Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:07:10.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incivility and Standing Firm: A Second Layer of Partisan Division

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2012

Michael R. Wolf ,
J. Cherie Strachan  and
Daniel M. Shea
Michael R. Wolf
Affiliation:
Indiana University – Purdue University, Fort Wayne
J. Cherie Strachan
Affiliation:
Central Michigan University
Daniel M. Shea
Affiliation:
Colby College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Political observers have detected a noticeable uptick in American political incivility in recent years, culminating with several moderate senators recently citing the rise of hard-core partisanship as the reason for their retirement. Supporting these accusations of unprecedented incivility with empirical evidence can be difficult, as notions of what constitutes appropriate, civil behavior are subjective and can vary across the political context of different eras. Was it more uncivil, for example, for William Jennings Bryan to accuse his political opponents of crucifying other Americans on a cross of gold than it was for a member of Congress to yell “You lie!” at the president in the nation's Capitol? Assessing the incivility of these statements requires determining the effect each had on political opponents' abilities to maintain a functional relationship despite their disagreement over policy outcomes. Nevertheless, many politicians, political observers, and scholars are truly concerned that current levels of incivility are indeed worse, not only damaging the ability to resolve complex public problems, but threatening the long-term stability of America's governing institutions. Largely focusing on changes in institutional structures and elite behavior, scholars identify numerous explanations for this trend.

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 428 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, A. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, A., and Saunders, K.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, J. 2004. “How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., and McPhee, W.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Black, E., and Black, M.. 2002. The Rise of the Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P., and Levinson, S.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, E., and Stimson, J.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, E. 2000. The Corruption of American Politics: What Went Wrong and Why. New York: Overlook Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M., and Abrams, S.. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., and Pope, J.. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Geer, J. 2006. In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, M. J., and Weiler, J. D.. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, S. 2010. Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Johnson, P., and Sprague, J.. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Morehouse Mendez, J., and Osborn, T.. 2004. “Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogenous Networks.” Political Psychology 25 (1): 65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, K. H., Waldman, P., and Sherr, S.. 2000. “Eliminate the Negative? Categories of Analysis for Political Advertisements.” In Thurber, J., Nelson, C., and Dulio, D., Crowded Airwaves: Campaign Advertising in Elections, 44–64. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D. 2002. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice.” American Political Science Review 96 (1) 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2007. Broad Support for Political Compromise in Washington. January 22. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://www.people-press.org/2007/01/22/broad-support-for-political-compromise-in-washington/Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2010. Little Compromise on Compromising. September 20. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1735/political-compromise-unpopular-neither-party-favored-on-economy-four-in-ten-say-cutting-tax-cuts-for-wealthy-hurts-economyGoogle Scholar
Reiter, H., and Stonecash, J.. 2011. Counter Realignment: Political Change in the Northeastern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar