The purpose of this review is to take stock of how party polarization affects governance in the United States. The article begins by defining polarization and discussing the means by which it can be measured. It is undeniable that the two parties have grown more sharply differentiated. Some evidence suggests that the substantive policy preferences of liberals and conservatives diverge more widely, but the case for ideological polarization in the spatial sense is not definitive. Effects on the institutional processes of US government have entailed a hardening of party divisions and a tendency toward centralization of power. Nevertheless, these more cohesive parties are not more effective than their predecessors at enacting policies or managing routine governing responsibilities. The consequences for public policy seem best characterized as “drift” (Hacker 2004, p. 246). There is little evidence that party polarization has promoted ideologically extreme policy outcomes or has systematically advantaged either liberalism or conservatism.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. White House. 2010. Obama's news conference to address the tax-cut plan. New York Times Jan. 7
  2. Abraham HJ. 2008. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Bush II. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  3. Abramowitz AI. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  4. Aldrich JH. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Aldrich JH, Montgomery JM, Sparks DB. 2014. Polarization and ideology: partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses. Polit. Anal. 22:4435–56 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aldrich JH, Rohde DW. 2000a. The consequences of party organization in the House: the role of the majority and the minority parties in conditional party government. Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era JR Bond, R Fleisher 31–72 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Aldrich JH, Rohde DW. 2000b. The Republican revolution and the House Appropriations Committee. J. Polit. 62:1–33 [Google Scholar]
  8. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc 1950. Toward a more responsible two-party system: a report of the committee on political parties. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 44:1–14 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bailey MA. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51:433–48 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baumgartner FR, Berry JM, Hojnacki M, Leech BL, Kimball DC. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  11. Beard CA. 1943. The Republic: Conversations on Fundamentals New York: Viking
  12. Berry JM. 1997. The Interest Group Society New York: Longman
  13. Binder SA. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  14. Binder SA. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  15. Binder SA, Maltzman F. 2009. Advice & Dissent: The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  16. Binder SA, Smith SS. 1997. Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  17. Bonica A. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:367–86 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brady DW, Ferejohn J, Harbridge L. 2008. Polarization and public policy: a general assessment. Red and Blue Nation? Consequences and Correction of America's Polarized Politics PS Nivola, DW Brady 185–216 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cann DM. 2008. Modeling committee chair selection in the U.S. House of Representatives. Polit. Anal. 16:274–89 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clinton J, Jackman S, Rivers D. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98:355–70 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clinton JD. 2012. Using roll call estimates to test models of politics. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 15:79–99 [Google Scholar]
  22. Converse P. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and Discontent DE Apter 206–61 New York: Free Press Glencoe [Google Scholar]
  23. Cooper J. 2013. The modern Congress. Congress Reconsidered, ed. BI Oppenheimer, LC Dodd 401–36 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Cooper J, Brady DW. 1981. Institutional context and leadership style: the House from Cannon to Rayburn. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 75:411–25 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cooper J, Young G. 2002. Party and preference in congressional decision making: roll call voting in the House of Representatives, 1889–1999. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress D Brady, M McCubbins 64–106 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Covington CR. 1987. “Staying private”: gaining congressional support for unpublicized presidential preferences on roll call votes. J. Polit. 49:737–55 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  28. Curry JM. 2015. Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  29. Deering CJ, Wahlbeck PJ. 2006. U.S. House committee chair selection: Republicans play musical chairs in the 107th Congress. Am. Polit. Res. 34:223–42 [Google Scholar]
  30. Devins N, Baum L. 2014. Split definitive: how party polarization turned the Supreme Court into a partisan court Res. Pap. 09-276, William & Mary Law School, Williamsburg, VA
  31. Devins N, Lewis DE. 2008. Not-so independent agencies: party polarization and the limits of institutional design. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 88:459–98 [Google Scholar]
