a lot less polarized today than in, say, 1920.

I don't think Clinton caused the polarization of America that affects us today.  Nor do I believe Reagan did.  The culture wars may have played a part.  The advent of 24-hour news networks and talk radio became a showcase for bias on either side (though much more so with conservatives on talk radio).  I think that the spinning and skewed opinions from both helped divide the country.  Another cause of division is the increasing early coverage of presidential elections.  Think about it:  it's been less than a year since the 2004 election and everybody is already talking about 2008!  This would have been unthinkable fifty years ago.  The networks should stop trying to cover a permanent presidential campaign and report news other than politics. 

No one person is to blame for this division in our country.  And as A18 points out, it could be worse.  In the '20s, the Klan was enjoying a renaissance, and voters would not even think about voting for Al Smith because they believed the Pope would control the White House.  In 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachussetts was beaten with a cane by Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina just for speaking in opposition to slavery.  At least we don't have Barbara Boxer and Marilyn Musgrave getting into catfights or Tom Coburn and Ted Kennedy trading punches at the Capitol. 
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2005, 10:52:51 AM »

At least we don't have Barbara Boxer and Marilyn Musgrave getting into catfights or Tom Coburn and Ted Kennedy trading punches at the Capitol. 

That would make C-Span more watchable though.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.24 seconds with 11 queries.