Analysis of the Partisan Divide
By: Mark Parker
Tags: Analysis, Partisanship, Unity, Politics

Introduction

In today’s politically charged climate, partisanship between both parties seems to have reached a tipping point. Partisanship is defined as a firm, and sometimes blind or prejudiced, adherence to a person, group, faction, cause, or party. This type of behavior is to be expected on some level, and it has been a natural side effect since our two-party system was created. However, it has gone from a minor nuisance to causing a canyon sized rift between America’s leaders and citizens. The Pew Research Center has been measuring feelings on political values and policy issues since 1994, and its latest study confirms that the partisan divide is the largest it has been in over two decades. To paraphrase Carroll Doherty, Pew’s director of political research and one of the authors of the study, “The fact that Republicans and Democrats differ on these fundamental issues is probably not a surprise, but the magnitude is striking…” (cited in Taylor, 2017). This divide can affect several important aspects of one’s life. From political gridlock stalling societal progress, to causing animosity amongst friends, family, and fellow Americans.

Ideally, this report will be of use to concerned citizens and voters from both political parties, and politicians that are willing to listen and keep an open mind. To achieve the highest amount of information available for this report rigorous research was conducted on the effects and level of partisanship in today’s politics. Years of statistics were also compiled and compared to previous years. Also, a recently published American Government textbook was examined and several valuable pieces of information was gleaned. Lastly, multiple interviews were conducted with voters from both the Republican and Democrat side, as well as a libertarian. This gave good insight on the view from the ground, so to speak, as well as confirmed some previously held notions. Unfortunately, after initially having a local politician confirmed to give some input, they were unable to be reached in time for this report. Not being able to have a personal interview with politicians from each side as well is probably the biggest limitation to this analysis.

It is painfully obvious that our current political process is in disarray. Voters and politicians are divided to the point that it is almost impossible to have a constructive debate or govern properly. This casual analysis will address this problem in detail, search for possible solutions, and hopefully shed enough light on this important topic that society will realize how imperative it is to work together.

A Background on Partisanship and the Press

While some degree of partisanship is to be expected in any political system, as it is human nature to believe that your “side” is the best, the founding fathers intended for a government and wrote a constitution that was built on compromise. Indeed, an enormous amount of cooperation and concession was needed to create a government and establish the republic in the first place. From the beginning of our country through today, the press and media has been intrinsically attached to partisan views. Therefore, this analysis will begin by exploring that relationship. By the late 1800’s and around the time of the Civil War partisanship was elevated, for obvious reasons. Coincidentally as newspaper circulation began to increase, this soon became a source of much misinformation and extreme partisanship as the papers depended on the government to stay afloat.

By 1900 the newspapers grew powerful and yellow journalism (similar to tabloids) was the norm. In fact, a circulation battle between the New York Journal and the New York World may have contributed to the Spanish-American War. Shortly after this pinnacle of sensational and largely inaccurate press, more objective journalism was introduced, by the New York Times. Their mission was to report facts rather than opinions and represent both sides of the partisan debate. Within four years circulation increased from 9,000 to almost 90,000, and the Times was widely regarded as the country’s best newspaper. Congruently, proper journalism became taught in universities, and specific journalism schools were created. To the benefit of the country, this was the dominant model for the next few decades. (Patterson, 2017, p. 284)

Legislation for Impartiality

By the 1930’s radio was captivating most Americans, but it was not regulated, and the results were chaotic. In 1934 Congress passed the communications act which regulated broadcasting and created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Broadcasters then had to be licensed by the FCC, and as such were required to be impartial in their political coverage. They also had to be equal in the amount of airtime offered. Television then followed, and by the late 1950’s more than 90% of homes owned a TV set. This set off concerns for partisanship developing, and soon the FCC issued another restriction known as the Fairness Doctrine. This required broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting view of public importance.” This eliminated broadcasters using their news coverage to disparage one party or promote another. As Dr. Patterson notes in his book, We the People, “the objective reporting model practiced voluntarily by the newspapers was now imposed by law on broadcasters.” (Patterson, 2017, p.284)

