Steve Kornacki

Watching the U.S. Capitol being under siege on January 6, 2021 by supporters of the outgoing President points out just how polarized our Country has become. Disputing election results is something which I think of as occurring in third world countries or emerging democracies, but not in modern, established democracies. The peaceful turnover of the Presidency had been, until this week, a hallmark of U.S. elections.

This recent election, and the fight to overturn the results got me wondering when and how did the United States become so politically polarized? Why does half the country believe that president-elect Biden won the election, and the other half remain convinced that the election was stolen from President Trump?

I recently found three books written in the past couple of years which examine the question as to how and when the U.S. became so polarized, leading to election results being distrusted. One book was "The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism", by Steve Kornacki. A second was Ezra Klein's book "Why We're Polarized"; and the third was Republican Senator Ben Sasse's book "Them: Why We Hate Each Other - and How to Heal".

Each looked at the question and causes of our current polarization, and each had a somewhat different take on the question. Kornacki looked at the influence Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had on polarization in Congress starting around the 1990s. Ezra Klein took a broader view, pointing out how the abandonment of the Democratic party for the G.O.P. by the Dixiecrats after Civil Rights legislation was passed allowed the two political parties to better align ideologically. And Senator Sasse takess an even broader view, looking beyond one man or one group of politicians, and believes we've become more polarized because of changes in society over the past 50 years. He believes we're becoming more isolated, more captive to social media and cable news, all of which is making voters more blind to similarities among friends, neighbors, and fellow Americans. I don't think any book totally answered the question conclusively, but each contains insights which helped me gain a better understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, none gave me the feeling that polarization will diminish or politics will be getting less combative in the short term.

I initially considered trying to discuss all three books together, but because of the length that would take, I felt it was necessary to look at each one at a time. In the book "The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism", author Steve Kornacki gives his explanation as to how our two major political parties became so ideologically polarized. He begins by discussing politics in the mid 20th Century. After establishing that as the baseline, Kornacki then discusses how party positions drifted to their current extremes.

Fifty or sixty years ago, both political parties had their share of both liberal and conservative members. If you lived in New York City in the late 1960s and early 70s, and voted the Republican Party line, you would have voted for the very liberal mayor John Lindsay, moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller as Governor, and liberal Republican Jacob Javits for Senator. If you then moved to Arizona to enjoy the sunshine, and wanted to vote Republican, your Senator would have been the very conservative Barry Goldwater.

Similarly, if you lived in Minnesota in the late 1950's, and voted the Democratic Party line, your senators would have been Eugene McCarthy or Hubert Humphrey, both liberal Democrats. If you then moved to South Carolina, one of the most Conservative members in Congress, Strom Thurmond, then still a member of the Democratic Party, would have been your Senator.

Congress was made up of liberal, moderate, and conservatives in both parties. So Party labels didn't mean as much back then as they do today. Consider Republican Richard Nixon, President from 1968 to 1974. He would have made a pretty good Democrat by today's standards with his expansion of government establishing the EPA and OSHA and passage of the Clean Air Act & Clean Water Acts. Republican President Reagan signed off on the Montreal Protocols to limit refrigerant emissions which were creating the Ozone hole in the atmosphere. And a Cap and Trade policy to limit sulphur emissions and prevent "acid rain" was passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush, with Democrats opposed saying it would cost jobs and harm the economy. Quite a reversal of likely Party positions today.

Back then, to pass legislation, party leaders might need to negotiate with the liberal or conservative members of their own party as well as negotiate with the opposition party. So crossing the aisle to get things done wasn't an unheard of thing, and compromise wasn't a dirty word. It was more of the norm. Mr. Kornacki points out there were actually political scientists in the mid-20th century who advocated for MORE polarization within the major political parties. Because both parties had liberal and conservative leaning members, voting the complete Party line in an election wouldn't necessarily mean that left-leaning voters or right-leaning voters would be happy with all the party's candidates. So with party labels not being a true measure of a voter's values, people had to work harder when deciding which candidate to support. If the Parties were more polarized, some political scientists argued, then voters would understand the distinction and find it easier to fill out their ballot.

Today, every voter knows the difference between Democratic and Republican priorities. According to Mr. Kornacki, the transition between politics of the 60s and politics since the 90s was brought about, in large part, by G.O.P. Congressman Newt Gingrich. When Gingrich was elected to Congress, the Democrats had been in the majority in the House for almost four decades. Gingrich was convinced that the best way for Republicans to regain control was to stand out, to separate from the crowd, to become ideologically pure. He really wanted to shake things up, and favored combative politics. Of course, when Gingrich was a freshman Congressman, his voice and ideas didn't carry much weight. But Gingrich continued to push his ideas, and he rose in the ranks.

Prior to Gingrich's rise, a good number of politicians believed their prime duty was about service and conscience, not primarily about ideology. They were willing to seek the middle ground, give a little, get a little, and get things done. The alternative, focusing instead on Party purity, they believed, would place the country on the path to split into two separate camps. The old guard didn't like that idea, but it was exactly what Gingrich felt should be done.

To Gingrich, offering voters a clear contrast in policies was necessary. Republican values blended too much with Democratic values, and those compromises in Congress eroded the power of contrast. He felt that it was conflict, not compromise, that wins elections. As a result, instead of Congress reaching across the aisle to find the best solutions, or compromising when necessary to get things done, he led a movement in Congress to ensure the Republican Party offered a unified clear choice on policies to voters. He felt that the clubby atmosphere in Congress made it ripe for a Populism rise, and he was the man to make it happen.

Early in his career, Gingrich made himself known by speaking out against President George H.W. Bush's tax increase. Although Bush was very popular early in his term due to success in pushing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and seeing the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bush later presided over a sluggish economy, rising unemployment, and a rapidly rising national debt. When Bush agreed to raise taxes, breaking a campaign promise, he subsequently faced stiff opposition from conservatives within his own party, led by Gingrich. As a result, Bush's approval rating had dropped by the time he was up for re-election, and he faced a challenge in the primary by Pat Buchanan. Kornacki's description of Buchanan's primary challenge against Bush was an eye-opener for me, recognizing just how similar Buchanan's program was to Donald Trump's campaign twenty-five years later. For example, Buchanan wanted to build a southern border wall, establish immigration limits. "Make America Great Again", proclaimed an America First strategy, etc.

While President Bush was being challenged from the right by Pat Buchanan, his Democratic challengers were also lining up to oppose him. Candidates in the 1992 presidential primary included NY Governor Mario Cuomo, Jerry "moon beam" Brown, Jessie Jackson, and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Third party candidate Ross Pirot also entered the race. Kornacki does a great job reviewing the on-again, off-again appeal of outsider Ross Pirot, and in discussing the rise of Bill Clinton, a relatively unknown governor at the time, through the Democratic primary to become the successful winner.

Kornacki covers Clinton's good points and the bad, and reminds us of how Clinton was often referred to as "slick Willy". In addition to having an eye for the women, Clinton had a way with words. Clinton's crafty non-answers to interviewers questions could often be interpreted two different ways. Just remembering (or learning for the younger set) Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment made reading that chapter worthwhile. In 1992, the then rapper Sister Souljah entered the lexicon when Governor Clinton, eager to differentiate himself from the rest of the Democratic field, attacked her for fomenting hate. After that year’s riots in Los Angeles, Souljah had said in an interview that “if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people instead?” Clinton gained no favor with left leaning groups or blacks for his comments about Sister Souljah. But his stance may have helped with some independents, and he did manage to win the election.

Early in Clinton's first term, he began an effort to allow gays to serve in the military. The pushback from the military and in Conservative circles was strong. It led to "don't ask, don't tell", but Gingrich and the G.O.P. mobilized conservatives in uniting against Clinton. Clinton also wanted to raise taxes on the richest segment of society to reduce the national debt. Gingrich led the opposition to oppose the tax hike. Clinton's budget and tax plan was passed, but with zero G.O.P. support. Republicans called the budget and tax plan a job killer, said it would lead to a recession, and do nothing to reduce the budget deficit. None of that proved to be correct however. By 1996, unemployment was down, the economy was strong, the budget deficit was being reduced, but the Republican party opposition was uniting in conservative principles and in opposing the Democratic president.

Gingrich and the G.O.P. used Clinton's sordid past, his trade plan, tax increase, push for universal health care, and Whitewater investigation to rally opposition against him, and in the 1994 mid-term elections, the G.O.P. became the majority in House for the first time in decades. Gingrich then replaced Bob Mitchell as Republican House leader. Mitchell was noted for his bipartisanship in striking bargains, and considered the good of the Country more important than ideology or the good of Party. Gingrich's goal on the other hand was to nationalize House elections, and had the Republicans in the House to sign on with a "Contract with America".

At the same time, Rush Limbaugh was becoming a major conservative figure on talk radio, and was praised for his role in the G.O.P. gaining a majority in the House. Meanwhile, Clinton and Gingrich went head-to-head, especially over Medicare reductions, and a government shut-down followed. However, the Republicans were blamed for their obstinant stance leading to the shutdown, and only narrowly held onto majority in the next election.

The 1996 election pitted Clinton vs. Bob Dole, but only after Dole was able to defeat Pat Buchanan again in primaries. Buchanan ran a campaign which sounded much like Trump's twenty years later. Clinton was re-elected, and worked a little better with Gingrich. Welfare reform got enacted, a budget worked out, the deficit continued to decline, but then the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light, leading to Clinton impeachment. By then, polarization was fully in place, and continues to the present.

So Steve Kornacki presents a good description of the way Congress, and especially the House of Representatives operated before and after Newt Gingrich, and how combative politics became the norm. But, as mentioned above, Ezra Klein's book "Why We're Polarized", looks at the same topic, as does Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse's book "Them: Why We Hate Each Other - and How to Heal". Both offer more and different takes on answering the question about today's polarization, and are well worth examining.… (meer)