Podcast appearances and mentions of nolan mccarty

Paper link: https://ideas.repec.org/a/now/jnlpip/113.00000063.html 

(NOTE: This episode was republished due to a flaw in the original file. Apologies if your were among the afflicted) Income inequality has been blamed for the rise in populism and political polarization over the last decade, but is the link causal or coincidental? In this episode, Nolan McCarty of Princeton University explains the evidence linking income inequality with polarization, and how this trend began long before the rise of the Occupy Movement, the Tea Party, and Donald Trump. You can find Nolan's study here: https://www.princeton.edu/~nmccarty/ineqpold.pdf For a write-up on this episode and other issues of the day, sign up for YDHTY's weekly newsletter at https://www.ydhty.com/news

Nolan McCarty is the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and Interim Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. He is the co-author of several books, including Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy and Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. His most recent book, Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know, explores the origins, development, and implications of the rising tide of political polarization in the U.S. In this interview, Professor McCarty discusses the current state of American politics and the events that brought us here. Why is polarization more extreme now than it was fifty years ago? What are the consequences of increased polarization? What steps can we take to alleviate this issue? Professor McCarty walks us through contemporary theories and empirical facts of political polarization, explaining the implications of these trends on government, policymaking, and society as a whole. We also discuss “affective polarization” and the relationship between social media and political tensions. Does the election of Donald Trump represent a new level of polarization, or is it just more of the same? What should we expect for the future of polarization? Professor McCarty offers insightful answers to these questions and more.

A convidada nasceu em Minneapolis, nos EUA, cresceu em Lisboa, e regressou à América em 2012, onde se licenciou em Economia e Ciência Política. Actualmente, está a terminar o doutoramento em Ciência Política na Universidade de Harvard, com uma tese sobre o efeito dos partidos políticos e das instituições no processo de representação, comparando a realidade nos EUA, no Reino Unido e na Europa continental. -> Apoie este projecto e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45graus.parafuso.net/apoiar Esta foi uma conversa bem longa em que percorremos um leque enorme de aspectos que caracterizam e explicam a política norte-americana. Comecei por perguntar à convidada como foi que chegámos ao nível actual de enorme polarização política. Para compreender devidamente este estado de coisas é preciso recuar aos anos 1960 e à aprovação do Civil Rights Act of 1964, no tempo do presidente Lyndon Johnson, que pôs fim à segregação racial que existia ainda em vários estados (sob aquilo que ficou conhecido como as ‘Leis de Jim Crow’). Para perceber as causas históricas da polarização actual é preciso, no entanto, compreender como funciona o sistema político americano, nomeadamente as instituições e regras que condicionam e influenciam a maneira como a vontade política dos cidadãos é reflectida na política. E foi disso que falámos durante o resto da conversa. A principal característica do sistema político americano é a estrita separação de poderes que a Constituição impõe. Há três poderes: legislativo, executivo e judicial. O legislativo é atribuído ao Congresso (o parlamento), e está também ele dividido entre duas câmaras: a Câmara dos Representantes e o Senado. O poder executivo, por seu lado, está no Presidente e no governo, enquanto o poder judicial está entregue aos tribunais e, em particular, ao Supremo Tribunal, que pode vetar leis aprovadas pelo congresso ou decretos presidenciais. A existência de duas câmaras no congresso é resultado em grande medida de se tratar de um sistema federal, isto é, em que os Estados têm um grau grande de autonomia. A ideia é que a Câmara represente os cidadãos no seu conjunto, uma vez que o número de representantes eleitos por cada estado é proporcional à respectiva população, enquanto o Senado tem uma ligação mais estreita aos Estados enquanto unidade política, uma vez que cada Estado é representado por dois senadores, independentemente da sua população. Há ainda uma série de particularidades do sistema americano de que falámos na conversa, e que influenciam a forma como a política funciona na prática. São exemplos destes o grande poder dos Estados em comparação com outros sistemas federalistas, a regra do ‘Filibuster’ no Senado, as eleições por círculos uninominais e o chamado ‘gerrymandering’, a existência de apenas dois partidos políticos (e com características diferentes dos europeus), a escolha dos candidatos presidenciais através de eleições primárias, o papel Colégio Eleitoral na eleição presidencial ou, ainda, os vários poderes do presidente, para lá daqueles que a Constituição define formalmente. Mais para o final da conversa, falámos ainda de algumas melhorias institucionais que podem a ajudar diminuir este clima de polarização, e melhorar o funcionamento da política, e a convidada partilhou a visão dela sobre o que pode ser o futuro próximo da política americana.    Índice da conversa: Como chegámos ao nível de polarização política actual Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Mudanças nos anos 1960 Newt Gingrich Segregação racial: Brown v. Board of Education Leis de ‘Jim Crow’ Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) Porque é que o Partido Democrata agiu como agiu, sabendo à partida que ia perder eleitores no sul? ‘Southern strategy’ do Partido Republicano A polarização actual Estudos sobre polarização: ‘Polarized America’, de Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole e Howard Rosenthal Características e limitações do sistema político americano Sistema eleitoral Teorema do votante mediano Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Supremo tribunal Pete Buttigieg (candidato às primárias do P.Democrata em 2020) Caso ‘Marbury v. Madison’ Juan Linz (cientista político) Senado e a regra do ‘Filibuster’ Eleições ‘Midterms’ Porque há tanta abstenção nos EUA? Círculos uninominais Gerrymandering  Colégio Eleitoral National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Convenção constitucional - ‘Virginia Plan’ Senado vs Câmara dos Representantes Federalismo e o peso dos Estados no sistema político dos EUA O poder do Presidente: ‘executive orders’ Dificuldade em criar um Estado Social nos EUA Alberto Alesina - ‘Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?’ A questão racial Voting Rights Act de 1965 Decisão 2013 do Supremo Tribunal Juíza Ruth Bader Ginsburg (‘notorious R.B.G.) Potenciais reformas institucionais futuras Processo eleitoral  Representação proporcional  ‘Lei de Duverger Porque só há dois partidos nos EUA, mesmo com centenas de distritos eleitorais? Teoria de Jonathan Haidt sobre as causas da polarização Livro ‘Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government’ -- Christopher H. Achen e Larry M. Bartels Diferenças entre partidos americanos e europeus O poder oculto do Presidente: líder informal do partido.  Sistema de primárias  Eleições presidenciais de 2021. Joe Biden.  Bernie Sanders Futuro da polarização política  Recomendações da convidada: Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America, de Lee Drutman How Democracies Die, de Levitsky & Ziblatt Mrs America (série)   Obrigado aos mecenas do podcast: Tomás Fragoso, Gonçalo Murteira Machado Monteiro, Nuno Costa, Francisco Hermenegildo, Mário Lourenço, Carlos Seiça Cardoso, José Luís Malaquias, Tiago Leite, Carlos Martins, Corto Lemos, Margarida Varela, Filipe Bento Caires, Miguel Marques, Galaró family, Nuno e Ana, João Ribeiro, Miguel Vassalo, Bruno Heleno Gonçalo Matos, Emanuel Gouveia, Ricardo Santos, Ricardo Duarte, Ana Sousa Amorim, Manuel Martins, Sara Mesquita, Francisco Sequeira Andrade, ChaosSeeker , Gabriel Sousa, Gil Nogueira, Luis Brandão Marques, Abílio Silva, Joao Saro, Tiago Neves Paixão, Daniel Correia, Rita Mateus, António Padilha, Tiago Queiroz, Carmen Camacho, João Nelas, Francisco Fonseca, Diogo Sampaio Viana, José Soveral, André Oliveira, Andreia Esteves, João Bernardino, Luís Costa, Ana Teresa Mota, Isabel Oliveira, Arune Bhuralal Rui Baldaia, Joana Margarida Alves Martins, Luis Marques, Hugo Correia, Duarte , Francisco Vasconcelos, Telmo , Jose Pedroso, MANNA Porto, José Proença, Carlos Manuel Lopes de Magalhães Lima, Maria Francisca Couto, joana Antunes, Nelson Poças, Francisco López Bermúdez, Carlos Silveira, Diogo Rombo, Bruno Lamas, Fábio Mota, Vítor Araújo, João Pereira, Francisco Valente, Nuno Balsas, Jorge Amorim, Rui Vilão, João Ferreira, Luís Elias, José Losa, Hélder Moreira, Diogo Fonseca, Frederico Apolónia, André Abrantes, Henrique Vieira, João Farinha, Paulo Fernandes, Nuno Lages, João Diamantino, Vasco SÁ Pinto, Rui Carrilho, Luis Quelhas Valente, Tiago Pires, Mafalda Pratas, Renato Vasconcelos, João Raimundo, Francisco Arantes, Francisco dos Santos, Mariana Barosa, Marta Baptista Coelho, João Castanheira, Pedro , rodrigo Brazão, Nuno Gonçalves, Pedro Rebelo, Tomás Félix, Vasco Lima, Joao Pinto, João Moreira, José Oliveira Pratas, João Diogo Silva, Marco Coelho, Joao Diogo, Francisco Aguiar , Tiago Costa da Rocha, João Crispim, Paulo dos Santos, Abílio Mateus, João Pinho , Andrea Grosso, Miguel Lamela, Margarida Gonçalves, Afonso Martins, João Barbosa, Luis Filipe, Renato Mendes, António Albuquerque, Francisco Santos, juu-san, Fernando Sousa, Pedro Correia, MacacoQuitado, Paulo Ferreira, Gabriela, Nuno Almeida, Francisco Manuel Reis, Daniel Almeida, Albino Ramos, Inês Patrão, Patrícia Esquível , Diogo Silva, Miguel Mendes, Luis Gomes, Ana Batista, Alberto Santos Silva, Cesar Correia, Susana Ladeiro, Gil Batista Marinho, Filipe Melo, Cheila Bhuralal, Bruno Machado, Miguel Palhas, isosamep, Robertt , Pedro F. Finisterra, Cristiano Tavares, Pedro Vieira, Jorge Soares, Maria Oliveira, Bruno Amorim Inácio, Nuno , Wedge, Pedro Brito, Manuel Botelho da Silva, Ricardo Leitão, Vítor Filipe, João Bastos, Natália Ribeiro, Bernardo Pimentel, Pedro Gaspar, Hugo Domingues Esta conversa foi editada por: Martim Cunha Rego Bio: Mafalda Pratas Fernandes nasceu em Minneapolis, MN (EUA), cresceu em Lisboa, e regressou aos Estados Unidos em 2012, onde se licenciou em Economia e Ciência Política na Universidade de Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Actualmente, é doutoranda em Ciência Política na Universidade de Harvard, onde está a completar a sua dissertação sobre o efeito dos partidos políticos e das instituições no processo de representação. Estuda, em particular, os contextos europeu, britânico e norte-americano em perspectiva comparada. Em Harvard, dá também aulas sobre Democracia, economia política e política comparada e participa ainda num novo projecto, liderado por Daniel Ziblatt e Steve Levitsky, que pretende analisar as crises dos establishments ao longo da história e nos dias de hoje.