The New Media

Everything changed in 1987 under President Reagan. The FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine, citing the emergence of cable television and FM waves expanding radio. Their theory was that more frequencies eliminated the need for fairness. Immediately hundreds of radio stations switched from playing music to airing partisan talk show. In just a decade, 10 times as many people were tuning into these shows, surpassing 20 million listeners. It did not take long for cable TV to follow suit, and since cable is privately owned, they were not required to abide by the Fairness Doctrine. However, when Ted Turner started CNN, he chose to abide by it and instructed his correspondents to strive for neutrality over partisanship. Other cable news sources that would follow such as Fox News (conservative) and MSNBC (liberal) would instead choose partisan approaches. (Patterson, 2017, p.285)

The Power of Media in Partisanship

The problem with a completely unregulated media is their power to focus the public’s attention, and influence what is on people’s minds. Simply by covering certain ideas, events, and leaders they are shaping what you are thinking about. Bernard Cohen opined, “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling them what to think about.” These companies are in the business to make money first and foremost, so they depend on advertisers and strive for audience attention. This is where appealing to a partisan base and sensationalizing stories about the other party comes in. It should be noted that Britain has somewhat avoided this problem by first establishing well-funded public broadcasting networks first (BBC), while the US first established commercial networks (CBS/NBC).

By the time Congress decided to create a public network in the 1960’s (PBS) the commercial networks were strong enough to lobby to have it funded at a low level. This late start and poor funding have crippled PBS since. This is an important factor in the media in partisanship conversation because in countries like Britain, public broadcasting set a high standard for quality news that led the public to expect it from other sources as well. In the US, commercial profits have led the way, and led to a form of news aimed at attracting and holding an audience’s attention. Consequently, many Americans have developed a preference for news that is more entertaining than factual at this point. (Patterson, 2017, p.289)

What has Changed

Increasingly Americans have been getting less actual news, and more of the reporter’s opinion. For example, in the 1960’s the average soundbite from a presidential candidate was 60 seconds, allowing for some context. Today that number is less than 10 seconds. Not even enough time for a complex sentence. For every minute a candidate spoke on broadcasts in recent elections, the journalists would speak five. Journalism is now framed around partisan debates instead of actual substance. However, traditional newspapers seem to fare better because they do not want to alienate a large portion of their consumers. After 59 studies almost no pattern of partisanship was found in papers, while it was found that TV leaned slightly to the left on average, while radio and other mass media leaned to the right. One trend that was confirmed was that all tended to focus on negativity and accusing the other side of bias. (Patterson, 2017, p.290,294)

It should be pointed out, however, that whether radio or television, the most successful partisan talk shows are overwhelmingly hosted by conservatives. For example, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show has more listeners, in all age groups, than all the top liberal talk shows — combined. His success in the early 1990’s attacking Bill Clinton and Democrats is what led media mogul Rupert Murdoch to start Fox News in 1996. He reasoned, correctly, that because of staunch conservatives’ distrust in established media that they would embrace a strictly conservative alternative. To cement this he then hired Roger Ailes, a longtime Republican consultant to run the network and hire conservatives to host. After seeing the success of Fox New, MSNBC decided to brand itself as the liberal alterative to Fox. Interestingly, conservatives tend to favor outrage in their talk show, while liberals prefer humor. The following for talk shows based on political humor is much smaller than their conservative counterparts, however. (Patterson, 2017, p.295–297) The expansion of FM radio and cable television, combined with the repeal of the Fairness doctrine that allowed for partisan talk shows to become omnipresent, appears to be the tipping point when it comes to media influencing partisanship among citizens and politicians.

