The Geographic Polarization of American Politics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Geographic Polarization of American Politics By David Allen Hopkins A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Eric Schickler, Chair Professor J. Merrill Shanks Professor Laura Stoker Professor Robert P. Van Houweling Professor John W. Ellwood Spring 2010 Copyright 2010 by David A. Hopkins Abstract The Geographic Polarization of American Politics by David Allen Hopkins Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Eric Schickler, Chair This project addresses the question of whether American elections became more geographically polarized between 1972 and 2008. It finds that variation in partisan voting increased substantially over that time at both the state and regional levels. In particular, the Northeast and Pacific Coast became more strongly Democratic after the 1980s in both presidential and congressional elections, while the South and interior West remained solidly Republican. I employ quantitative analysis of survey data to demonstrate that this trend can be largely explained by the increasing electoral salience of social and cultural issues, which divide Americans along regional lines to a greater extent than economic issues. The growing association of the national Republican Party with social conservatism has produced an electoral advantage in most of the South bolstered by an increasing edge over the opposition Democrats in aggregate party identification within “red” America. In more socially liberal regions of the United States, the Republican electoral position weakened substantially after the 1970s and 1980s, with Democratic identifiers becoming much less likely to defect to Republican presidential candidates in 1992 and thereafter. I argue that these trends have significant consequences for American parties and the operation of Congress. Specifically, the growth of Democratic electoral strength outside the South has greatly reduced the number of moderate Republicans in both the Senate and House of Representatives, while centrists—elected mostly from the South and rural West— continue to constitute a sizable proportion of the congressional Democratic Party. This ideological asymmetry, though not often noted by previous studies of party polarization, 1 suggests that the congressional parties do not operate as mirror images but instead maintain distinct strategic positions, with Republican congressional leaders able to command a higher degree of ideological unity among their members than their Democratic counterparts. The challenge faced by the Obama administration in pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda in 2009-2010, including reform of the American health care system, was a visible consequence of this distinction between the congressional parties: the presence of a large moderate bloc on the Democratic side complicated efforts to enact liberal initiatives despite large nominal Democratic majorities in Congress, while the lack of a significant number of moderate Republican officeholders largely frustrated the new president’s attempts to gain bipartisan support for his proposals. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii 1 Introduction 1 2 The Roots of Geographic Polarization 13 3 The Growth of Geographic Polarization 34 4 Geography and Party Asymmetry in the U.S. Congress 54 5 Conclusion 89 References 96 i Acknowledgments For me, time has seemed to pass quickly since I began work on this project. Looking back, however, I realize that I started my research when Barack Obama was a backbench state legislator from Illinois, Sarah Palin was the immediate past mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 5,500), and George W. Bush’s job approval rating as president stood above 50 percent. I would never have completed it if not for the help of many people, who deserve this very modest recognition of their role in bringing it to fruition. As chair of my dissertation committee during the past three years, Eric Schickler has been an invaluable ally, resource, sounding board, thoughtful second opinion, and source of encouragement. He came aboard at a critical point, when it was unclear exactly how all the pieces would fit together, and guided it to completion with great deftness and enthusiasm. As the grateful beneficiary of Eric’s time, insight, and expertise, I cannot thank him enough. The other members of my committee have been similarly generous with their assistance. Rob Van Houweling provided tremendous help along the way, encouraging me to consider the larger implications of the questions I addressed. Merrill Shanks allowed me the benefit of his unsurpassed expertise from the beginning. John Ellwood graciously read my work with great care and consideration, offering a number of thoughtful points to make it better. Finally, my graduate experience has benefited immeasurably from the teaching, collaboration, and friendship of Laura Stoker. Laura’s talent, energy, and kindness have made working with her a true pleasure, and have made me a better scholar. One other member of the Berkeley political science department made an enormous contribution to this work, though his name is, sadly, absent from the title page. Nelson W. Polsby was a teacher, mentor, collaborator, and friend to me from my first week in graduate school until his death in 2007, and evidence in the pages to follow of his immense influence on my thinking about politics should be immediately obvious to all who knew him. Nelson and I shared an appreciation not only for attempts to create intellectual synthesis among different theoretical and empirical traditions but also for the revealing and entertaining political anecdote. I hope that my findings represent a small confirmation of his frequent observation that the two major parties in the United States do not organize themselves and operate in the same manner—expressed, as only Nelson could, in the form of a memorable quip that “Republicans and Democrats are different.” I also wish to express thanks to Linda, Emily, Dan, and Lisa Polsby for their continuing friendship. My time at Berkeley was successful only because of a remarkable group of graduate students who shared the journey. I was very fortunate to begin my career alongside a team of fellow specialists in American politics who proved to be not only brilliant colleagues but dear friends: Matt Grossmann, Brendan Doherty, Melissa Cully Anderson, and Iris Hui. The gifted, friendly, and fun-loving graduate student community at Berkeley is one of its best and most precious attributes; some of the most rewarding and enjoyable times in my life— both in and out of the classroom—were spent in the company of fellow Berkeleyans, ii especially Naaz Barma, Jen Bussell, Thad Dunning, Brent Durbin, Alison Gash, Angelo Gonzales, Jill Greenlee, Rebecca Hamlin, John Hanley, Peter Hanson, Amy Lerman, Mike Murakami, Mark Oleszek, Sarah Reckhow, Toby Schulze-Cleven, and Regine Spector. I am especially indebted to Darshan Goux, who has devoted her time and energy over the past several years to making this dissertation better. Our ongoing two-person research colloquium, though conducted largely across an international boundary, was essential to the successful completion of this project, and I hope to continue to benefit from her comments and insights in the future. For regular and welcome exposure to the world outside political science, I thank Monica Froman-Reid and Eileen Cunningham. The biggest drawback to my relocation to California was the physical distance it created between my family and me. My parents, Joan and Allen Hopkins, have remained steadfast in their love and support during these years, and I look forward to seeing much more of them very soon. I also had the good fortune of sharing Bay Area life with Pete and Caitlin Hopkins for two enjoyable years. Every member of my family deserves recognition for their intelligence, compassion, and unwavering good humor, and I deeply appreciate their indulgence of my extended graduate school career. The best thing to happen to me in California was getting to know the wonderful Monica Soare, who has been my partner, love, and best friend for the past five years. I cannot thank her enough for the inspiration and happiness that she has brought to my life. David A. Hopkins Berkeley, California May 1, 2010 ii i Chapter 1 Introduction The Establishment Pol and the Football Star At 9:45 pm on the evening of November 4, 2008, Christopher Shays appeared before more than 400 assembled supporters at the Norwalk Inn and Conference Center in Norwalk, Connecticut, to acknowledge defeat in his bid for an eleventh full term in the United States House of Representatives. “I’m sorry this can’t be a celebration,” Shays told the crowd. “My two-year contract has not been renewed and no one likes being told someone else is taking your place” (Brown 2008). With his characteristically plain-spoken remarks, the veteran Republican congressman conceded the election to his Democratic challenger, a 42-year-old former investment banker named Jim Himes whose only previous experience in elective office consisted of a brief tenure on a local tax board. Like much of New England and the suburban Northeast, Shays’s constituency consisted of ancestrally Republican territory dating from the party’s founding in the 1850s. Stretching across the state’s southwestern corner, including the affluent New York City suburbs of Greenwich, Darien,