Negative Partisanship Works... for Candidates, for Voters, and for the Media

But negative partisanship doesn't promote democracy

Thomas Edsall’s weekly columns are always thoroughly researched and on most weeks contain one idea that jumps out at me. This week’s op ed piece, Trump Is Unraveling Before Our Eyes, but Will It Matter?, offered this nugget from Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego:

“Never underestimate the motivating force of negative partisanship; you really have to hate Democrats and want your party in power to show up and vote for someone with Herschel Walker’s character, but the vast majority of Georgia Republicans” did so.

The phrase “negative partisanship” names what I see as one of the most adverse effects of social media. Because both parties rely on "...the motivating force of negative partisanship" their candidates are advised by their consultants to focus on the deficiencies of their opponent and the caricature of their opponent’s political party. The parties have responded to this tack by offering telegenic candidates who run on vacuous or platitudinous platforms that reinforce their party’s caricature. In the case of the GOP in 2020, which was accused of being the party of Trump, the Republicans offered no platform whatsoever, reinforcing the notion that the GOP would do whatever Trump decided was important. In the case of the Democrats, they offered an encyclopedic platform that referenced many cultural hot-button issues like transgender rights, tax increases on the wealthy, and choice., hot-button issues that GOP candidates could present as evidence that their democratic opponent was an ultra-liberal socialist.

Negative partisanship doesn’t just help the candidates. It also helps the voters chose sides, identify with a particular “team”, and—- with the right messaging— come to detest those who are not supporters of your “team”. Anyone who has participated in or followed sports or is a hard core aficionado of any group knows the camaraderie that emerges from associating with “teammates” who share a common passion. Sometimes that passion is for a sports team, or a movie star, or a music genre, or an automobile brand, or particular commercial product. And when one becomes a TRUE member of, say, Red Sox Nation, one simultaneously becomes derisive of all other baseball teams—- especially the Yankees!

The media especially benefit from voters’ passionate affiliation with “teams”. It provides mainstream media with lots of content and opportunities to write conjectural articles about who-will-run-against-who and who’s up and who’s down in polls. It provides on-line media “stars” with opportunities to find a critical mass of “followers” who will support them by charging de facto club membership fees or selling merchandise (see Alex Jones for a prime example!)…. and is one of the driving forces behind social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

But in the end, the negative partisanship that motivates voters is bad for democracy because it reduces every problem to an elemental “I-can-only-win-if-you-lose” level instead of seeking a more complicated and nuanced solution that requires a shifting of ideals from the “team’s” principles. Worse, it amplifies the most extreme voices and views any compromise as “caving in” to “the other side” which is, based on the only evidence OUR side accepts” pure evil. Democracy will only work if minds are open to some kind of compromise and willing to modify old ways of thinking as times change.

If we don’t want to see any more Hershel Walkers on either side, we might want to examine ways of engaging voters that promote positive partisanship instead of negative partisanship. Good luck!