Incivility and Standing Firm: A Second Layer of Partisan Division

Abstract

Political observers have detected a noticeable uptick in American political incivility in recent years, culminating with several moderate senators recently citing the rise of hard-core partisanship as the reason for their retirement. Supporting these accusations of unprecedented incivility with empirical evidence can be difficult, as notions of what constitutes appropriate, civil behavior are subjective and can vary across the political context of different eras. Was it more uncivil, for example, for William Jennings Bryan to accuse his political opponents of crucifying other Americans on a cross of gold than it was for a member of Congress to yell “You lie!” at the president in the nation's Capitol? Assessing the incivility of these statements requires determining the effect each had on political opponents' abilities to maintain a functional relationship despite their disagreement over policy outcomes. Nevertheless, many politicians, political observers, and scholars are truly concerned that current levels of incivility are indeed worse, not only damaging the ability to resolve complex public problems, but threatening the long-term stability of America's governing institutions. Largely focusing on changes in institutional structures and elite behavior, scholars identify numerous explanations for this trend.

“He Is Just the Nowhere Man of British Politics”: Personal Attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions

“…Are the latest political leaders more antagonistic and rude than recent predecessors? Concern over an apparent increase in incivility in recent years has been reported for American politics (Wolf, Strachan, & Shea, 2012). Sobieraj and Berry (2011) analyzed political commentary on American TV, radio, blogs, and in newspaper columns.…”

Humanitarianism, Egalitarianism, and Public Support for Political Compromise

“…Moreover, because Democrats are more likely than Republicans to prioritize humanitarian and egalitarian policy goals over individualistic and/or hierarchy-preserving ones (e.g., Barker and Tinnick 2006, Mcadams et al, 2008; Piurko et al, 2011; Haidt, 2012, Barker and Marietta, 2020), we suggest that such asymmetrical partisan value dynamics help explain the well-established tendency of Democrats to support political compromise more readily than Republicans do (Hibbing et al, 2009; Wolf et al, 2012; Grossmann & Hopkins, 2016; Ryan, 2017; Glaser & Berry, 2018; Mason, 2018; Wolak, 2020; but see Davis, 2019). 6…”

“…1 Such public resistance incentivizes obstinacy on the part of those lawmakers (e.g., Anderson et al, 2020; Barker & Carman, 2012; Kamarck & Wallner, 2018). 2 Thus, as a burgeoning literature reflects, it is important to understand the variance in public attitudes toward political compromise (e.g., Hibbing et al, 2009; Mackuen et al, 2010; Harbridge & Malhotra, 2011; Wolf et al, 2012; Harbridge et al, 2014; Haas, 2016; Bauer, Harbridge and Krupnikov 2017; Kirkland & Harden, 2018; Wolak, 2020). 3…”

“…1 Such public resistance incentivizes obstinacy on the part of those lawmakers (e.g., Anderson et al, 2020;Barker & Carman, 2012;Kamarck & Wallner, 2018). 2 Thus, as a burgeoning literature reflects, it is important to understand the variance in public attitudes toward political compromise (e.g., Hibbing et al, 2009;Mackuen et al, 2010;Harbridge & Malhotra, 2011;Wolf et al, 2012;Harbridge et al, 2014;Haas, 2016;Bauer, Harbridge and Krupnikov 2017;Kirkland & Harden, 2018;Wolak, 2020). 3 Some prominent explanations for why many people oppose political compromise point to moral, ideological, and religious commitments (Barker & Carman., 2012, Ryan, 2017Delton, DeScioli and Ryan 2019;Grossmann & Hopkins, 2016), which can make compromise feel like "selling out" or "dancing with the devil" (e.g., Grossmann & Hopkins, 2016;Lelkes & Sniderman, 2016;Schufeldt, 2018;Ryan, 2017;Delton et al, 2019; also see Ginges et al, 2007;Skitka, 2010).…”

Incivility in political advertisements: a look at the 2012 US presidential election

“…How such issues and actions ultimately influence political life has received very limited attention. As a consequence, scholars are unsure of the dividing line between civil and uncivil communications and promotions, making it difficult to determine if information packaged in negative contexts is appropriate or whether it always constitutes a form of impoliteness that undermines the democratic political process (Wolf, Strachan, and Shea 2012). The larger societal goal may be to allow for disagreement without jeopardizing ongoing dialogue or social harmony (Shea and Sproveri 2012).…”