Polarization and american Federalism
Existing theories of polarization argue that state political parties will polarize alongside their national counterparts due to pressure from national politicians and media outlets and growing pressure from polarized state constituents. My research challenges these theories by exploring variation in state partisan rhetoric and assessing the factors that contribute to bipartisan cooperation between the state and federal governments. I have a number of ongoing projects that contribute to this research agenda.
Is all politics national: An analysis of campaign content
Recent scholarship has claimed that the increase in negative partisanship and polarization among citizens, has led to nationalization of American politics, though little work has been done to explore the impact of nationalization on state political rhetoric. This manuscript introduces unique candidate nationalization scores derived from a novel national dataset of campaign statements from state legislative campaign websites during the 2018 and 2020 campaigns. Resulting scores show a complicated pattern of nationalization, where Republican and Democratic candidates not only nationalize around different sources but also react to factors like competition differently. This study indicates that the transition from national campaign rhetoric into partisan state campaigns is more complicated than theories of nationalization would imply and that these nuances warrant further investigation.
|
Preaching to the Choir: Website Presence in State Campaigns
The Internet has spawned a renewed hope for facilitating increased access to candidate information for voters. However, the nationalization and polarization of constituents has left many candidates averse to the risks of personalized campaigns, especially in subnational elections. Under what conditions are state candidates willing to establish a personalized web presence as opposed to relying on partisanship? This study introduces a novel dataset of campaign website presence for the 2018 and 2020 state legislative elections. During this time, roughly one-third of state legislative candidates opted to forgo a personalized campaign website. District-level constituent ideology was significantly correlated with website use, even when controlling for district education, income, age, and race, and the candidate’s competitive position. District ideological homogeneity encouraged website use across both parties, while adversarial district ideology corresponded to low website use among Republicans. The results indicate that state legislative candidates, especially Republican candidates, are far more likely to preach to their partisan choir rather than incur the risks of proselytizing among their partisan opposition. The results reiterate the divergent responses of the political parties regarding partisan polarization and shed light on the impact of nationalization within state legislative campaigns.
Meyer-Gutbrod, Joshua. "Preaching to the Choir or Proselytizing to the Opposition: Examining the Use of Campaign Websites in State Legislative Elections." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 23.2 (2023): 166-186. |
Campaign language and state partisan rhetoric
State politics directly impacts the lives of citizens in myriad ways including infrastructure investment, education, regulatory power, taxes, electoral law and even social welfare. However, the growing theory of the nationalization of state politics reduces much of this dynamic to a reflection of national partisan agendas and polarization.
Using the Digital Campaigns Project, I explore both variation in salience and rhetoric within campaign websites for state legislative candidates. Preliminary results reveal that, despite a growing emphasis on national issues amongst the electorate a number of factors contribute to variation in issue salience across the states. First, specific regional public concerns regarding issues like healthcare, immigration, gun control, and environmental and energy policy can cause candidates from both parties to increase emphasis on an issue simultaneously. Secondly, key issues like economics, education, infrastructure investment, and public assistance are used by state level candidates to challenge incumbent partisans, producing within-party variation in issue emphasis across the nation. It is within these arenas where the aphorism, “all politics is local” remains true. I find that, in spite of nationalization and polarization, state-level candidates are more likely to position themselves relative to the state capital rather than the national one. Future studies will continue to expand on this research by evaluating the content of messaging within each policy arena, as well as exploring the impact of district demographics and candidate qualities on campaign content.
Using the Digital Campaigns Project, I explore both variation in salience and rhetoric within campaign websites for state legislative candidates. Preliminary results reveal that, despite a growing emphasis on national issues amongst the electorate a number of factors contribute to variation in issue salience across the states. First, specific regional public concerns regarding issues like healthcare, immigration, gun control, and environmental and energy policy can cause candidates from both parties to increase emphasis on an issue simultaneously. Secondly, key issues like economics, education, infrastructure investment, and public assistance are used by state level candidates to challenge incumbent partisans, producing within-party variation in issue emphasis across the nation. It is within these arenas where the aphorism, “all politics is local” remains true. I find that, in spite of nationalization and polarization, state-level candidates are more likely to position themselves relative to the state capital rather than the national one. Future studies will continue to expand on this research by evaluating the content of messaging within each policy arena, as well as exploring the impact of district demographics and candidate qualities on campaign content.
Bullying the Messenger: Presidential-Media Relations under Polarization
The presidents and their representatives stand in a unique position to control and censor partisan messages thanks to the extensive attention that the press pays to the executive branch. In spite of this capacity, their role in policing co-partisans and challenging partisan rivals remains relatively unexamined. This project aims to correct this by exploring the impact of polarization on presidential rhetoric from President Clinton through President Trump. Using sentiment analysis to gauge negative, positive, and aggressive language from the presidents and their representatives, we explore their capacity to police party members and challenge partisan opposition during briefings, press conferences, and on twitter. The first paper from this project explored the specific variation in negative and positive language during press briefings under the Trump Administration. We found that the Trump Administration, unlike their predecessors, exhibited higher levels of negative language and a decline in positive language in response to an increase in negativity by the press.
Meyer-Gutbrod, Joshua, and John Woolley. "New conflicts in the briefing room: Using sentiment analysis to evaluate administration-press relations from Clinton through Trump." Political Communication 38.3 (2021): 241-259.
Competition and Polarization in Multi-level Government
The increase in partisan polarization at the national level has corresponded to an increase in partisan resistance and a decline in the ability of the federal government to respond to public concerns with effective policy. While literature has shown that state politics has polarized in tandem with the national political parties, there are abundant examples of recent bi-partisan cooperation between national and state governments. This project explores the conditions under which American federalism might offer a mechanism for mitigating polarization by producing opportunities for bi-partisan policy implementation. I argue that this potential is rooted in two mechanisms.
First, national partisan leaders are able to mobilize constituents and generate pressure on state level rival partisans to cooperate in intergovernmental policy implementation on highly salient issues. Secondly, increased within-state competition for control of institutions enhances this pressure by mobilizing partisan voters against incumbent partisan rivals and increasing the chances that politicians will lose control of state institutions and cede the ability to shape early policy implementation
The implementation process of the highly polarized 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides an excellent example of this trend as a number of Republican led states, including Ohio, New Mexico, and Arizona bucked the national Republican Party’s agenda and expanded Medicaid. I find that the effect of state variation in constituent preferences is magnified when the state majority party risked loss of control of state institutions due to a strong competitive partisan environment. In the ongoing book project, I explore this dynamic within other policy arenas, arguing that by disrupting partisan brinksmanship through adoption of the rival party’s policies, states can create new bi-partisan momentum for nationally polarized policies.
First, national partisan leaders are able to mobilize constituents and generate pressure on state level rival partisans to cooperate in intergovernmental policy implementation on highly salient issues. Secondly, increased within-state competition for control of institutions enhances this pressure by mobilizing partisan voters against incumbent partisan rivals and increasing the chances that politicians will lose control of state institutions and cede the ability to shape early policy implementation
The implementation process of the highly polarized 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides an excellent example of this trend as a number of Republican led states, including Ohio, New Mexico, and Arizona bucked the national Republican Party’s agenda and expanded Medicaid. I find that the effect of state variation in constituent preferences is magnified when the state majority party risked loss of control of state institutions due to a strong competitive partisan environment. In the ongoing book project, I explore this dynamic within other policy arenas, arguing that by disrupting partisan brinksmanship through adoption of the rival party’s policies, states can create new bi-partisan momentum for nationally polarized policies.