1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 20, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 20, 2024

Polarization, Populism, and the Crisis of American Democracy

Abstract

American democracy is in crisis. The emergence of affective polarization and populism has contributed to a divided America in which both sides perceive every election as an existential threat to their ways of life, values, and democracy itself. Central features of liberal democracy, including the right to vote, the system of checks and balances, and presidential transitions of power, appear to be collectively under threat in ways they have not been since the Civil War. Scholars diverge on both the sources of and responses to the crisis. For some, the problem is too much democracy, and the solution is less. For others, the problem is too little democracy, and the solution is more. This review offers a synthesis of the contrasting accounts of American democracy in crisis and advances a third alternative of better democracy as a key to escaping the crisis.

Keyword(s): democracy, inequality, polarization, populism
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113
2024-10-17
2024-12-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/20/1/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz A. 2018.. The Great Alignment: Race, Party, Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Achen C, Bartels LM. 2016.. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Product Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartels LM. 2010.. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN. 1954.. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1960.. The American Voter. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carnes N. 2013.. White Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Dias N, Lelkes Y. 2022.. The nature of affective polarization: disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. . Am. J. Political Sci. 66::775–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Downs A. 1957.. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York:: Harper
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Eatwell R, Goodwin M. 2018.. National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. London:: Penguin Random House
     [Google Scholar]
  10. From A. 2022.. The challenge to democracy—overcoming the small state bias. . Brookings Institute, July 6. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-challenge-to-democracy-overcoming-the-small-state-bias/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fukuyama F. 1989.. The end of history?. Natl. Interest 16::3–18
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gilens M. 2014.. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ginsburg T, Huq A. 2018.. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Green DP, Palmquist B, Schickler E. 2002.. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT:: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Haggard S, Kaufman R. 2021.. Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Harrington J. 1977 (1656).. The Commonwealth of Oceana. . In The Political Works of James Harrington, ed. JGA Pocock , pp. 155–360. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Issacharoff S. 2023.. Democracy Unmoored: Populism and the Corruption of Popular Sovereignty. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Iyengar S. 2015.. Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. . Am. J. Political Sci. 59::690–707
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Iyengar S, Krupenkin M. 2018.. The strengthening of partisan affect. . Adv. Political Psychol. 39::201–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y. 2012.. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. . Public Opinion Q. 76::405–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jardina A. 2019.. White Identity Politics. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kalmoe NP, Mason L. 2022.. Radical American Partisanship. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Leppert R, Desilver D. 2023.. 118th Congress has a record number of women. . Pew Research Center, Jan. 3. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/03/118th-congress-has-a-record-number-of-women
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Levendusky M. 2009.. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. 2018.. How Democracies Die. New York:: Crown Publ. Group
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. 2023.. Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point. New York:: Crown Publ. Group
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lührmann A, Lindberg S. 2019.. A third wave of autocratization is here: What is new about it?. Democratization 26::1095–113
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Madison J. 1961 (1788).. Federalist Paper No. 10. . In The Federalist Papers, ed. C. Rossiter , pp. 77–84. New York:: New Am. Libr. World Lit.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Mason L. 2013.. The rise of uncivil agreement: issue versus behavioral polarization in the American electorate. . Am. Behav. Sci. 57::140–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mason L. 2015.. “I disrespectfully agree”: the differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. . Am. J. Political Sci. 59::128–45
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mason L. 2018a.. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mason L. 2018b.. Ideologues without issues: the polarizing consequences of ideological identities. . Public Opinion Q. 82::866–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. McCarty NM, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2006.. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. McCoy J, Tahmina R, Somer M. 2018.. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. . Am. Behav. Sci. 62::16–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mounk Y. 2018.. The People Versus Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Norris P. 2019.. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Orhan YE. 2022.. The relationship between affective polarization and democratic backsliding: comparative evidence. . Democratization 29::714–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Page BI, Gilens M. 2020.. Democracy in America: What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Pew Research Center. 2023.. Voter turnout, 2018–2022. . Pew Research Center, July 12. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Piketty T. 2014.. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Pildes RH. 2021.. The age of political fragmentation. . J. Democr. 32::146–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pildes RH. 2023.. Democracies in the age of fragmentation. . Calif. Law Rev. 110::2051–68
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Polybius. 1954 (n.d.).. The Histories, transl. WR Paton . London:: William Heinemann
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Raze K. 2022.. Voting rights and the resilience of Black turnout. . Econ. Inq. 60::1127–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ross BL. 2018.. Addressing inequality in the age of Citizens United. . NYU Law Rev. 93::1120–200
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ross BL. 2023.. Race and election law: interest-convergence, minority voting rights, and America's progress toward a multiracial democracy. . In The Oxford Handbook of Race and Law in the United States, ed. D Carbado, E Houh, KM Bridges . Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42640/chapter/393506733
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ross BL, Spencer DM. 2019.. Passive voter suppression: campaign mobilization and the effective disfranchisement of the poor. . Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 114::633–703
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ross BL, Spencer DM. 2022.. Voter data, democratic inequality, and the risk of political violence. . Cornell Law Rev. 107::1011–65
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Schaeffer K. 2023.. U.S. Congress continues to grow in racial, ethnic diversity. . Pew Research Center, Jan. 9. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/09/u-s-congress-continues-to-grow-in-racial-ethnic-diversity/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Scheppele KL. 2018.. Autocratic legalism. . Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 85::545–84
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Schickler E. 2016.. Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932–1965. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 US 529 ( 2015.)
  53. State Policy Netw. 2022.. American voters’ views on equality of opportunity. Polling, July 13. https://spn.org/articles/american-voters-views-on-equality-of-opportunity
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Stonecash JM, Brewer MD, Mariani MD. 2003.. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO:: Westview
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Tajfel H. 1970.. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. . Sci. Am. 223::96–103
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1979.. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. . In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. WG Austin, S Worchel , pp. 33–47. Monterey, CA:: Brooks/Cole
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Tesler M. 2016.. Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era. Chicago:: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Urbinati N. 2019.. Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. US Census Bur. 2023.. Reported voting and registration by race, Hispanic origin, sex and age groups: November 1964 to 2022. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/voting-historical-time-series.html
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wayland K. 2020.. Populism's threat to democracy: comparative lessons for the United States. . Perspect. Politics 18::389–406
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Webster SW, Abramowitz AI. 2017.. The ideological foundations of affective polarization in the U.S. electorate. . Am. Politics Res. 45::621–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. West E, Iyengar S. 2022.. Partisanship as a social identity: implications for polarization. . Political Behav. 44::807–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zitner A. 2020.. Biden counties account for 70% of U.S. GDP. . Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest-updates-biden-trump-election-2020/card/32vHNFTTc2xxNr7NITHY
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error