Political Divide Doesn't Start At Home, It Starts in the House, Panelists Say

Matthew Hersh

Just looking at the popular vote tallies in the the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, it's safe to say that the country is pretty evenly divided when it comes to who the president should be. But does the same division exist in the annals of Congress? A two-day seminar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs looked into how, or why, our political leaders have become increasingly polarized over the last 10 to 15 years.

The Center for the Study of Democratic Politics organized last weekend's event to explore the "Polarization of American Politics." The Center was created in 1999 as a research program within the Wilson School.

One of the panel discussions, "Reports from the Hill," sought to explain the current rift in Congress. Composed of six current and former members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the panel was a surprisingly congenial, often jovial, presentation conducted by six individuals who say they are at odds.

The discussion did, however, offer some behind-the-scenes insight as to how members of Congress interact when they are not on Capitol Hill and how those relations have changed over the years.

Mickey Edwards, a former Republican Representative from Oklahoma, moderated the discussion. He looked back on the election of Newt Gingrich as the Republican Whip in the House as the start of the division. Ironically, Mr. Gingrich was elected to his position by moderate Republicans who felt someone was needed to stand up to the then-Democratic house majority.

Since then, Mr. Edwards said, the now-minority Democrats have complained of being "freezed out" of congressional discussion and often feel helpless when it comes to generating support in roll call votes on the House floor.

Vin Weber, a Republican who represented Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District from 1981 to 1992, acknowledged increased polarization in Congress. "But with all due respect to my liberal colleagues from the other party, we heard that complaint pretty loudly from our side in the 1980s," adding "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Having said that, Mr. Weber suggested that one of the reasons for partisanship is that "greater stakes" have been put forth in recent elections and that the reality of winning and losing has created a more "intense ideological drive" among members of Congress, thus pushing more Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right.

Since 1994, both parties have gone into every election thinking that everything was "losable or winnable," Mr. Weber said, consequently politicizing issues that may not have been highlighted under different circumstances.

Another possible reason for the increasing ideological divide, Mr. Weber speculated, was that most members of the House do not live in Washington D.C. any longer. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Weber said, it has been "politically incorrect" to represent a district or state and live outside that district or state. As such, Mr. Weber continued, elected officials do not engage in social interaction and only encounter each other to debate over a bill.

"When I came to Washington, I was told 'unless you live within driving distance to the capitol, move your family to Washington.' People made after-hours friendships at church or taking their kids to hockey."

He cited Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum's first run at the House as the first successful campaign to politicize an opponent's non-home state residence. Mr. Santorum defeated a seven-time incumbent using that tactic.

"Well, politicians can learn lessons and over the years, a lot of them have learned that you don't move your family to Washington."

David Price, a Democratic Congressman from North Carolina's 4th District, addressed polarization in House voting and the role of leadership in Congress in producing a polarizing landscape.

"The present leadership is different, I want to suggest that the present leadership acts only on sound partisan practices.

"This process, I fear will destroy the bipartisan capacity that the House needs on issues of great importance."

Mr. Price suggested the White House encouraged this practice and that there are more politicians, namely Republicans, he said, governing from the "right-in" rather than the "center-out."

"I fear major issues cannot be addressed under these partisan conditions," Mr. Price said, adding he thought it was "virtually impossible" to legislate in a bipartisan manner.

Echoing Mr. Weber, David Skaggs, a Democrat of Colorado from 1981 to 1997, said one of the reasons for the dichotomous nature of Congress is that most newly-elected members are married to spouses with careers.

"The effect is hard to exaggerate. Colleagues only face each other in an adversarial setting," he said, citing glimpses of "road rage" on the House floor.

All panelists agreed this division in government could translate to public opinion.