Thinking about Krugman's piece on the relationship between polarization and economic inequality, I've been flipping through Polarized America, which has lots of interesting things to say on the subject. Among them:
To see that the moderates had vanished by 2003, consider the ratings of the Americans for Democratic Action for that year. The possible ADA ratings rose in five-point steps from 0 to 100. Of the twenty-one possible ratings, nine were in the range between 30 and 70. Yet only eleven of the hundred senators feel in one of the nine middle categories. In contrast, ten Democrats got high marks of 95 or 100 while fourteen Republicans got marks of 5 and 0. That is, more than twice as many senators (24) fell in the four very extreme categories as fell in the nine middle categories.
Now, I'm not sure that's quite as illuminative as the authors think. The ADA has fairly simple positions on American politics, and if you agree with them, you'd be likely to vote for most of them. Ending up in the middle demonstrates incoherence as easily as moderation. But it's interesting nonetheless. Then there's this:
[P]oliticians enact policies in a very unique institutional setting. Specifically, the American government is not majoritarian. The separation of powers and bicameralism require that very large majority coalitions, typically bipartisan, must be formed to pass new laws and revise old ones. Thus any policy response to the economic and social factors that lead to inequitable economic growth will be muted by the gridlock of our institutions...immigration policy, social welfare, and tax policies have been especially affected by the gridlock created by polarization.
It's far easier to take this country to war then to significantly raise its minimum wage, or reform its tax code, or fix its health system. The President, particularly in recent years, can conduct military actions without anything approaching oversight or institutional opposition. Even minor social policy changes, conversely, need a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and a favorably inclined executive.
