Pacific Standard magazine
Thursday, February 23, 2012   |  Miller-McCune Homepage

close this window


We encourage you to share any articles or material you find on Miller-McCune.com with friends and colleagues. Please fill in the fields below with the name and e-mail address. Then fill in the same information for you. Miller-McCune will not keep any information about you or your friend, and the e-mail your friends receive will appear to have come from your e-mail address. The asterisk (*) denotes a required field.


From:





To:







Findings

October 21, 2010

Income Inequality Linked to Senate Standoffs

New research finds that as income inequality rises in a given state, the voting patterns of that state’s senators become more polarized.


| PRINT | SHARE

In the United States, the past quarter-century has been marked by two disturbing societal trends: increasing levels of both income inequality and political polarization. The rich are growing richer, and Democrats and Republicans are growing farther apart.

In 2006, a group of researchers led by Nolan McCarty, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton, presented evidence linking these two phenomena. They reported that “the average positions of Democratic and Republican legislators have diverged markedly since the mid-1970s,” adding that “this turning point occurs almost exactly the same time that income inequality begins to grow after a long decline.”

So are we evolving into a nation of haves and have-nots, with one political party representing the interests of each? Research just published in The Journal of Politics, which examines voting records of the U.S. Senate, provides state-level evidence suggesting this dynamic is well under way.

“U.S. senators from states with high levels of income inequality are more polarized than other senators,” writes Louisiana State University political scientist James Garand, “primarily in response to state income inequality and greater constituency polarization that results from high income inequality.”

Examining individual political attitudes, state-level income inequality and the roll-call votes of U.S. senators, Garand comes up with some striking findings. Looking at data from the early 1970s to the mid-2000s, he finds that as income inequality rises in a particular state, the voting patterns of its senators shift.

“Increases in income inequality in senators’ home states move Republicans in a more conservative direction,” he reports, “resulting in a systematic increase in the difference in ideological positions for Republicans and non-Southern Democrats.”

Democrats, he adds, “respond to the same increases in state income inequality by moving moderately (but significantly) in the liberal direction.”

In summary, “High levels of income inequality generate high levels of political polarization in state electorates, and both income inequality and political polarization exhibit a strong influence on partisan polarization among U.S. senators.”

As Timothy Noah noted in his recent series in Slate, rising income inequality is a long-term trend that shows no sign of slowing. Garand’s analysis, like McCarty’s, suggests the same can be said for the polarized nature of our politics.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

 

word on the street

Post your comment here

more in this section

also by this author

Tom Jacobs

Staff writer Tom Jacobs is a veteran journalist with more than 20 years experience at daily newspapers. He has served as a staff writer for The Lo...

Explaining Liberals to Conservatives, and Vice-Versa

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt can tell you why you feel so righteous about your politics, but will you listen?

Women Eye Dance Moves to Find Thrill Seekers

How to spot thrill-seeking men on the dance floor, “sweet” personalities in public, and bidding fever on eBay.

Does Black History Need More Than a Month?

The documentary “More Than a Month” asks: Does Black History Month still inspire reflection, or just Nike sales?

We’re Sorry: Not All Apologies Are Apologies

Politicians take note: Research shows the fine line between claiming regret and taking responsibility.

Can a Bad Economy Save Your Marriage?

Spouses who blame the economy for their woes, rather than pointing the finger at their partner, are more likely to be satisfied with their marriages.

Receive 1 year (6 issues) of our print magazine for just $14.95. Miller-McCune features polished, in-depth reports on research and solutions across the policy spectrum — from health care, education and energy to international affairs, poverty and the global economy. It's a must read for well-informed and solutions-driven individuals.

Loading

follow us on:

join our newsletter:

from the source

Public Schools Good for People Without Kids, Too

What makes communities strong and vibrant? Researchers say local schools bring a raft of positives to town — even for the childless — beyond creating an educated populace.

Think Tanks Are Nonpartisan? Think Again

Once seen as non-ideological “universities without students,” the American think tank has, in many cases, become a partisan stalking horse that devalues the sector’s scholarship.

A Possible Solution for Space Junk

Swiss scientists plan to send a “janitor satellite” into orbit to attempt to clean up space debris.

Surplus Government Property: Homeless Help vs. Revenue

Turning unloved federal property into homeless services centers has been federal law for a quarter century, but tough times have bureaucrats hoping to shove that tradition into the cold.

Presidents’ Day: Just Another Presidential Fable

A number of folk stories and a few divisive rumors have surrounded the office of the U.S. presidency, and skeptical folks like us check a few of them out.