Guest speakers include Nolan McCarty, Dr. Mark Green, John Barry, Dr. David Reich, Dr. Kari Christine Nadeau, Dr. Tony Coles, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Dr. Jacob Appel, Dr. Michael Osterholm, Wayne Kent, Casey Mulligan, Andrew Cherlin, and Rabbi Paul Yedwab.

Party polarization and economic inequality have had profound impacts on America's governing institutions. Frances E. Lee, co-editor of “Can America Govern Itself?” with Nolan McCarty, discusses what's new and what's perennial in challenges to democracy at this fraught moment.Lee is jointly appointed in Princeton University's Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she is professor of politics and public affairs. She has broad interests in American politics, with a special focus on congressional politics, national policymaking, party politics, and representation.

Party polarization and economic inequality have had profound impacts on America’s governing institutions. Frances E. Lee, co-editor of “Can America Govern Itself?” with Nolan McCarty, discusses what’s new and what’s perennial in challenges to democracy at this fraught moment. Lee is jointly appointed in Princeton University’s Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she is professor of politics and public affairs. She has broad interests in American politics, with a special focus on congressional politics, national policymaking, party politics, and representation.

In Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2019), Nolan McCarty synthesizes what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of rising political conflicts in the United States. While the current political climate feels like extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also shows that, contrary to conventional belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. He concludes the book reflecting on the election and presidency of Donald Trump in the context of polarization. McCarty is Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2019), Nolan McCarty synthesizes what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of rising political conflicts in the United States. While the current political climate feels like extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also shows that, contrary to conventional belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. He concludes the book reflecting on the election and presidency of Donald Trump in the context of polarization. McCarty is Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2019), Nolan McCarty synthesizes what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of rising political conflicts in the United States. While the current political climate feels like extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also shows that, contrary to conventional belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. He concludes the book reflecting on the election and presidency of Donald Trump in the context of polarization. McCarty is Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2019), Nolan McCarty synthesizes what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of rising political conflicts in the United States. While the current political climate feels like extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also shows that, contrary to conventional belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. He concludes the book reflecting on the election and presidency of Donald Trump in the context of polarization. McCarty is Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2019), Nolan McCarty synthesizes what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of rising political conflicts in the United States. While the current political climate feels like extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also shows that, contrary to conventional belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. He concludes the book reflecting on the election and presidency of Donald Trump in the context of polarization. McCarty is Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University.

Contrary to public opinion, Nolan McCarty argues that the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. His new book, "Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know," investigates the origins, development, and implications of polarized politics in America. We discuss it in this episode.McCarty is the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Princeton University. His research interests include U.S. politics, democratic political institutions, and political game theory.