  32. Edwards GC. 1990. At the Margins: Presidential Leadership of Congress New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  33. Edwards GC. 2003. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  34. Ellis C, Stimson JA. 2012. Ideology in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  35. Epstein D, O'Halloran S. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  36. Epstein L, Knight J. 1998. The Choices Justices Make Washington, DC: CQ Press
  37. Epstein L, Landes WM, Posner RA. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  38. Erikson RS, MacKuen MB, Stimson JA. 2002. The Macro Polity New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  39. Ethridge E. 2012. 2011 vote studies: party unity. CQ Wkly. Jan. 16:111–16 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ethridge E. 2014. 2013 vote studies: presidential support. CQ Wkly. Feb. 3:170–76 [Google Scholar]
  41. Evans CL. 2001. Committees, leaders, and message politics. Congress Reconsidered LC Dodd, BI Oppenheimer 217–43 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Evans CL, Oleszek WJ. 2002. Message politics and Senate procedure. The Contentious Senate: Partisanship, Ideology, and the Myth of Cool Judgment CC Campbell, NC Rae 107–30 New York: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  43. Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
  44. Galvin D. 2010. Presidential Party Building: Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  45. Gerring J. 1998. Party Ideologies in America, 1828–1996 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  46. Gilmour JB. 1995. Strategic Disagreement: Stalemate in American Politics Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh Press
  47. Green MN. 2010. The Speaker of the House: A Study of Leadership New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  48. Grimmer J. 2013. Representational Style in Congress: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. Groeling TJ. 2010. When Politicians Attack: Party Cohesion in the Media New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  50. Groseclose T, Levitt SD, Snyder JM Jr. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:33–50 [Google Scholar]
  51. Grossmann M. 2014. Artists of the Possible: Governing Networks and American Policy Change Since 1945 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  52. Grossmann M, Dominguez CBK. 2009. Party coalitions and interest group networks. Am. Polit. Res. 37:767–800 [Google Scholar]
  53. Gutmann A, Thompson DF. 2012. The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  54. Hacker JS. 2004. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: the hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98:243–60 [Google Scholar]
  55. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2005. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  56. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class New York: Simon & Schuster
  57. Han H, Brady DW. 2007. A delayed return to historical norms: congressional party polarization after the Second World War. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 37:505–31 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hanson PC. 2014. Abandoning the regular order: majority party influence on appropriations in the U.S. Senate. Polit. Res. Q. 67:3519–32 [Google Scholar]
  59. Harris DB. 1998. The rise of the public speakership. Polit. Sci. Q. 113:193–212 [Google Scholar]
  60. Harris DB. 2005. Orchestrating party talk: a party-based view of one-minute speeches in the House of Representatives. Legis. Stud. Q. 30:127–41 [Google Scholar]
  61. Harris DB. 2013. Let's play hardball: congressional partisanship in a television era. Politics to the Extreme: American Political Institutions in the Twenty-First Century SA Frisch, SQ Kelly 93–115 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  62. Hasen RL. 2013. End of the dialogue? Political polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress. South. Calif. Law Rev. 86:2012–65 [Google Scholar]
  63. Heberlig ES, Larson BA. 2012. Congressional Parties, Institutional Ambition, and the Financing of Majority Control. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  64. Herrnson PS. 2009. The roles of party organizations, party-connected committees, and party allies in elections. J. Polit. 71:1207–24 [Google Scholar]
  65. Hetherington MJ. 2009. Review article: putting polarization in perspective. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39:413–48 [Google Scholar]
  66. Howell WG. 2003. Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  67. Howell WG, Adler S, Cameron C, Riemann C. 2000. Divided government and the legislative productivity of Congress, 1945–94. Legis. Stud. Q. 25:285–312 [Google Scholar]
  68. Huntington SP. 1981. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony Cambridge, MA: Belknap
  69. Jacobson GC. 2003. Partisan polarization in presidential support: the electoral connection. Congr. Pres. 30:11–36 [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones BD, Baumgartner FR, True JL. 1998. Policy punctuations: U.S. budget authority, 1947–1995. J. Polit. 60:1–33 [Google Scholar]
  71. Jones DR. 2001. Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Polit. Res. Q. 54:125–41 [Google Scholar]
  72. Jones DR. 2014. Partisan control of government and public policy. Guide to U.S. Political Parties MR Hershey 347–57 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  73. Kaiser RG. 2013. Act of Congress: How America's Essential Institution Works, and How It Doesn't New York: Knopf
  74. Karol D. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  75. Katznelson I. 2013. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time New York: Liveright
