Polarization and Public Policy: A General Assessment
Files
Description
In the first volume generated by the Brookings-Hoover study on polarization in American politics, William Galston and Pietro Nivola correctly state that polarization is a serious concern if it “can be demonstrated to imperil the democratic process or the prospects of attending to urgent political priorities.” Their essay draws attention to a number of areas where it is alleged that polarization has negative consequences, including endangering the health of vital public institutions such as Congress, the courts, and the news media; reducing the responsiveness and accountability of the political process and the government to the citizenry; gridlock over major national priorities such as balanced budgets and sustainable social insurance programs; and the rise of incivility, which threatens pragmatic accommodation. Galston and Nivola’s discussion of possible consequences provides a balanced, judicious assessment of the likelihood that the various claims about polarization are more or less correct. In regard to accountability and representation, they cite Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson’s recent book, Off Center, but they cast doubt on some of the strong claims made in the book. Galston and Nivola view policy gridlock as a potentially more serious problem; however, they also assert that a large amount of centrist policy has been made law over the last decade. Their discussion of Congress as “Hell’s Kitchen” is likewise balanced, with examples from both sides of the debate. They conclude by asserting correctly that increased polarization of the parties carries some risks. Specifically, polarization can complicate the task of addressing long-term problems; hinder the ability to have a steady, resolute foreign policy; damage vulnerable institutions; and erode public trust in government. This chapter deals with many of the domestic policy issues raised by Galston and Nivola. First, the relationship between polarization and citizen trust in government is evaluated. Then we turn to the issue of decreased accountability and responsiveness, where we find little, if any, support for Hacker and Pierson’s claims. That discussion is followed by analyses of gridlock and the use of restrictive rules as a congressional tactic. Here we find reasonable levels of support for asserting a relationship between polarization and both of these consequences. In each of these areas we bring data to bear on some part of the issue. In the final section, we deal with the broader issues raised by Galston and Nivola, especially the inability of government to deal with long-range problems.
Source Publication
Red and Blue Nation?: Consequences and Correction of America's Polarized Politics
Source Editors/Authors
Pietro S. Nivola, David W. Brady
Publication Date
2008
Volume Number
2
Recommended Citation
Brady, David W.; Ferejohn, John A.; and Harbridge, Laurel, "Polarization and Public Policy: A General Assessment" (2008). Faculty Chapters. 546.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/546
