Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-14T19:47:04.700Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Congressional Polarization and Its Connection to Income Inequality: An Update

from PART V - IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Adam Bonica
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Nolan McCarty
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Keith T. Poole
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Howard Rosenthal
Affiliation:
New York University
James A. Thurber
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Antoine Yoshinaka
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Buffalo
Get access

Summary

  1. • Polarization in Congress is the highest since Reconstruction.

  2. • Polarization is not an artifact of roll call voting. It also occurs in campaign contributions.

  3. • Polarization in Congress is largely due to the Republican Party becoming more conservative.

  4. • Polarization and income inequality appear to be mutually causal.

INTRODUCTION

This essay updates our findings on political polarization in Congress and elite political actors who work through Congress to affect public policy. We also link various threads of our research with the other essays in this volume. We begin with a discussion of the methodologies that enabled us to identify the emergence of political polarization in Congress, and then turn to substantive results.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF D-NOMINATE AND DW-NOMINATE

In 1984, we (Poole and Rosenthal) published a paper in the Journal of Politics titled “The Polarization of American Politics.” We found that beginning in the mid-1970s, American politics became much more divisive at the congressional level. More Democratic legislators staked out consistently liberal positions, and more Republicans supported wholly conservative ones. The primary evidence in that study, which focused exclusively on the Senate, were ratings issued by interest groups such as the Americans for Democratic Action and the United States Chamber of Commerce.

These early findings motivated us to develop better measures of legislative ideology. Because interest group ratings are in fact aggregations of legislator roll call voting decisions, we believed that much better information would be available by scaling the individual roll call votes directly. Consequently, we adapted the standard dichotomous logit (or probit) model to develop the NOMINATE (Nominal Three-step Estimation) procedure.

NOMINATE is based on a simple spatial model of voting behavior. Each legislator is represented by a single point, and each roll call is represented by two points – one for the “yea” position and one for “nay.” These points form a spatial map that summarizes the roll calls. This spatial map is much like a road map. Tables in road atlases that tabulate the distances between every pair of sizable cities in the United States contain much the same information as the corresponding map of the United States, but a table gives you no idea what the U.S. looks like. Indeed, atlases contain maps as well as a table. Much like a road map, a spatial map formed from roll calls gives us a way of visualizing the political world of a legislature.

