Why Washington Won’t Work - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Why Washington Won’t Work

Marc J. Hetherington

Vanderbilt University

Thomas J. Rudolph

University of IllinoisSlide2

The Electoral Map in 2000Slide3

… in 2004Slide4

… in 2012Slide5

Challenging the Conventional Wisdom: Mo Fiorina and Culture Wars?

Ordinary

citizens

are

not polarized.

Only their

choices

are polarized.Slide6

Deeply v. Closely DividedSlide7

Very Few Issue Differences on EconomicsSlide8

Culture War? Slide9

Why Washington Won’t Work

Co-author Tom Rudolph and I attempt to make sense of the polarization debate and explain why nothing gets done in Washington.

If the mass public really is moderate, as Fiorina suggests, then why do they put up with immoderation from their representatives?

We suggest that polarization actually does exist, but scholars have been looking in the wrong places.Slide10

Key termsPolarization versus “Sorting”We have sorting on

issues

, but few extreme opinions

Polarization suggests extreme opinions. Strong emotional reactions.Slide11

A Picture of Polarization?

To date, many treatments of polarization in the electorate have adopted a pretty literal definition. Do we see clustering toward the poles?

The focus has been almost exclusively on ideology and policy preferences.Slide12

We See Polarization like this Among ElitesSlide13

But Not in the Mass PublicSlide14

This Shouldn’t Be SurprisingPeople who are extreme do not want to call themselves extreme because being extreme is not fashionable in the U.S.

People who do not know much about

politics, which is a ton of people,

choose the middle

.

Furthermore, is there anything, beyond politics, that

all

Americans would express strong feelings about?

Baseball? Instant replay?

Food? Are some foods polarizing?Slide15

Is Polarization in Congress Exclusively Ideological?When conservative/liberal ideas become liberal/conservative ones, do Republicans/Democrats support them?

Rarely.

Individual Mandate on Health Insurance.

Cap and Trade

Education Reform based on Federal Standards

Prescription Drug Benefit Under MedicareSlide16

Polarization in Congress is Perhaps Partisan as well as IdeologicalNarrow majorities in Congress eliminate incentives for parties to cooperate on anything.

When the minority feels it can win the majority in the next election, providing the majority with any legislative victories is not in the minority’s best interest.Slide17

What about Polarized Feelings Instead of Polarized Issue Preferences?Slide18

Partisans’ Feelings about Their Party and the Other PartySlide19

Polarization Elsewhere? FeelingsSlide20

Cold Feeling Thermometer Scores Over Time, 1970-2010

Group

Mean Score

1970

John

Birch Society

24

People

Who Use Marijuana

12

People Who Riot in Cities

10

1976

Black

Militants

24

1984

Homosexuals

30

2010

Democrats about Republican

Party

23

Republicans about Democratic Party

23Slide21

Polarization Elsewhere 2? Political TrustSlide22

Not Just Polarized RepublicansSlide23

Why Polarized Trust MattersIts existence means that consensus in the public never develops on policy matters.

And, if consensus fails to develop, there is little pressure on office holders to compromise.

The key to our story are those who are opposite the ideology of the president’s party. Slide24

Why no compromise from our representatives?Which members of the public are important to which members of Congress

?

Republicans in Congress care about Republicans’ opinions

Democrats in Congress care about Democrats’ opinions

W

ithout trust in government, those people follow their party leaders’ opinions on issues

No pressure from public to do something different than to follow their party leaders in Congress

Minority party leaders want to present contrasts with the president, not give

him help.Slide25

Could a Great President overcome this?LincolnRoosevelt

ReaganSlide26

I Don’t Think SoWhat incentives do minority party leaders have to work together with the president?

How do party margins in Congress affect those incentives?

The Story of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY

)Slide27

Thanks!Slide28

The Politics of Strange BedfellowsPartisan cues no longer work – Nixon can no longer “go to China”.Cues from institutions not connected directly to political parties are the key.

Military and the Environment

Environmentalists and Nuclear Power

Business Community and Immigration Reform

The Pope and Government Spending on the Poor

Steve Jobs and Teachers UnionsSlide29

If Mitt can’t do it, maybe the US Military canEffective cue givers need two characteristics and the US Military have them both.

1) Trustworthiness (

Lupia

and

McCubbins

1998)

Americans trust it more than any institution, public or private (GSS 2012). 55 percent said they had “a great deal of confidence” in it.

The two closest competitors over time have been the “scientific community” (confidence now 42), and “organized religion” (confidence now 21).

Among political institutions, there is little confidence. Supreme Court (30 percent), executive branch (15 percent), Congress (7 percent).

Lack of trust in political institutions is a stumbling block to government-sponsored policy innovation (Hetherington 2005).Slide30

And2) Knowledge. Military has this, too.

Lots of large term planning about strategic implications (Center for Naval Analysis 2007; US Army 2007; US Navy 2010)

Production of electric vehicles in Army

“Great Green Fleet” for Navy by 2016

Air Force has 37 bases partially powered by wind and solar energy

Navy and Air Force at the forefront of developing alternative fuels for their aircraft.Slide31

End Result: Shrinking Partisan PolarizationSlide32

ThanksSlide33

Institutional Cue Giving and Persuasion: Enlisting the Military as Environmental Protector

Marc J. Hetherington and Cindy D.

KamSlide34

Public Opinion About the Environment -- Little Scholarly Attention

Public opinion on the environment has not gotten much traction in political science journals

We found only 2 articles published in the 3 major general interest journals since 2005 (Egan and Mullin 2012 JOP; Wood and

Vedlitz

2007 AJPS).

Odd, particularly as it relates to public opinion research. Both the study of public opinion and climate science are quantitative empirical matters.