  76. Kernell S. 2007. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership Washington, DC: CQ Press
  77. Kingdon JW. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions New York: Harper & Row
  78. Koger G. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  79. Koger G, Masket S, Noel H. 2009. Partisan webs: information exchange and party networks. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 39:633–53 [Google Scholar]
  80. Krehbiel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  81. Kriner D, Schwartz L. 2008. Divided government and congressional investigations. Legis. Stud. Q. 33:295–321 [Google Scholar]
  82. Krutz GS. 2001. Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress. Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press
  83. La Raja RJ. 2013. Why super PACs: how the American party system outgrew the campaign finance system. Forum 10:91–104 [Google Scholar]
  84. Lapinski JS. 2008. Policy substance and performance in American lawmaking, 1877–1994. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52:235–51 [Google Scholar]
  85. Lapinski JS. 2013. The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  86. Layman GC, Carsey TM, Green JC, Herrera R, Cooperman R. 2010. Activists and conflict extension in American party politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104:324–46 [Google Scholar]
  87. Lee FE. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  88. Lee FE. 2011. Making laws and making points: Senate governance in an era of uncertain majorities. Forum 9:4 doi: 10.2202/1540-8884.1488 [Google Scholar]
  89. Lee FE. 2013. Presidents and party teams: the politics of debt limits and executive oversight, 2001–2013. Pres. Stud. Q. 43:775–91 [Google Scholar]
  90. Lewis DE. 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  91. Liptak A. 2010. A sign of the Court's polarization: choice of clerks. New York Times Sept. 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html?pagewanted=all
  92. Malecha GL, Reagan DJ. 2012. The Public Congress: Congressional Deliberation in a New Media Age New York: Routledge
  93. Mann TE, Ornstein NJ. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back On Track New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  94. Mann TE, Ornstein NJ. 2012. It's Even Worse than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism New York: Basic Books
  95. Mansbridge J, Martin CJ. 2013. Negotiating Agreement in Politics Washington, DC: Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc.
  96. Matthews DR, Stimson JA. 1975. Yeas and Nays: Normal Decisionmaking in the U.S. House of Representatives New York: John Wiley & Sons
  97. Mayhew DR. 2005. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  98. Mayhew DR. 2010. Partisan Balance: The Presidency, the Senate, and the House Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  99. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  100. McCarty N, Razaghian R. 1999. Advice and consent: Senate responses to executive branch nominations, 1885–1996. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43:1122–43 [Google Scholar]
  101. Mettler S. 2014. Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream New York: Basic Books
  102. Milkis SM. 1993. The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  103. Nathan RP. 1983. The Administrative Presidency New York: Wiley
  104. Noel H. 2013. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  105. Oleszek WJ. 2010. Whither the role of conference committees, or is it wither?. Extension of Remarks Newsl. Legis. Stud. Sect., Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., 33
  106. Oleszek MJ. 2014. Collaborative relationships and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate: a perspective drawn from firsthand accounts. The Evolving Congress107–28 Comm. Rules Admin., US Senate. S. Prt. 113-30, Dec. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-113SPRT89394/pdf/CPRT-113SPRT89394.pdf
  107. Oppenheimer BI. 1977. The Rules Committee: new arm of leadership in a decentralized House. Congress Reconsidered LC Dodd, BI Oppenheimer 96–116 New York: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  108. Oxford Univ. Press 2000. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  109. Parker DCW, Dull M. 2013. The weaponization of congressional oversight: the politics of the watchful eye, 1947–2010. Politics to the Extreme: American Political Institutions in the Twenty-First Century SA Frisch, SQ Kelly 47–70 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  110. Patashnik E. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  111. Pew Res. Cent 2014. Political Polarization in the American Public: How Increasing Ideological Uniformity and Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics, Compromise, and Everyday Life. Washington, DC: Pew Res. Cent http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-12-2014-Political-Polarization-Release.pdf
  112. Persily N. 2015. Solutions to Political Polarization in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  113. Polsby NW. 1978. Presidential cabinet making: lessons for the political system. Polit. Sci. Q. 93:15–25 [Google Scholar]
  114. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 1991. Patterns of congressional voting. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 35:228–78 [Google Scholar]
  115. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  116. Poole KT, Rosenthal HL. 2011. Ideology and Congress New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
  117. Rawls WL. 2009. In Praise of Deadlock: How Partisan Struggle Makes Better Laws Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Cent.