Mass Media, the Partisan Divide, and the Information Divide

Today America has a high-choice media system, which means people have numerous choices on where to get their information. Therefore, what people see and hear, or do not want to see and hear, is mostly up to them. The problem here is that is has led to two divides, a partisan divide as well as an information divide. As people’s options expanded, it was natural to think that opinions would moderate as society was exposed to a variety of beliefs. The opposite occurred. More and more Americans will now only seek out sources that already aligned with what they already believe. This extends to political blogs, where it is rare that people of opposing partisan views can have an open discourse. This tendency then increases party polarization. These outlets play up their partisan differences and tear each other down in the hopes of building themselves up. Only being exposed to one side of the argument can lead to more extreme opinions and widens the partisan divide. (Patterson, 2017, p.299–300)

With all these options from the media, it would also seem like we are more informed than previous generations. That is also not the case. News and other important information may be constantly available, but so are entertainment options. Therefore, if people want to be informed, they can, but if they want to ignore the issues they can as well. This was not always the case. The previous generation’s media exposure was much less varied. In most areas during the dinner hours, the only choices available were the ABC, CBS, and NBC newscasts. If you wanted to watch TV, that is what you watched. Over 85% did, and they had no choice but the news. This included children and younger adults, which also gave them a base knowledge of societal and political issues. It also began a ritual with them, that carried over to when they were adults and had children. It also gave the less educated of the nation, along with those who did not regularly read the paper, a chance to learn about politics in a mostly balanced way. That has all changed.

According to Pew, it is young adults who suffer most from the information divide these days. Adults 18–30 are a 1/3 as likely to follow the news as those over 50 through the newspaper, only half as likely to follow on TV, and even less follow on the internet. That would imply that they are using their TV and especially internet time for mostly entertainment purposes. Pew followed this survey with some basic political questions, such as “name the Israeli Prime Minister”, and only 19% were correct. For comparison, seniors did not do particularly well either but were still two-and-a-half times more likely to pick Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been in office in one form or another since 1996. (Patterson, 2017, p.300–304)

Not only does an information divide create problems by itself, but it would also seem to exacerbate the partisan divide as well. Mass media has played a major role in both, albeit in different capacities, and that is why it was important for this analysis to establish a good base of information concerning the press. Furthermore, in upcoming interviews, society at large, and even rhetoric from our current administration, the press is often the first and most vociferously blamed. However, it is important to note that much of the onus is on society itself for choosing to either be uninformed, misinformed, or closed minded when it comes to seeking out news.

The Size of the Partisan Divide

Pew Research has been measuring the partisan divide and all things related since 1994. In a report published by National Public Radio (NPR), it is stated quite frankly that the split is the highest it has ever been. This is mainly related to issues concerning race, immigration, and the role of government. According to Carroll Doherty, Pew director and one of the authors of the study, “…Differences on these fundamental issues is probably not a surprise, but the magnitude of the difference is striking, and particularly how the differences have grown in recent years…” Pew also asked more than 5,000 respondents about 10 specific political issues including government regulation, federal aid, environmental regulations, among others, and there was a whopping 36 point gap between Republicans and Democrats. This is a 21-point increase in the difference of political ideals since the survey began 23 years ago. Steadily coming together for the greater good of the nation should be an achievable goal, however we are increasingly growing apart.

Sadly, the biggest gaps are opinions concerning race and the poor. Two areas where people should be uniting as Americans. There is an enormous 50-point gap between the way Republicans and Democrats saw the issue of race. While almost two-thirds (64%) of Democrats think some African-Americans struggle to get ahead because of discrimination, just 14% of Republicans agree. Interestingly, Back in 1994 only 39 % of Democrats felt the same way, which is a jump of 25 points. At the same time 24% of Republicans thought so, which means there has been a 12-point drop. When it comes to helping the needy, the division is just as great. While 71% of Democrats believe we should do more to help the needy, just 24% of Republicans feel the same way. Immigration also drives a thick wedge. Whereas 84% of Democrats believe immigrants strengthen our country through their hard work and talents, only half (42%) of Republicans share the same opinion. Sure, people are going to have different fundamental beliefs, but such wide gaps on such serious issues is disturbing. Furthermore, the statistics show that it was not always like this, the divide has been growing exponentially.

