Missing context on growth in polarization

Journalistic accounts of the rise of polarization like the one in Thursday's New York Times almost always fail to provide two crucial pieces of context:

1. Partisan polarization has increased relative to the mid-20th century. But as I've pointed out many times, that period was a historic anomaly -- polarization is actually returning to the historical norm last seen in the late 19th/early 20th century:

2. The less polarized politics of the mid-20th century were driven almost entirely by the issue of race, which created a bloc of conservative Southern Democrats who acted as a virtual third party for much of this time. When Democrats are disaggregated by region (here in the House; Senate results are similar), the role of the Southern Democrats in depolarizing the parties becomes obvious:

In other words, the much-lamented era of bipartisanship in Congress was the direct result of a system of racial apartheid in the South. When it was removed, a reversion to a polarized two-party system was virtually inevitable. Unfortunately, almost no one involved in the debate over polarization understands these two crucial facts. It's incredibly frustrating.

Comments

[Rob]

Brendan's frustrated that the New York Times slants stories to fit its chosen narrative, either intentionally omitting or negligently failing to investigate information that's at variance with the narrative? He's frustrated that the Times' reporters and editors are isolated in their bubble of Upper West Side/Northwest Washington received wisdom, so deep "in the box" that they don't even perceive there is a box?

Welcome to the club.

[Mark Gisleson]

I write about polarization being the fault of the Dixification of the Republican Party. Race has ALWAYS driven our politics but the polarization did stop when the South was winning and segregation was law.

Now that integration is the law, the very same people are driving wedges because they would rather destroy this country than share power.

[David]

If there is some "normal level" of polarization, one might expect it to be replicated abroad. It would be interesting to compare the degree of polarization in the US vs. other democracies.

[Jonathan Bernstein]

While it's certainly true that the era of the conservative coalition was unusual, I think it's overstated to say that the current era of extreme polarization in Congress is normal. See

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/12/polarized.html