The onward march of (asymmetric) political polarization in the contemporary congress

Issues in American Politics: Polarized Politics in the Age of Obama

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 98-121

  Owens, John E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921607897     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203524381     Document Type: Chapter

References (137)

1. Jamie Carson, ‘Electoral Accountability, Party Loyalty, and Roll-Call Voting in the U.S. Senate’, in Nathan W. Monroe, Jason M. Roberts and David W. Rohde, eds, Why Not Parties? Party Effects in the United States Senate (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 23-38.
2. Frank Newport, ‘Congress’ Job Approval at New Low of 10%: Republicans and Democrats Equally Negative’, Gallup.com, 8 February 2012, accessed 10 February 2012 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/152528/Congress-Job-Approval-New-Low.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics.
3. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Trends in American Values: 1987-2012. Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years, 4 June (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2012), 55.
4. Michael R. Wolf, J. Cherie Strachan and Daniel M. Shea, ‘Incivility and Standing Firm: A Second Layer of Partisan Division’, PS (July 2012), 432.
5. Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, ‘The Polarization of American Politics’, Journal of Politics (December 1984), 1061-1079;
6. Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996);
7. Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Ideology and Congress, 2nd rev. edn (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2007);
8. Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).
9. Alan I. Abramowitz, The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 69-70;
10. John Aldrich, Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995);
11. Edward G. Carmines and James A. Stimson, Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990);
12. Nelson W. Polsby, How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);
13. Poole and Rosenthal, Ideology and Congress.
14. David W. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
15. Larry M. Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008);
16. Andrew Gelman, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008);
17. Jamie Carson, Michael H. Crespin, Charles J. Finocchiaro and David W. Rohde, ‘Redistricting and Party Polarization in the US House of Representatives’, American Politics Research, 35(3) (2007), 878-904;
18. Sean T. Theriault, ‘Political Polarization in the US Congress: Member Replacement and Member Adaptation’, Party Politics, 12(4) (2006), 483-503.
19. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders (1998), ‘Ideological Realignment in the American Electorate’, Journal of Politics, 60 (1998), 634-652;
20. Gary C. Jacobson, ‘Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection’, in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, eds, Polarized Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000), 9-30.
21. Abramowitz, Disappearing Center, 34-61;
22. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, ‘Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America’, The Forum, 3(2) (2005);
23. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, ‘Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology’, Political Research Quarterly, 59(1) (2006), 175-179.
24. Philip E. Converse, ‘Democratic Theory and Electoral Reality’, Critical Review, 18 (2006), 297-329;
25. Marc Hetherington, ‘Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization’, American Political Science Review, 93(3) (2001), 619-631;
26. Geoffrey C. Layman and Thomas M. Carsey, ‘Party Polarization and “Conflict Extension” in the American Electorate’, American Journal of Political Science, 46(3) (2002), 786-802;
27. Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams and Jeremy C. Pope, Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005).
28. Alan I. Abramowitz, ‘Disconnected, or Joined at the Hip?’, in Pietro S. Nivola and David W. Brady, Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008), 72-85, 72;
29. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders (1998), ‘Ideological Realignment in the American Electorate’, Journal of Politics, 60(3) (2005), 634-652;
30. Samuel J. Abrams and Morris P. Fiorina, ‘The Big Sort That Wasn't: A Skeptical Re-examination’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(2) (2012), 203-210, 208;
31. Jeffrey M. Stonecash, Mark D. Brewer and Mark D. Mariani, Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003);
32. B. Dan Wood and Soren Jordan, ‘Electoral Polarization: Definition, Measurement and Evaluation’, Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1-4 September 2011.
33. Pew Research Center, Trends in American Values, 99-100.
34. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, ‘Party Sorting and Polarization in the American Mass Public and Political Elite’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 12-15 April 2012.
35. Christopher Hare, Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, ‘Mass and Elite Political Polarization’, voteview blog, accessed 10 June 2012 at http://voteview.com/blog/.