Each party appears to be getting pulled into a corner and there is no middle ground. That makes it extremely difficult to get anything done. To make matters worse, the two parties increasingly think less of each other. In 1994 the percentage of people that found the other party very unfavorable was 16% and 17%, respectively. At the time of this study those numbers had risen to 44% and 45% of Democrats and Republicans that had a strong dislike for each other. As proof that strong partisan beliefs are detrimental to social interactions and relationships, the study also concluded that only 14% of Republicans and just 9% of Democrats would consider being friends with a member of the opposite party. (Taylor, 2017)

Personal Interviews

To get personal opinions from knowledgeable citizens from the three major parties who are active politically, was important for this analysis. A Republican, a Democrat, and a Libertarian/Independent were asked, “Why do you think people are so partisan these days?”, and “Do you think anything can be done about it?” (Parker 2019)

The conservative interviewee was quick to blame the media, whether the news people watch or social media. He attributed this to people not willing to “step out of their own little media bubble and read/watch news from the other sides viewpoint…” While he states that he tries his best to investigate both parties’ points of view, he then admits to staying inside of his own conservative bubble as well. This is because he “just doesn’t care for the policies being put out by the liberal side of the spectrum.” Importantly, he follows that with asserting that the conservative side does not have all the answers either, though. “America is supposed to be a revolving door of new ideas that work for ALL Americans, not just one side or the other.” While that suggests that at least part of the blame rests on society, he concludes the interview by reaffirming that “In my opinion, the divide is hands down undoubtedly caused by the media.” (Rinehart)

The liberal interviewee also first blamed the media, particularly social media, and the “team mentality.” He believes that problem is that both parties believe they must win at all costs. Instead of looking at each individual policy or position objectively, they are convinced that if the leader of their “team” says it is good than it must be good. He goes on to explain how that while social media has created an amazing way to share information with millions of other people, it has also created a way to share biased and false information with millions of people as well. That is a relevant point as it has recently been proven that even foreign governments such as Russia have made a concentrated effort to influence elections through the spread of misinformation on social media. He adds, “this then leaves the individual in the quandary of sifting through all of this information and separating fact from fiction. Unfortunately, we have discovered that a large portion of the population are not astute enough to research the information, and instead take it at face value. This is what I believe has largely contributed to such a partisan divide amongst voters today.” (Sexton)

The interviewee staunchly aligned with Libertarian views blamed the media and only the media. He did raise some good points to back up his animosity, however. To begin his answer, he came up with an interesting idea on partisanship; “I don’t think we are as partisan as we are told by the media, if we go issue by issue.” He believes the media creates the division in the first place. “They alter stories to fit their personal agenda or leave key facts out. They don’t just give the facts and let us decide anymore.” He also asserts that people’s views do not just fit in one box. Many people, including him, do not agree with several opinions from either party. However, the media presents the material in a way that strictly aligns with one side. Similarly, he believes they do not explain the issues fairly, and “play to people’s emotions.” This point could possibly be the crux of the problem. He also added some thought-provoking solutions to the problem. This centers around the media being held accountable. He even suggests a rating system on logic, full disclosure, and professional standards. This would be verified by an independent council, although one could see potential issues arising. He concludes the questions by mentioning that elections are treated as popularity contests with name calling and shaming, and that someone should not feel bad for not agreeing with the popular consensus. (Wiggins)

Possible Solutions

When posed with the question of what could be done to alleviate some of the partisan divide we are facing, most people immediately think about ways to hold the media accountable. One interviewee suggested a rating system be implemented, somewhat similar to how movies are rated. Basic criteria could include a grade on previous accuracy, along with if it were opinion or fact based. This could have some merit and would help some viewers decide if it were something they could trust, but the immediate problem would be who would oversee the ratings. Ideally you would have a bipartisan group, but it would be easy to see how that could cause issues. Furthermore, any kind of regulation on the media would surely face a strenuous and lengthy challenge in court, as they are entitled to “freedom of the press”.

