ANALYSIS
Webster's word for 2024 was "polarization," a fitting choice for an issue reshaping American politics in a way that makes functional governance a rarity. I've written previously about polarization, including what we know about it broadly, how it impacts our judicial system, and potential fixes. I'm back this time to discuss how polarization impacts leadership in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. In short, polarization is undermining the ability of these branches to function effectively and govern, which has heavy implications for America.
The Devastating Impact of Polarization on the Legislative Branch
Polarization has been growing in US House of Representatives since the early 1990s, with the Senate following about a decade later. This trend accelerated after the 2010 elections and has been more noticeable among Republicans than Democrats. As a result, the two major parties are now further apart ideologically than they have been since the American Civil War. Looking subnationally, state legislatures, even in Nebraska's traditionally nonpartisan system, are also polarizing at increasing rates.
One visible symptom is the rise in incendiary language among lawmakers. The consequences of this rhetoric are straining relationships between officials and difficulties with compromise, which is necessary for effective governance.
Speaking of consequences, bipartisanship in Congress has declined by 30% since 1989, leading to legislative "gridlock" and a severe challenge to governance. The erosion of bipartisanship in Congress has turned it from a forum for deliberation into a battleground for party orthodoxy, leaving numerous challenges unmet, with the 118th Congress the least productive in nearly a century.
Instead of legislating, many members of Congress prioritize:
These behaviors reflect polarization's effect of turning our politics into a permanent electoral campaign season, leaving little room for elected officials to do the job that America pays them for. The result? Fewer "workhorses" focused on governing, and more "showhorses" focused on performing for polarized audiences. Alarmingly, voters often reward these behaviors, and legislators fear primary backlash if they compromise.
Don’t take my word for how much of a problem polarization is causing governance in the House though, ask Congresswoman Victoria Spartz. She is refusing to caucus with either party because “as a serious legislator and finance professional, not a clown, I am not going to continue being involved in circuses.” In a separate interview Spartz said “The people elected us to govern. We need to deliberate. We need to deliver policies.” Congressman Gerry Connolly addressed this issue recently as well, stating “I've got colleagues for whom the job is performative...bloviating on the floor or getting on cable television or something.”
With Congress's approval rating at just 15%, most Americans believing lawmakers rarely pass laws in the public interest, and three-fourths feeling their concerns go unheard, the American people are losing faith in a system designed to serve them. This erosion of trust further complicates governance, reflecting a political crisis and a failure of democracy.
Polarization and the Judiciary
While polarization paralyzes Congress and creates gridlock, the judiciary faces its own polarization-driven crisis, with public confidence in the courts waning. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically been somewhat political. But, partisan polarization has heightened this problem and made it more public. Partisanship now dominates judicial appointments and selection processes. For instance, a Republican-controlled Senate blocked President Obama's election-year appointment to the Court. Yet, it facilitated one for President Trump following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing in 2020.
Congressional gridlock caused by polarization has also increased the judiciary's influence on legislation. For example, when Congress fails to override Supreme Court interpretations of statutes because of polarization, the Court's role in shaping legislation grows. The Supreme Court's involvement in legislation challenges the separation of powers. It shifts legislative authority to the judiciary beyond what it was designed to be.
Judicial polarization has real consequences at both national and state levels. Judges increasingly make decisions aligned with partisan interests, eroding the perception of courts as impartial arbiters. In the mid-1990s, 80% of Americans held a favorable view of the Supreme Court. Today, that number has plummeted to 47%.
As judicial appointments become more partisan, the perception of voters for courts as neutral “referees” of the law erodes, weakening public trust in their rulings. This loss of trust undermines the judiciary's ability to serve as a stabilizing force in governance, further damaging the American political system.
Polarization and the Executive Branch
Executive offices—governors and the presidency—were once thought to encourage moderation and bipartisanship and to stay above the partisan fray. However, polarization has increasingly shaped executive behavior, with governors and presidents acting in more partisan ways now than in recent history.
Polarization has also weakened executives' ability to work with opposition parties to pass meaningful legislation, contributing to the gridlock described earlier. Polarization even influences candidates for executive office. For example, when running for his second term, President Trump pressured Republican lawmakers to block bipartisan immigration reform in 2024, believing the issue would benefit him electorally.
The effects extend to the executive branch's control over government agencies. Polarization has made agencies more partisan and less independent, enabling executives to exert greater control. Simultaneously, legislatures' oversight of the executive branch has diminished in the face of legislative polarization and infighting, further disrupting the separation of powers and interfering with governance.
Wrapping Up
Polarization isn't just reshaping American governance; it's breaking it or at least starting to bend it intensely. The inaction and mudslinging it creates undermines the separation of powers, paralyzes decision-making, hampers governance, and weakens public trust in institutions as the number of challenges facing American society increases.
It's no surprise that two-thirds of Americans report being "fed up with the polarization plaguing government and society." Plus, trust in institutions beyond those discussed here, like the police, banks, and the media, is also declining, suggesting even wider damage to our society. Further, 80% of Americans now describe U.S. politics in negative terms. If polarization continues unchecked, we risk descending into a state where governance becomes a relic of the past. The result would be that America has a government incapable of action, trust, or accountability, all core tenets of a functioning political system.
Rebuilding trust and addressing polarization requires leadership willing to prioritize governance over performance and workhorses over showhorses. Without such leadership, the consequences for American democracy could be dire. But, as the recent issues around government funding showed, our elected officials seem satisfied with continuing the destructive game of polarization to the detriment of the American voters and government.
I want to end this by turning to the people who have the power to do something about the polarization-induced struggle that is often American governance: you, the American voter. Demand more from elected officials, refuse to reward partisan theatrics, and insist on leadership that values governance over grandstanding. The fight against polarization's negative impact on governance and democracy will take some work and effort on our part, but America's worth it.