36. Joseph Bafumi and Robert Y. Shapiro, ‘A New Partisan Voter’, Journal of Politics, 71(1) (2009), 8;
37. Wood and Jordan, ‘Electoral Polarization’, 16-19.
38. Alan I. Abramowitz, ‘US Senate Elections in a Polarised Era’, in Burdett A. Loomis, ed., The US Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction (Washington, DC: CQ Press/Sage, 2012), 66-84;
39. Abramowitz and Saunders, ‘Party Sorting and Polarization’.
40. Gary C. Jacobson, ‘The President, the Tea Party, and the Voting Behavior in 2010: Insights from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1-4 September 2011.
41. Lydia Saad, ‘Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.: Overall, the Nation Has Grown More Polarized over the Past Decade’, Gallup.com, 12 January 2012, accessed 15 January 2012 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx.
42. Joseph Daniel Ura and Christopher R. Ellis, ‘Partisan Moods: Polarization and the Dynamics of Mass Party Preferences’, Journal of Politics, 74(1) (2012), 283-288.
43. Alan I. Abramowitz, ‘Partisan Polarization and the Rise of the Tea Party Movement’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1-6 September 2011.
44. Robert Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives (New York: Free Press, 2012), 3-10.
45. Kyle L. Saunders and Alan I. Abramowitz, ‘Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate’, American Politics Research, 32(2) (2004), 285-309;
46. Lydia Saad, ‘Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group’, Gallup.com, 7 January 2010, accessed 15 January 2012 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/conservatives-finish-2009-no-1-ideological-group.aspx;
47. Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders, ‘Ideological Realignment in the American Electorate’, Journal of Politics, 60(3) (1998), 634-652;
48. Bafumi and Shapiro, ‘New Partisan Voter’. Saunders and Abramowitz, ‘Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans’, 293-294.
49. Pew Research Center, Trends in American Values, 55.
50. Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2008).
51. Sean Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 93-95.
52. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 91-92.
53. Douglas S. Massey, Jonathan Rothwell and Thurston Domina, ‘The Changing Bases of Segregation in the United States’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 62 (2009), 87-89.
54. Gelman, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, 130-136;
55. Gregory L. Giroux, ‘House Races: An Election Bucking Tradition’, CQ Weekly, 26 October 2002, pp. 2794-2795, accessed 3 March 2012 at http://library.cqpress.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/cqweekly/weeklyreport107-000000535952.
56. Gary C. Jacobson, ‘Polarized Politics and the 2004 Congressional and Presidential Elections’, Political Science Quarterly, 120(2) (2005), 199-218, 200, 202-203.
57. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 98-100.
58. Abramowitz, ‘US Senate Elections in a Polarised Era’, 37-38;
59. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 99-100, 102-103.
60. Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 25.
61. Geoffrey C. Layman, Thomas M. Carsey, John C. Green, Richard Herrera and Rosalyn Cooperman, ‘Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics’, American Political Science Review, 104(2) (2010), 326.
62. David Catanese, ‘McCain Pays Heavy Reelection Price’, Politico.com, 22 August 2010, accessed March 2012 at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41339.html.
63. Aldrich, Why Parties?, 163-193;
64. Geoffrey C. Layman and Thomas M. Carsey, ‘Party Polarization and “Conflict Extension” in the American Electorate’, American Journal of Political Science, 46(3) (2002), 786-802;
65. Layman et al., ‘Activists and Conflict Extension’, 330-331, 336;
66. Gary Miller and Norman Schofield, ‘Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States’, American Political Science Review, 97(2) (2003), 245-260;
67. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 113.
68. Layman et al., ‘Activists and Conflict Extension’, 330-331, 336;
69. Barbara Sinclair, Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policymaking (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006);
70. Clyde Wilcox and Carin Larson, Onward Christian Soldiers? The Religious Right in American Politics, 3rd edn (Boulder, CO and Oxford: Westview, 2006).
71. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 116ff.
72. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House;
73. Aldrich, Why Parties?;
74. John Aldrich and David W. Rohde, ‘The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government’, in Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, eds, Polarized Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2000), 31-72;
75. John Aldrich and David W. Rohde, ‘The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection’, in Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds, Congress Reconsidered, 7th edn (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 269-292.
