Why We're Polarized

When Antonin Scalia, a justice of the Supreme Court, died in February 2016, President Obama named Merrick Garland as his replacement. Scalia was a conservative who was known for his antagonism toward liberals. Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court require Senate confirmation. At this time, the Republicans controlled the Senate. In an unprecedented move, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote on Garland’s nomination. He claimed that the vote should wait until after the election. However, he later noted that had a Republican been in the White House, he would have held a vote in an election year. Klein is not surprised by this behavior, asking why voters should expect anything different in these polarized times. However, he notes that such behavior could destroy the Supreme Court.

Drawing upon the research of sociologist and political scientist Juan Linz, Klein observes that presidential systems or those with independently elected executives are fragile and often dissolve. The US system has been the exception. Historically, the US system, despite its potential for divided government—the control of one chamber of Congress and the presidency in the hands of different parties—has worked because the political parties have had ideologically diverse coalitions. That has allowed informal norms of compromise and moderation to operate.