Search results

America is "currently fighting its second Civil War." Partisan politics are "ripping this country apart." The 2016 election "will go down as the most acrimonious presidential campaign of all." Such statements have become standard fare in American politics. In a time marked by gridlock and incivility, it seems the only thing Americans can agree on is this: we're more divided today than we've ever been in our history. In Unstable Majorities Morris P. Fiorina surveys American political history to reveal that, in fact, the American public is not experiencing a period of unprecedented polarization. Bypassing the alarmism that defines contemporary punditry, he cites research and historical context that illuminate the forces that shape voting patterns, political parties, and voter behavior. By placing contemporary events in their proper context, he corrects widespread misconceptions and gives reasons to be optimistic about the future of American electoral politics.

"This highly readable book makes a strong case that a Washington establishment does exist and that members of Congress are responsible for it. Fiorina's description of the self-serving interconnections that have developed between Congress, bureaucrats, and citizens with special interests leads to provocative and disturbing conclusions about the way our political system works. First published in 1977, this greatly enlarged second edition discusses the new developments that have occurred over the past twelve years, provides supportive data through the 1988 election, and reveals Fiorina's current thoughts on Congress and American politics."--

Commentary on contemporary American national politics is almost universally critical. Gridlock reigns: Politics is polarized, government is dysfunctional, and public policy is stalemated. Elected officials barely avoid one cliff only to find themselves on the brink of another. Credit downgrades, debt crises, national bankruptcy, climate catastrophe, and other forms of Armageddon loom. The system is broken.

During every election campaign, political journalists make claims and offer interpretations that political scientists who study public opinion, campaigns, and elections know to be inaccurate. In this article, I discuss a number of misconceptions that frequently appear in media discussions of electoral polarization. Chief among these are the confusion between polarization and party sorting, along with the tendency to attribute any changes in voter behavior to changes in the voters, rather than to changes in the candidates who are running and the nature of their campaigns. Also important is the widespread confusion -- much of it due to incomplete political science research this time -- about independents. A significant part of what journalists get wrong no doubt reflects the unrepresentative political contexts in which they live and work. Adapted from the source document.

On the basis of long-term declines in public regard (ie, trust) for government & politics, voter turnout & other kinds of participation, & civic engagement & social capital, it is contended that key dimensions of traditional democratic theory are out of touch with US democratic reality. Opening up established democratic structures & policies & strengthening political parties are addressed as two means of improving US democracy. In this light, the current state of democracy should be superior to that at midcentury; however, that is not the case, given the aforementioned declines. This theory-reality gap is addressed, scrutinizing problems with party theory & participatory theory & assessing where the underlying assumptions have ceased to properly fit with US democracy on the ground & considering the fallout of displacing material incentives with ideological ones in US politics. Addressing this gap means updating theories of representation & electoral competition as well as pressing forward with what the populist tradition has laid out. Two caveats are offered in conclusion: (1) This is a majoritarian perspective. (2) Problems aside, the present circumstances might be the best thing going. 5 Tables, 7 Figures. J. Zendejas

The critique of my 1994 article by Stonecash and Agathangelou reflects a series of misconceptions and misunderstandings—about measures, methods, arguments, and findings. In this rejoinder I attempt to correct these. In addition, I clarify my methods and findings. First, I show that a formal statistical test indicates that limiting the analysis to the northern states is justified. Less formally, the professionalism hypothesis cannot work the same in the South as in the North unless levels of Democratic legislative strength can rise above 100%. Second, although clearly inferior to a pooled analysis, I show that a disaggregated (state-by-state) analysis is far more supportive of the professionalization hypothesis than the flawed results Stonecash and Agathangelou report. Third, despite the repeated assertions of Stonecash and Agathangelou, I demonstrate that there is no evidence that a long-term partisan realignment to the Democrats is occurring, and that, contrary to their methodological recommendations, the variables included in my analysis would capture it if it were. Finally, Stonecash and Agathangelou interpret my research as indicating a lack of relationship between constituencies and who gets elected. That is simply not a correct reading of my article.