76. Theriault, Party Polarization in Congress, 135-138.
77. Aldrich, Why Parties?;
78. John E. Owens, ‘Late Twentieth Century Congressional Leaders as Shapers of and Hostages to Political Context: Gingrich, Hastert, and Lott’, in Erwin C. Hargrove and John E. Owens, eds, Leadership in Context (Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003);
79. R. Eric Petersen, Parker H. Reynolds and Amber Hope Wilhelm, House of Representatives and Senate Staff Levels in Member, Committee, Leadership, and Other Offices, 1977-2010, CRS Report for Congress R41366 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010);
80. Rohde, Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House;
81. Barbara Sinclair, Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmakers: The U.S. House of Representatives in the Postreform Era (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998);
82. Sinclair, Party Wars.
83. Kathryn Pearson, ‘Party Discipline in the Contemporary Congress: Rewarding Loyalty in Theory and in Practice’, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2005, pp. 127-128.
84. Damon M. Cann, Sharing the Wealth: Member Contributions and the Exchange Theory of Party Influence in the US House of Representatives (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2008), 32-33;
85. Damon M. Cann, ‘Modeling Committee Chair Selection in the U.S. House of Representatives’, Political Analysis, 16(3) (2008), 274-289;
86. Eric S. Heberlig and Bruce A. Larson, Congressional Parties, Institutional Ambition, and the Financing of Majority Control (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012), 159-196.
87. Ronald M. Peters and Cindy S. Rosenthal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the New American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 115, 278.
88. Eric Heberlig, Marc Hetherington and Bruce Larson, ‘The Price of Leadership: Campaign Money and the Polarization of Congressional Parties’, Journal of Politics, 68(4) (2006), 992-1005.
89. Peters and Rosenthal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the New American Politics, 69-70.
90. Owens, ‘Late Twentieth Century Congressional Leaders’, 69.
91. Steve Benen, ‘Political Animal’, Washington Monthly, 30 June 2010.
92. Allison Stevens, ‘More Power to the Senate’s Majority Leader?’, CQ Weekly, 6 November 2004, pp. 2605-2606;
93. Alan K. Ota, ‘Senate GOP Gives Its Leader A Powerful New Tool’, CQ Weekly, 20 November 2004, p. 2733.
94. Major Garrett, ‘Top GOP Priority: Make Obama a One-Term President’, National Journal, 29 October 2010.
95. Jay Newton-Small, ‘Let’s Make a Deal’, Time, 4 June 2011.
96. J. Dennis Hastert, ‘Reflections on the Role of the Speaker in the Modern Day House of Representatives’, Conference on the Changing Nature of the House Speakership: The Cannon Century Conference, Cannon Caucus Room, Library of Congress, 12 November 2003;
97. John E. Owens, ‘Style, Skills, and Context: An Interactionist Exploration of Dennis Hastert’s Speakership’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, 5-9 January 2005.
98. Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the US Congress, 4th edn (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012), 151.
99. Megan Lynch, The Motion to Recommit in the House of Representatives: Effects, Recent Trends, and Options for Change, CRS Report for Congress RL34757, 20 November (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2008), 18-19.
100. Jonathan Allen and John Cochran, ‘The Might of the Right’, CQ Weekly Online, 8 November pp. 2761-2762, accessed 11 December 2011 at http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/weeklyreport108_000000899550;
101. Sarah A. Binder, ‘In Memoriam: The Conference Committee’, American Prospect, 21 December 2011, accessed 5 January 2012 at http://prospect.org/article/memoriam-conference-committee;
102. Richard E. Cohen, Kirk Victor and David Baumann, ‘The State of Congress’, National Journal, 10 January 2004;
103. Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking, 91-95.
104. Bryan W. Marshall, Brandon C. Prins and David W. Rohde, ‘Fighting Fire with Water: Partisan Procedural Strategies and the Senate Appropriations Committee’, Congress and the Presidency, 26(2) (1999), 113-132;
105. Chris Den Hartog and Nathan W. Monroe, ‘Agenda Influence and Tabling Motions in the U.S. Senate’, in Nathan W. Monroe, Jason M. Roberts and David W. Rohde, eds, Why Not Parties? (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 142-158;
106. Richard Beth, Valerie Heitshusen, Bill Heniff and Elizabeth Rybicki, ‘Leadership Tools for Managing the US Senate’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON, 1-4 September 2009;
107. Aaron S. King, Frank J. Orlando and David W. Rohde, ‘Beyond Motions to Table: Exploring the Procedural Toolkit of the Majority Party in the United States Senate’, Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1-4 September 2011.
108. Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking, 242-252.
109. US Senate, Senate Action on Cloture Motions, accessed January 2012 at http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm.
110. Steven S. Smith, ‘The Senate Syndrome’, Issues in Governance Studies (June 2010), 1-30, 9.
111. John E. Owens, ‘A “Post-Partisan” President in a Partisan Context’, in James A. Thurber, ed., Obama in Office (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2012).
112. Beth et al., ‘Leadership Tools for Managing the US Senate’, 11.
113. Smith, ‘Senate Syndrome’, 13-14.
114. Allen and Cochran, ‘The Might of the Right’; Richard E. Cohen, Kirk Victor and David Baumann, ‘The State of Congress’, National Journal, 10 January 2004, accessed 22 February 2012 at http://www.nationaljournal.com.libproxy.wustl.edu/njmagazine/nj_20040110_5.php.
115. Beth et al., ‘Leadership Tools for Managing the US Senate’.
116. Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins, Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
117. Sean Theriault, ‘Party Polarization in the US Congress: Member Replacement and Member Adaptation’, Party Politics, 12(4) (2006), 483-503.
118. Sean M. Theriault and David W. Rohde, ‘The Gingrich Senators and Party Polarization in the U.S. Senate’, Journal of Politics, 73(4) (2011), 1011-1024.
119. Nicol C. Rae and Colton C. Campbell, ‘Party Politics and Ideology in the Contemporary Senate’, in Nicol C. Rae and Colton C. Campbell, eds, The Contentious Senate: Partisanship, Ideology, and the Myth of Cool Judgement (Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 8.
120. Quoted in Allison Stevens, ‘Senators Pack a Sharper Edge’, CQ Weekly, 13 December 2003, pp. 3069-3070.
121. Reid Wilson, ‘DeMint: Americans Will “Take to the Street” on Healthcare’, The Hill, 2 August 2011, p. A1.
122. Jordan Fabian, ‘DeMint: If Vote to Raise Debt Ceiling is GOP’s Waterloo, “Let It Be”’, The Hill, 14 April 2011, p. A1.
123. J. Taylor Rushing, ‘Bunning Filibuster Ends, Jobless Benefits Will Be Extended’, The Hill, 2 March 2011, p. A1.
124. Theriault and Rohde, ‘Gingrich Senators’, 1014-1015.
125. Theriault and Rohde, ‘Gingrich Senators’, 1018-1020.
126. Matt Bai, ‘Obama vs. Boehner: Who Killed the Debt Deal?’, New York Times Magazine, 28 March 2012, accessed 31 March 2012 at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?_r=1.
127. Mara Liasson, ‘What Happens to the Tea Party after Election Day?’, NPR Morning Edition, October 2010, accessed 3 March 2012 at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130870873.
128. Bill Heniff, House Rules Changes Affecting the Congressional Budget Process Made at the Beginning of the 112th Congress, CRS Report for Congress R41926 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011), 5.
129. Bai, ‘Obama vs. Boehner’.
130. Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do.
131. Felicia Sonmez, ‘McConnell Warns Default Could “Destroy” GOP Brand’, Washington Post, July 2011, accessed 10 January 2012 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/mcconnell-warns-default-could-destroy-gop-brand/2011/07/13/gIQAPZTwCI_blog.html.
132. Alexander Bolton, ‘Senate GOP and Conservative Groups Clash on Healthcare Reform Repeal Votes’, The Hill, 6 March 2012.
133. Julian Pecquet and Alexander Bolton, ‘McConnell Vows Full-Fledged Assault on Health Law amid Threat to His Leadership’, The Hill, 1 March 2012.
134. Jim Rutenberg, ‘Jeb Bush Questions GOP’s Shift to the Right’, New York Times, June 2012.
135. Standard & Poor’s, ‘United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To “AA+” Due to Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative’, 5 August 2011, accessed 1 December 2011 at http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563.
136. Poole and Rosenthal, Congress; Poole and Rosenthal, Ideology and Congress; ‘Congressional Policy Shifts, 1879-2001’ voteview blog, 15 February 2012, accessed at http://voteview.com/blog?p=362.
137. Sinclair, Party Wars.