Politics are changing. Things in the political sphere are different than they were 20 years ago, 10 years ago or even since the last presidential election in 2016. The Mirror sat down with Dr. Daniel Ponder, director of the Meador Center for Politics and Citizenship, to discuss these changes and what they mean for American politics.

Q: In the last 20 years, what kind of new changes have been sweeping politics in the United States?

A: I think without a doubt the main thing is not only continued but widening polarization within the parties, especially the institutional parties. Congress, for example. There is still some debate about how badly polarized the public is. There is some evidence that everybody is polarized, but there is other evidence that says, while the public is polarized, it’s not as bad as institutions. I guess what we can say for sure is that regardless there is expanding polarization both in institutions and perhaps to a lesser extent in the public. I think that is the biggest trend in American politics over the last two decades.

Q: What, in your opinion, are some factors that might explain this polarization?

A: There are a couple of conjectures, and one is the rise of candidate-centered campaigns, where candidates rely less on the party for things like recruitment and even less for money. So, once they get into government, let’s say the House, then… they owe less to the parties.

I think another thing is the decline of split-ticket voting. [Split-ticket voting is the practice of voting for candidates from multiple parties on one ballot during an election.] Back when I started teaching in the ‘90s, there was a lot of split-ticket voting – that is to say, people would split their vote between the president… and other candidates on the ticket. Let’s say they voted for the Democrat for president, they might also vote for a Republican for a Senator or House member. That has been on the decline.

I think there has been a movement within the parties as each party has gone through its own internal struggles to define what kind of party it is. The Democrats did that after 2004, the Republicans did that after 2008.

Gerrymandering has helped, and some might say income inequality, where you are truly representing different people. And there is some research to back this up… that income inequality has increased; Democrats are representing middle to lower-middle and lower income [people], and Republicans are representing those of a better income.

There’s a lot of different conjectures, and I do think all of these play a part of the story. Back when there was less polarization in Congress it was because one of the parties, usually the Republican party, did not stand much of a chance of taking over the chamber when there was an election. So, they cooperated. Now… the seat margins tend to be closer, or if not the seat margins themselves then the distribution. In 2008, a lot of Democrats won what had been traditionally Republican “strongholds” and that’s what happened last year [during the midterm elections].

That’s why, I think, you see [Nancy] Pelosi holding off on impeachment; because if you push for impeachment a lot of those members of Congress, especially the 30 newer members of Congress… that come from districts that Trump had won would be in danger of not being reelected. If you push for impeachment there might be a backlash. Part of that is manifesting itself in policy-making. Since the possibility of losing the chamber is higher today, there is much less incentive for the opposing party to agree at all, to “give a win” to the majority party.

Q: What role has the media played in all this?

A: It used to be the case… that media tended to play it down the middle. But people on the left saw that as biased towards conservatives and people on the right saw it as biased towards the liberal side… I do think that over the last few years, it appears that the media’s willingness… to call out falsehoods with the rise of fact-checking is increasing. The New York Times is counting the number of verifiable falsehoods spoken by the president [at the time of writing this article, the number stands at just over 12,000].

I think the idea is moving, the idea to remain unbiased is changing. Let’s say you and I are having a conversation about the Holocaust, does that mean we need a Holocaust denier present to represent the other side? I would argue no.

The media, through no fault of its own, has grown like any other industry does. Now, it has mutated so that there is a place that anyone can go to hear or read news that reinforces their own predispositions. If I’m conservative, I can go to Fox News, if I’m liberal, I can go to MSNBC all day. It wasn’t always that way, and I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but the growth of the industry has allowed for people to sort themselves into silos in terms of information they collect.

The growth of the industry has allowed people, in a way they didn’t used to be able to, quickly access information they like.

Q: So, are we trapped in this cycle of partisanship?

A: I will say, it’s hard to see a way out of it right now. Right now, it is so entrenched… In the ‘80s, only 75-80% of Americans voted for their party. That’s only three in four, there was a lot of slippage there. Today the number is closer to 90% and some elections exceed 90%. Partisanship has become so deeply entrenched that it’s hard to predict “it would take this” to bring the country together.

I do think certain things are changing demographically. There is an increase in minorities in the United States, it won’t be too long before whites are no longer the majority, even though they will remain the largest single demographic. As you see that spreading and growing in places like Texas, it might threaten Republican incumbents. That’s why it’s so interesting to watch debates over immigration, from the establishment to the hardliners, because if you lose Texas in the next ten years… that is a steep hole for any Republican candidate for president to climb out of.

It’s interesting to see the arguments within the parties about branding. To see how parties are presenting themselves in an effort to not necessarily win votes, but keep votes.

Article written by Forest Swisher.