Type
Chapter
Information
American Gridlock
The Sources, Character, and Impact of Political Polarization
, pp. 357 - 377
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Montgomery, Jacob M., and Sparks, David B.. 2014. “Polarization and Ideology: Partisan Sources of Low Dimensionality in Scaled Roll Call Analyses.” Political Analysis 22: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David, Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2014. Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Barbera, Pablo. 2014. ”Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.” Working paper, New York University.
Bonica, Adam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace,” American Journal of Political Science 58: 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. “Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace,” American Journal of Political Science 57: 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (Summer): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonica, Adam, Rosenthal, Howard, and Rothman, David. 2014. “The Political Polarization of Physicians in the United States: An Analysis of Campaign Contributions to Federal Elections, 1991–2012.” Journal of the American Medical Association—Internal Medicine 174 (8): 1308–1317.Google Scholar
Cahoon, Lawrence S. 1975. “Locating a Set of Points Using Range Information Only.” Ph.D. diss., Department of Statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University.
Cahoon, Lawrence S., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1978. “A Statistical Multidimensional Scaling Method Based on the Spatial Theory of Voting.” In Wang, P.C., ed., Graphical Representation of Multivariate Data. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cahoon, Lawrence S., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1976. “A Multidimensional Statistical Procedure for Spatial Analysis.” Unpublished ms. Carnegie-Mellon University.
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “Common Space DW-NOMINATE Scores with Bootstrapped Standard Errors.” Retrieved from http://voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm.
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, and Poole, Keith T.. 2011. “Scaling Roll Call Votes with wnominate in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 42: 1–21.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “The Structure of Utility in Spatial Models of Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 1008–1028.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. “Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of Difference and Monte Carlo Tests.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34: 555–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage, and Van Horn, C.. 1977. “The Congressional Response to a Decade of Change: 1963–1972.” Journal of Politics 39: 624–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon D., and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data: A Unified Approach.” American Political Science Review 98: 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David E., ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press, 206–261.Google Scholar
Cragg, John G. and Donald, Stephen G.. 1997. “Inferring the Rank of a Matrix.” Journal of Econometrics 76: 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, Keith L., Lynch, Michael S., and Madonna, Anthony. 2012. “Partisan Agenda Control and the Dimensionality of Congress.” Unpublished manuscript.
Ellenberg, Jordan. 2001. “Growing Apart: The Mathematical Evidence for Congress’ Growing Polarization.” Slate, December 26.
Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 2010. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Christopher, Lo, James, and Poole, Keith T.. 2014. “anominate: alpha-NOMINATE Ideal Point Estimator.” Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/anominate/index.html.
Hare, Christopher, and Poole, Keith T.. 2014. “The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics.” Polity 46: 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M.. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” Rand Journal of Economics 28: 142–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1948 [1973]. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It, anniversary edition. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael. 1997. Analytical Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael. 1994. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Pollard, Walker. 1981. “A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 2010. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Karol, David. 2012. “Defining Dissidence Down.” The Monkey Cage, May 9, 2012.
Koford, Kenneth. 1994. “What Can We Learn about Congressional Politics from Dimensional Studies of Roll Call Voting?Economics and Politics 6: 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koford, Kenneth. 1991. “On Dimensionalizing Roll Call Votes in the U.S. Congress (Controversy with Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal).” American Political Science Review 85: 955–975.Google Scholar
Koford, Kenneth. 1989. “Dimensions in Congressional Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 949–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Peskowitz, Zachary. 2012. “Legislative Organization and Ideal-Point Bias.” Research Paper No. 2124, Stanford University.
MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1970. Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
MacRae, Duncan Jr. 1958. Dimensions of Congressional Voting. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E. 2014. “Politics Is More Broken Than Ever – Political Scientists Need to Admit.” The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/dysfunction/371544/.
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Poole, Keith T.. 1998. “An Empirical Spatial Model of Congressional Campaigns.” Political Analysis 7: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Income Redistribution and the Realignment of American Politics. Washington, DC:AEI Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Messing, Solomon, and Bond, Robert. 2014. “Quantifying Social Media's Political Space: Estimating Ideology from Publicly Revealed Preferences on Facebook.” Working paper, Stanford University.
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1976. “The Spatial Theory of Elections: A Review and a Critique.” In Budge, Ian, Crewe, Ivor, and Farlie, Dennis, eds., Party Identification and Beyond. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Philippon, Thomas, and Reshef, Ariell. 2012. “Wages and Human Capital in the U.S. Financial Industry: 1909–2006.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (4): 1551–1609.Google Scholar
Piketty, Thomas, and Saez, Emmanuel. 2003. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131: 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2000. “Non-Parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis, 8 (3): 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1990. “Least Squares Metric, Unidimensional Scaling of Multivariate Linear Models.” Psychometrika 55: 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 1988. “Recent Developments in Analytical Models of Voting in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1994. “Dimensional Simplification and Economic Theories of Legislative Behavior.” Economics and Politics 6: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991a. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 228–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991b. “On Dimensionalizing Roll Call Votes in the U.S. Congress (Controversy with Kenneth Koford).” American Political Science Review 85: 955–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics,” Journal of Politics 46: 1061–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., Sowell, Fallaw B., and Spear, Stephen. 1992. “Evaluating Dimensionality in Spatial Voting Models.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 16: 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saez, Emmanuel. 2013. “Tables and Figures Updated to September 2013.” Retrieved from http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2012prel.xls.
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 105 (August): 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1968. “Dimensional Analysis of Legislative Roll Calls.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×