The Dying Art of Bipartisanship: An Analysis by Benjamin Boyer

In today's polarized political climate, the ability to reach across the aisle seems to be a fading art. In my recent paper, "The Dying Art of Bipartisanship," I explore the historical context of bipartisan cooperation, the factors contributing to current political polarization, and potential solutions to bridge the divide. Drawing from various sources and studies, I delve into how ranked choice voting and independent redistricting commissions can foster a more collaborative and functional political landscape. I invite you to read my full analysis and share your thoughts on how we can revive the spirit of bipartisanship in American democracy.

The Roots of Bipartisanship in American Democracy

What has been the biggest shift in democracy since the signing of the Declaration of Independence? War on taxes? War on Drugs? The United States' declining political function provides the answer. According to a 2023 article written by Bruce Drake published by Pew Research Center, “More than one-third (36%) of Republicans saw the Democrats not only as opponents, but as a threat to the nation's well-being, and 27% of the Democrats said the same of the GOP.” Cooperation and compromise were the cornerstones of American democracy. However, over the years, the political landscape has shifted to “I’m right and you’re wrong” instead of “I understand, here’s a compromise.”

Polarization in Modern Politics

To give some historical context, the early years of American democracy were denoted by debate and compromise. Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaged in heated disputes during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the same convention that wrote the Constitution. We would not have written the Constitution or papers like the Bill of Rights if we were unable to debate one another. Conversely, the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should act as a reminder of what may happen when we allow for constructive compromise and sacrifice.

Today political parties view each other as career threats, resulting in our legislation and government incapable of operating correctly. An article from Columbia Law Review written by Cynthia Farina highlights this, "Since the 1970s, the Republican and Democratic caucuses have become increasingly homogenous and distant from each other. Polarization is greatest in the House, but the Senate is not far behind, with the two trending together" (Farina 15). There is no longer a common space where two parties can discuss opposing viewpoints and come to an agreement in the gray area. This leads us to the problem: differing political parties can no longer push through legislation that was determined through compromise and sacrifice for the betterment of American society. As a result, the American people are the ones who suffer, while the members of Congress may not live long enough to see the consequences of their actions.

The Role of Media in Political Polarization

There are many factors that play into the increased political polarization in America. One major factor is the consumption and delivery of partisan media. Media sources now associate with a given political party and play to that audience's wants, needs, and desires. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, media consumption habits are the core factor in creating ideological echo chambers. In an echo chamber, political audiences now only read and hear what aligns with their viewpoint further deepening the divide (Pew Research Center, 2019).

Historical Cycles of Political Conflict

Though, some scholars argue that the level of polarization is not a new concept and has happened in history before. Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams introduce the idea that intense political conflict has occurred throughout American history and that this conflict can lead to needed debates and reforms (Fiorina and Abrams, 2011). There is validity to this perspective as arguably the most value comes from two opposing perspectives debating their viewpoints. For example, the intense political debates during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, though highly polarized, ultimately led to significant legislative reforms such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Congressional Research Service, 2021). Specifically, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and President Lyndon B. Johnson, despite their initial differences, engaged in respectful and constructive dialogue that resulted in lasting changes. With Dr. King’s advocacy for nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, and with Johnson’s eventual support, the two men showcased how political expediency and mutual respect can bridge opposing views. These respectful debates between opposing viewpoints, perfectly demonstrate the value of constructive discourse.

Implementing Ranked Choice Voting

In terms of working towards a solution, it is two-fold. First, look towards implementing ranked choice voting to force candidates to appeal to broader audiences. According to a study by FairVote, ranked-choice voting has been shown to decrease negative campaigning and encourages candidates to seek support from a wider range of voters (FairVote, 2020). Ranked choice voting puts more power in the people, and that is exactly what is required of the government. This system motivates candidates to move towards the center of their stated beliefs and policies to attract the majority of voters, rather than only appealing to their parties’ views. Candidates who appeal to broader audiences are pushed to review their viewpoints and policy advocations, resulting in competition, therefore creating a stronger pool of candidates.

However, opponents of ranked choice voting argue that the system can be confusing for voters. This would lead to an increase in ballot errors and could unintentionally cause more Americans to not participate. Opposition also supports the idea that ranked choice voting costs more than the benefit due to the need for new voting equipment and voter education programs. As asserted in a 2020 report by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NSCL), ranked choice voting can create complexities that may reduce voter turnout and confidence in the electoral process (NSCL, 2020). These concerns showcase the need for careful integration and a systematic approach to voter education. For if not handled carefully, ranked choice voting can easily become the worse off alternative. According to NPR, “Roughly 50 American voting jurisdictions — from small cities to states — have now moved to a ranked choice voting system, according to?tracking?by the advocacy group FairVote, and it's shaping up to be one of the political subplots of 2024.”?

The Case for Independent Redistricting Commissions

The second objective is establishing independent redistricting commissions as an answer to the severe gerrymandering issue which fuels the divide. By hiring independent redistricting commissions, it lessens the chance that politically motivated lines will be drawn and as a result reduce the impact of gerrymandering on elections. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice indicates that independent redistricting commissions can create more balanced districts, leading to increased competition and better representation of diverse communities (Brennan Center for Justice, 2019).

Conclusion

The dying breath of bipartisanship in American politics has reached its exhale, with severe polarization affecting the functionality of the government. To create a clear path forward, we must implement changes to the system such as ranked choice voting and establishing independent redistricting commissions. By choosing to take the right steps, we can reduce partisanship, encourage broader representation, and restore the art of negotiation and compromise in American democracy. By rehabilitating the environment our founding fathers built this country on, we can create a space for ideals to clash productively and ultimately lead us to an effective political landscape for generations to come.

Works Cited

?

Brennan Center for Justice. "The Impact of Redistricting Commissions on Congressional Competition." Brennan Center for Justice, 2019, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-redistricting-commissions-congressional-competition.

?

Congressional Research Service. "The Legislative Process: An Overview." CRS Report, 4 Jan. 2021, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46591. Accessed 9 July 2024.

?

Drake, Bruce. "Why Can’t We All Get Along? Challenges Ahead for Bipartisan Cooperation." Pew Research Center, 7 Nov. 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/. Accessed 9 July 2024.

?

FairVote. "The Benefits of Ranked-Choice Voting." FairVote, 2020, www.fairvote.org/rcv#research_rcvbenefits.

?

Farina, Cynthia R. "Congressional Polarization: Terminal Constitutional Dysfunction?" Columbia Law Review, vol. 115, no. 7, 2015, pp. 1739-1752. Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. Accessed 9 July 2024.

?

Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. University of Oklahoma Press, 2011.

?

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). "Ranked Choice Voting." NCSL, 2020, www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ranked-choice-voting.aspx. Accessed 9 July 2024.

?

Pew Research Center. "Partisan Antipathy: More Intense, More Personal." Pew Research Center, 10 Oct. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intense-more-personal/. Accessed 9 July 2024.

?

Your feedback and insights are welcome. How do you think we can revive bipartisanship in our current political climate?