Furthermore, the issue is important. Not to be overly dramatic, but climate change could have a profound impact on human life in the not too distant future.Slide35

Little attention -- But it has been toasty outdoors

2010 was the warmest year since the government started to keep records 130 years ago.

The 10 warmest years on record have all taken place in the last 15 years.

Scientists are pretty certain humans are contributing to this state of affairs. Indeed a scientific consensus has developed.Slide36

Scientific, but not public, consensusA consensus among experts ought to cause consensus to develop in the public.

However, Americans are not moving toward consensus. Public opinion has been polarizing since 2007, with Republicans and conservatives becoming more skeptical (

McCright

and Dunlap 2011). Most recent Pew data collected in May demonstrates 40 and 50 point gaps.

This points up the importance of elite rhetoric relative to expert rhetoric to shape public opinion. Politics matters!Slide37

Can Public Opinion on the Environment Change?Cindy and I think the answer is yes, through cue giving and cue taking. Why?

The issue is complicated.

Knowledge on it is low.

But, the cue giving environment has changed for the worse.

With polarization, partisans follow

out party

cues more than in party cues (Nicholson 2012).

Hence it is harder for partisan politicians to get people to follow them when they take a heterodox stand on an issue.Slide38

Military has other persuasive advantages The Military’s interest is “surprising.” People do not instinctively connect the Military to the environment

In fact, the public perceives the Military as conservative on the environment. Using a convenience sample we find . . .

EPA, 2.55 on NES seven point scale question

Democratic party – 3.58

US Military – 5.37

Republican party – 5.44 Slide39

The power of “biased” advisorsBeing seen as conservative, especially by conservatives and Republicans, is a virtue.

The effectiveness of “biased” advisors in opinion change (Calvert 1985).

People attend more carefully to counter-stereotypical information (

Chaiken

and

Maheswaran

1994).

Nixon to China. Clinton on Welfare Reform.Slide40

Let’s Test it Out – 2010 CCES2 X 2 Factorial Design – Step One, Endorser,

The [U.S. Military/federal government in Washington] has pioneered a range of new plans to combat global warming. Part of the reason is self-interested – the [military/federal government] spends billions of dollars a year on fossil fuels to run its vehicles. Part of the reason is strategic – [military/government] experts believe that climate change might increase instability in the world, leading to more armed conflicts over scarce resources like oil. In fact, the [U.S. Military/federal government] has already taken many steps to deal with climate change, including providing funding to build thousands of electric powered vehicles, running some of its vehicles on biofuels, and running dozens of [military/government] regional and national control centers on electricity produced by solar and wind power.Slide41

Step 2, ImplementerTo address concerns about global warming, a proposal has been made that would provide the [U.S. Military/EPA] with a $2 billion appropriation to partner with businesses to develop the [military’s/government’s] recent innovations into products designed to increase energy efficiency. Supporters think the proposal has the potential to make a big difference in protecting the environment and America’s strategic interests. Opponents think it is a waste of taxpayer money. What do you think? Would you support or oppose such a program?Slide42

Figure 2. Attitudes towards the Military, EPA, and Federal GovernmentSlide43

Table 2: Attitudes towards Institutions and Support for Environmental Spending Slide44

And: Shrinking Ideological PolarizationSlide45

Table 3. Global Warming Attitudes, Cues, and Support for Environmental Spending Slide46

Second Study: 2012 CCESThe (U.S.

Military/Federal Government)

believes that climate change is occurring. It sees climate change as a serious strategic threat to American interests. Civil wars occur more often during warmer than average years, making climate change a “threat multiplier” that could require more military interventions in the future. The

(U.S

.

Military/Federal Government)

also is concerned that worsening conditions caused by climate change in unstable places like Somalia could produce fertile ground for terrorist recruitment. Given the marked unrest in the Middle East, the

(U.S

.

Military/Federal Government)

also sees clear advantage in increasing the nation’s energy independence, which the development of alternative fuels would

allow.

We then vary different plausible steps either the military or the government has taken to show that they are serious about the effort.Slide47

EndorsementThe U.S. Military is

Al

Gore is

George

W. Bush is

Policymakers

are

advocating

a $4 billion increase on spending to develop alternative fuels to oil and gas to combat the effects of global climate change.Slide48
Slide49

So What?Public opinion matters as it relates to government action (Page, Shapiro, and Dempsey 1987).

If public opinion on climate change remains polarized, it is less likely that steps will be taken to mitigate it.

Making matters worse, public trust in government is extraordinarily low. Since government will be a central part of any solution to climate change, low trust is a further stumbling block.Slide50

The Solution: The US Military

The Military provides a potential solution to the problem, turning a proposed program that not half of people think is worthwhile into one that over half think is worthwhile.

It “works” because the Military’s popularity is greatest among exactly those who are most skeptical about warming. Of course, these are also the folks who are most skeptical about the EPA and the federal government as a whole.

Even liberals like the Military these days, so they aren’t spooked by it playing this surprising role.Slide51

Just the Environment?

We suspect that marrying policies to the Military may have had salutary effects in many realms.

Support for integration picks up after 1948. Until then, the Military was an outwardly racist institution.

Allowing gays to serve in the military may have played a role in breaking down barriers to gay rights over the past 20 years.

These possible links suggest that trustworthiness might be more important than knowledge in affecting the power of a cue giver.Slide52

Thanks