Some think having more than two parties would be a benefit, and this subject has been widely studied, with strong proponents for both sides. The problem here is that our current system is completely structured to keep other parties out. Third party candidates face an almost impossible task of matching the two major parties’ resources, and it would take a concerted effort from everyone from voters to legislators to make that feasible.

Another strong idea is to better fund and promote a non-partisan publicly funded news network, or PBS. If the media’s number one goal is to be profitable and stay in business, then enhancing publicly funded, non-biased media could be a real solution. It would still require people to make the individual choice to support that network, however, along with realize the current media only cares about selling airtime. Ultimately, it seems the first solution would be to educate people, and for them to educate themselves, on the information presented in this analysis. As will be discussed further in the conclusion, most solutions begin from within and knowledge is power.

Importance of Working Together

Perhaps nothing is more indicative of the partisan rift then Congress. Instead of working together to solve America’s problems and create a better society for all, they are more concerned with their side “winning”. Even worse, these days not “winning” is ok, as long as the other side “loses”, or looks bad. This has led to stalemates and nothing getting done. The government has completely shut down a few times recently because of this. The most important issues facing every citizen of America have seemingly become an afterthought to the focus on one side controlling the government.

This divide is also destroying relationships and keeping them from forming in the first place. Which then leads to more divisiveness. In a recent study by political psychologist Lilliana Mason of the University of Maryland, it was discovered that just identifying as a liberal or a conservative had a stronger influence on polarization than the actual issues themselves. Conservatives are particularly likely to dislike someone that identifies as a liberal, even conservatives who hold liberal views themselves. Americans are increasingly divided not just on the issues, but also on their willingness to associate with people from another political party. This goes back to the “us versus them” mentality. (cited in Brick, 2018) Surely this regularly causes rifts between friends, family, at work and in marriage. It is imperative that people realize that at the end of the day we are all Americans, and that a strong America is a united America, regardless of personal preferences.

Conclusion

To conclude, there is no doubt that the extreme partisan divide that is so prevalent in society today is harming our relationships and political process. Recent events show that it even leads to violence and could lead to murder. The cause of this malady seems to be a combination of unethical practices by members of the media, politicians who care more about their “team winning”, and citizens who are willfully ignorant to opposing ideas and viewpoints. Better regulation of the media, enhancing and promoting the Public Broadcast System, and supporting political moderates and third-parties would all help to remedy the issue. However, this analysis concludes that the first, and perhaps most important step is to educate people on information such as what is listed in this report, and for people to educate themselves.

There is a lot to learn by researching opposing viewpoints with an open mind. Remember that the media’s first responsibility is to their bottom line, and research everything you read and hear, including the sources. Most importantly, keep in mind that we are all in this together. We are all Americans and should be looking for answers to issues that best suit everyone. The founding fathers created a republic intended for many people with many different ideas, and that is the beauty of this country. Americans should focus on the ties that bind us and learn from our differences, instead of letting them divide us to the detriment of all.

References

Brick, Cameron. “How Identity, Not Issues, Explains the Partisan Divide.” Scientific American. 19 June, 2018. www.scientificamerican.com/article

Patterson, Thomas. “We the People.” 12th ed., McGraw Hill Education. 2017.

Rinehart, Blake. Personal interview, 13 Mar. 2019.

Sexton, Cody. Personal interview, 13 Mar. 2019.

Taylor, Jessica. “Republicans and Democrats Don’t Agree or Like Each Other — And it’s Worse than Ever.” National Public Radio, Inc. 5 Oct. 2017. www.npr.org/2017/10/05

Wiggins, Richard. Personal Interview, 13 Mar. 2019