A Few Key Bifurcations
Here below, let me bring in a few trends that come out of my work that tend to support the bifurcations described int he Big Sort. But they do not go as far as what Bill is getting at.
1) While all the presidential elections of the last few decades have been very close --2% or so advantage of the winner-- The Big Sort shows us that at the local level, half of the elections were won by landslides on both the Republican and the Democratic sides. We are not as balanced politically as we look at the presidential level. We are far more virulent than that. (which may explain a few things that seem so "un-American" ...)
2) More inequality across states --the illustration of Austin versus Cincinnati. Yet another sharpening bifurcation. It has an interesting parallel in the longer term trend of the decennial US census. Up to the 1980 census, the six major regions in the US (as organized by the decennial census) tended to converge in terms of key socio-economic indicators. In the 1990 census, for the first time, there was a bifurcation --three regions pulling way ahead of the other three regions in the US. The 2000 census showed the same thing. This fits with my analysis of the global city and the kinds of new spatial segmentations: rich poles of economic development (whether global cities or silicon valleys) becoming richer, and the poorer ones becoming poorer. The Big Sort, with its own specific focus also suggest this bifurcation, with differences becoming sharper. Again, what at the national level may look like an equally divided country, at the smaller levels shows itself to be far more lopsided --rather than an even distribution, a distribution of lopsided outcomes.
3) More homogeneous neighborhoods tended to become more conservative, on both the Democratic and Republican sides. Let me pull out two points here: the more homogeneous the less need to negotiate, to try to understand the other side --whether at the level of the neighborhood, or of Congressional politics (where it takes the form of partisanship. So it is not just big lobbies that are making our representatives less likely to be bi-partisan. Their constituencies are also becoming more partisan. Second point: given the amount of residential segregation in the US, this is a bad story. it can feed old dormant racisms and create new ones. The data on residential segregation (index of dissimilarity) shows that segregation has grown in just about all major cities, especially between blacks and whites. It may also explain the strength of the new anti-immigrant sentiment.
Again. Your argument is not advanced by ending it with an unconnected commonplace.
An explanation of why homogeneous neighborhoods tend to become more conservative would be interesting and helpful.
July 22, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comment, above, was referring to this statement:
. . . residential segregation . . . can feed old dormant racisms and create new ones.
July 22, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at where people live, and who lives there, you come to the conclusion that class is king -- period. Middle-class blacks live in neighborhoods with middle-class residents -- black or white. You seem to completely ignore this reality.
To add to Ellen's point, allow me to throw in the gerrymandering Congress is allowed (yes allowed) to do to insure their own re-election. When a member of Congress is allowed to draw their own Congressional district, based on census data -- do we still have a democracy?
July 22, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for gerrymandering.....There's been a lot of work on this and the general conclusion is:
1. Congressional districts are becoming more lopsided.
2. Gerrymandering is not the cause.
Yes, state legislatures redraw congressional district boundaries every ten years. (Well, in Texas, sometimes more often!) But the districts have grown more homogenous at a rather steady rate over time, not suddenly at the moment of the redistricting. There is simply no partisan bump at the time of redistricting. Rather, there is a steady partisan growth over time.
Another way to think of this is to look at states with one member of congress. These states have grown more lopsided on average over the last four decades than congressional districts that have been redrawn by nefarious state legislators.
We all love to blame politicians for our problems. This one is homegrown.
July 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of more points about the received wisdom on gerrymandering and incumbency protection:
1. To the extent gerrymandering works: the strategy you would use to protect incumbents is very different from the strategy to protect a partisan seat-count advantage.
2. Gary Cox and Jonathan Katz published a great book on gerrymandering titled Eldridge Gerry's Salamander. They provide two better explanations for incumbent success:
a. Nowadays, House incumbents are more strategic and less likely to run if they face a serious challenge.
b. Good challengers are harder to find in years when partisan control of Congress isn't going to change. Ask any Republican you now, at the moment.
3. In addition to Bill's suggestion about the seven states that never redistrict, look at the Senate, which also never redistricts. For inherent reasons, Senate challengers are more successful than House challengers, but not but the polarization and incumbency trends are similar.
July 22, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys, if gerrymandering doesn't work to help either parties or incumbants then why is it such a big deal? Were the Texas Republicans just wasting their time? I doubt it. There's no doubt that people have successfully used the shape of congressional districts to both seize and to protect positions of power.
I understand that you all think the effects are perhaps overstated (and maybe they are) but will you agree that they do, indeed, exist?
July 22, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question, redistricting has to have some relevant and measurable effect on these "Big Sort" concerns. You can find anecdotes and examples; the Juliet Halperin book on this topic has a few.
But in the aggregate, the effects of gerrymandering are overhyped and oversimplified. It's not part of the "big picture" explanation.
Case in point: the example about Texas. There are two at least "power positions" to consider: party strength and incumbency.
In the case of Texas, the goal was to increase the number of Republicans in the House, and keep that number high; not to protect incumbents, Republican or otherwise. Those goals (surprisingly) are conflicting and, to an important degree, mutually exclusive.
Is this mid-decade redistricting going to save the bacon of many incumbent Texas Republicans this year? I'm not following it closely, but I suspect it won't.
July 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's take some districts in North Carolina that look like the proposed state of Palestine. They're not homogenous at all. I live in one of these, btw. These were drawn specifically to make sure a minority wins the seat. Ditto for some New York districts where incumbents are allowed to pick specific zip codes they want in their district. Iowa is the only state I know of that has an independent body drawing the lines.
What you end up with is a more radical member of Congress that is so safe in their seat they don't have to compromise to accomplish anything. This, I feel, is absolutely a contributing factor to the gridlock we see. If you had a more balanced district, you would have a more moderate representative.
July 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question was whether gerrymanding was the cause of ideologically lopsided congressional districts. It isn't.
Can districts be drawn to help particular incumbents? You bet. But the question here is whether the partisanship in Congress is due to redistricting.
July 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bill. Guess I was too thick for that distinction. I see what you're saying.
I guess one implication would be that the homogeneity you're finding makes gerrymandering possible. If people moved more randomly then the gerrymanderers would always be behind the curve, right?
July 22, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And then, how do you draw a district in, say, California. Congressional boundaries would turn the state into a barber pole with districts laying in west to east strips.
July 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink