Why did America become so partisan?

[Sheilbh]

That chart struck me as really rather interesting.  I mean you can see the emergence of a form of automatic partisanship forming in Reagan and Bush I's first terms.  But I was wondering what people caused the shift so that by Clinton, Obama and, to a lesser extent, Bush II, they get, it seems to me, remarkably short shrift from their political opponents.

Was there a deep reason, a shift in American political culture (perhaps to a more natural state?) or was it just particular acts early in their Presidency (DADT, tax cuts, stimulus) that drove ideological opponents away?

[Admiral Yi]

To a lesser extent?

Maybe something to do with the rise of 24 hour talk TV.

Or with the trend to self-segregate in like minded communities.

[Faeelin]

Hrmm. IS there any way to find out what percentage of those polled considered themselves dems and republicans?

[Sheilbh]

To a lesser extent?

10% seems worth mentioning.  Bush II is 5% off of Reagan or Bush I levels.  Obama and Clinton are about 15% off

Maybe something to do with the rise of 24 hour talk TV.

Maybe.  I mean, as I say I think this could be more natural because, reading histories of the US I get the impression that earlier periods of American history were far more partisan than the fairly broad post-war consensus on many issues.  But during those periods America had a scurrilous journalistic life as opposed to the august, self-important stuff that I think dominated the post-war years until the end of the Cold War.

But this leads me to another question - which I think may only be relevant to Brits.  Daniel Finkelstein asked why did mass political parties arise (as opposed to the more fluid early and mid-nineteenth century House of Commons were a good speech could literally change the opinion of the House).  He argued that it was to do with the rise of the mass media, first newspapers then radio ultimately TV.  What he then wonder is what impact the internet's effect will be on mass parties designed for a very different media?  For example who would have predicted that Daniel Hannan, a minor Tory MEP (MEP!) would have a hugely watched youtube video that has since become a story in the Guardian, BBC and elsewhere.  Now he's got an address lined up for party conference and will no doubt be parachuted into a constituency somewhere.  Does it change things that much?  I mean is there any point in a party trying to tightly control its message when leakages can happen in the oddest of places, even the European Parliament?

Here's the Youtube I mentioned (personally I don't think it's that great - that extended and overdeveloped metaphor is awful):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

[Neil]

One wonders about previous presidents.  Nixon and Carter were unique in that the opposition party had completely melted down.  Carter's Republicans had been cowed by a hostile media and the new partisanship that had been thrust upon them by the Democrats.  Nixon's Democrats had been completely dishonoured by their fringe players who had pushed everyone into the Silent Majority.

How would Truman, Eisenhower, JFK or LBJ stack up?

[Sheilbh]

We don't have a partisan breakdown but earlier Presidents seem to generally have had a more positive hearing (a complicit press perhaps?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating
What's really striking is the virtual disappearance of 'don't knows'.

Edit:  How long until someone blames it on the Boomers taking over?

[ulmont]

Was there a deep reason, a shift in American political culture (perhaps to a more natural state?) or was it just particular acts early in their Presidency (DADT, tax cuts, stimulus) that drove ideological opponents away?

I think part was a shift in American political culture.  Studying Karl Rove's career in particular shows a trend towards rallying your base at all costs; pissing off less-motivated opponents is fine as long as your partisan rhetoric drives 50% + 1 to the polls on your side.

In addition, I blame the lack of competition in over 90% of the Congressional districts.  If you only have to win your party primary, you will tend to approach (typically, you overshoot somewhat, to pick up the more motivated voters) the median position of your party.  This will drive you to the left or right depending on your party.

[The Nickname Who Was Thursday]

I think the parties were in a greater state of flux early on, Vietnam and the various civil rights movements created a lot of upheaval. Voters' self-identification may have lagged behind the candidates in reflecting that.

Also partly coincidence I think. Nixon and Carter came in replacing unpopular Presidents. Bush was credited with "stealing" hsi election, while Clinton(and perhaps Obama) were overambitious in pushing new policies.

Assuming there is a real trend toward increased partisanship, I think Yi is on to something about the 24 hour news stations. Talk radio, Fox News and the internet have given conservatives places where they can go and be spoonfed news already spun toward their point of view. The networks have long done much the same thing for liberals(and if they don't go far enough, there's places like KOS or MoveOn). So whereas before there were people reacting differently to a news story, now the story is told differently.

[DGuller]

One of the theories I have is that this is due to the Republican party becoming more radical and driven since around Reagan's time.  This results in Republicans putting themselves in an echo chamber, and Democrats being very scared of their extremism.

[Neil]

We don't have a partisan breakdown but earlier Presidents seem to generally have had a more positive hearing (a complicit press perhaps?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating
What's really striking is the virtual disappearance of 'don't knows'.

I'm not sure that the press was any easier on the presidents back in the day.  The White House corps itself was completely tame, but then again they're not exactly snarling attack dogs even today.  The 'gotcha' attitude of the press that has increased lately has probably got something to do with it.

I would say that there's something of a feeling of helplessness with the process that creates a lot of resentment.  No matter who is in power, neither side really advances their agenda due to inertia, the multitude of interests across the country, and political horse-trading.  Moreover, sometimes the other side is able to use the courts to short-circuit the process and actually advance their own agenda.

[Queequeg]

Neil's avatar exploiting the culture wars and racial tension.  The Republican Party of the last 40 years has essentially been hardened by 40 years of success into a glittering jewel of Nixonian insanity.

[Razgovory]

Lee Atwater.

[DontSayBanana]

Looking at the numbers from the 80s, there was a massive right media bias; both a reflection and a cause of right-wing shift; especially media that was targeted at the adolescent youth had strong conservative values and focus.

[MadImmortalMan]

Looking at the numbers from the 80s, there was a massive right media bias; both a reflection and a cause of right-wing shift; especially media that was targeted at the adolescent youth had strong conservative values and focus.

Like what? I was a kid in the 80s, and I don't remember anything like that. I mean, Oscar the Grouch is clearly GOP, but he's not exactly propaganda. And Alex Keaton was a strawman brought to life, not a role model.

[dps]

Before Reagan, the Republicans had been a minority party for a generation.  They practiced a "me-too" brand of politics, whereby they didn't advocate a different agenda than the Democrats so much as argue that they could administer things better on a day-to=day basis.