  118. Reagan R. 1961. Radio address on socialized medicine. Am. Rhetor. Online Speech Bank. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagansocializedmedicine.htm
  119. Rich A. 2004. Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  120. Rigby E, Clark JH, Pelika S. 2014. Party politics and enactment of “Obamacare”: a policy-centered analysis of minority party involvement. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 39:57–95 [Google Scholar]
  121. Roberts JM. 2007. The statistical analysis of roll-call data: a cautionary tale. Legis. Stud. Q. 32:341–60 [Google Scholar]
  122. Roberts JM, Smith SS. 2003. Procedural contexts, party strategy, and conditional party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47:305–17 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rohde DW. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  124. Rosen J. 2013. Can the judicial branch be a steward in a polarized democracy?. Daedalus 42:225–35 [Google Scholar]
  125. Rossiter C. 1960. Parties and Politics in America Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  126. Schattschneider EE. 1942. Party Government New York: Farrar & Rinehart
  127. Schickler E. 2013. New Deal liberalism and racial liberalism in the mass public, 1937–1968. Perspect. Polit. 11:75–98 [Google Scholar]
  128. Schlesinger JA. 1985. The new American political party. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 79:1152–69 [Google Scholar]
  129. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  130. Sellers P. 2010. Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  131. Sinclair B. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  132. Sinclair B. 1995. . Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  133. Sinclair B. 2012. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press
  134. Skinner RM. 2011. Barack Obama and the partisan presidency. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties JC Green, DJ Coffey 309–22 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  135. Skocpol T. 1999. Advocates without members: the recent transformation of American life. Civic Engagement in American Democracy T Skocpol, MP Fiorina 461–509 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  136. Skocpol T. 2007. Government activism and the reorganization of American civic democracy. The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism P Pierson, T Skocpol 39–67 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  137. Smith SS. 2007. Party Influence in Congress New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  138. Smith SS. 2014. The Senate Syndrome: The Evolution of Procedural Warfare in the Modern U.S. Senate. Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
  139. Stokes DE. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 57:368–77 [Google Scholar]
  140. Sundquist JL. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  141. Teles SM. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  142. Theriault SM. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  143. Theriault SM. 2013. The Gingrich Senators Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  144. Theriault SM, Rohde DW. 2011. The Gingrich senators and party polarization in the U.S. Senate. J. Polit. 73:1011–24 [Google Scholar]
  145. Van Houweling RP. 2003. Legislators' personal policy preferences and partisan legislative organization PhD thesis, Harvard Univ.
  146. Wawro GJ, Schickler E. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  147. Weyl B. 2014. 2013 vote studies: party unity. CQ Weekly Feb. 3 183–88
  148. Wood BD, Waterman RW. 1991. The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85:801–28 [Google Scholar]
  149. Woodward CV. 1951. Origins of the New South 1877–1913 Baton Rouge: La. State Univ. Press
  150. Yalof DA. 1999. Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  151. Zelizer JE. 2004. On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and Its Consequences, 1948–2000 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  • Article Type: Review Article
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