Contrary to public opinion, Nolan McCarty argues that the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past. His new book, "Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know," investigates the origins, development, and implications of polarized politics in America. We discuss it in this episode. McCarty is the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Princeton University. His research interests include U.S. politics, democratic political institutions, and political game theory.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have to address partisan gerrymandering claims. Sharing his response to this news in the audio clip below is Nolan McCarty, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.McCarty's research interests include U.S. politics, democratic political institutions, and political game theory. His new book, “Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” publishes July 1 by Oxford University Press. Click play to listen below; a transcript follows. Reporters are welcome to use without permissions; contact B. Rose Kelly for the raw audio file.TRANSCRIPT: My feelings would have been mixed regardless of the verdict. Of course, the partisan manipulation of legislative district boundaries is deeply concerning in the extent to which it can dilute the representation of the supporters of the minority party. Yet, I do have some reservations about the extent to which federal courts should be intervening in these issues. The primary one is that partisan gerrymandering is somewhat hard to detect and measure. The Republicans obtain a significant advantage in legislative districting through a pattern of political geography where Democratic voters are highly clustered in urban areas while Republican voters are more spread out. Thus, neutral boundaries that create compact and contiguous legislative districts can lead to a disproportionate number GOP-held districts because Democratic votes get wasted in the cities. It can be very hard to distinguish this “natural” gerrymander from deliberate partisan efforts to rig outcomes. While there have been a number of efforts to measure partisan gerrymanders, I am not persuaded that any of them do a very good job. In my experience, the courts are not very good at adjudicating these statistical disputes. Thus, judges are likely to choose those measures that given them the outcome that conforms to their ideological or partisan interests.A second reason is that partisan gerrymandering may be necessary to obtain fairer partisan outcomes. Recall that republicans have a natural advantage because Democrats are clustered in the cities. The way to offset this effect is to break cities into multiple districts that contain significant suburb populations. But because doing so would violate existing districting criteria of minimizing the fragmenting of municipalities, a judges might strike such a plan down for partisan gerrymandering.Finally, given the growing polarization and partisanship among the federal judiciary, I think we need to be vigilant about having its power over these sorts of issues expand even more.Obviously, the decision means that the current plans will presumably remain in effect through 2022. It is possible however for plans to be struck down under state constitutions as happened recently in Pennsylvania.I would note however the plans in North Carolina and Michigan must be a curse for the GOP. A partisan GOP gerrymander is typically one in which the GOP gives its self a slight advantage in as many suburban districts as possible. If the GOP's decline in the suburbs continues its trend from 2018, several of those districts may flip blue.Although practical considerations give me some sympathy for the decision, I am troubled by what it says about the court. The decision was based on the doctrine of “political questions,” which holds that courts should not intervene in certain disputes involving the other branches of government. In theory, there is nothing inherently ideological or partisan about that doctrine. Yet, the votes on the Supreme Court followed a precise ideological pattern with all conservatives/Republicans supporting the majority opinion and all Democratic/liberal justices in the minority. But ironically, it is this judicial branch polarization which makes the political question doctrine an important one.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have to address partisan gerrymandering claims. Sharing his response to this news in the audio clip below is Nolan McCarty, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. McCarty’s research interests include U.S. politics, democratic political institutions, and political game theory. His new book, “Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know,” publishes July 1 by Oxford University Press. Click play to listen below; a transcript follows. Reporters are welcome to use without permissions; contact B. Rose Kelly for the raw audio file. TRANSCRIPT: My feelings would have been mixed regardless of the verdict. Of course, the partisan manipulation of legislative district boundaries is deeply concerning in the extent to which it can dilute the representation of the supporters of the minority party. Yet, I do have some reservations about the extent to which federal courts should be intervening in these issues. The primary one is that partisan gerrymandering is somewhat hard to detect and measure. The Republicans obtain a significant advantage in legislative districting through a pattern of political geography where Democratic voters are highly clustered in urban areas while Republican voters are more spread out. Thus, neutral boundaries that create compact and contiguous legislative districts can lead to a disproportionate number GOP-held districts because Democratic votes get wasted in the cities. It can be very hard to distinguish this “natural” gerrymander from deliberate partisan efforts to rig outcomes. While there have been a number of efforts to measure partisan gerrymanders, I am not persuaded that any of them do a very good job. In my experience, the courts are not very good at adjudicating these statistical disputes. Thus, judges are likely to choose those measures that given them the outcome that conforms to their ideological or partisan interests. A second reason is that partisan gerrymandering may be necessary to obtain fairer partisan outcomes. Recall that republicans have a natural advantage because Democrats are clustered in the cities. The way to offset this effect is to break cities into multiple districts that contain significant suburb populations. But because doing so would violate existing districting criteria of minimizing the fragmenting of municipalities, a judges might strike such a plan down for partisan gerrymandering. Finally, given the growing polarization and partisanship among the federal judiciary, I think we need to be vigilant about having its power over these sorts of issues expand even more. Obviously, the decision means that the current plans will presumably remain in effect through 2022. It is possible however for plans to be struck down under state constitutions as happened recently in Pennsylvania. I would note however the plans in North Carolina and Michigan must be a curse for the GOP. A partisan GOP gerrymander is typically one in which the GOP gives its self a slight advantage in as many suburban districts as possible. If the GOP’s decline in the suburbs continues its trend from 2018, several of those districts may flip blue. Although practical considerations give me some sympathy for the decision, I am troubled by what it says about the court. The decision was based on the doctrine of “political questions,” which holds that courts should not intervene in certain disputes involving the other branches of government. In theory, there is nothing inherently ideological or partisan about that doctrine. Yet, the votes on the Supreme Court followed a precise ideological pattern with all conservatives/Republicans supporting the majority opinion and all Democratic/liberal justices in the minority. But ironically, it is this judicial branch polarization which makes the political question doctrine an important one.

In part two of our series investigating how digital platforms like Facebook and Google should be regulated, Kate and Luigi dissect the ways these companies interact with our political system by speaking with Nolan McCarty, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University.

In the Gill case this year, the Supreme Court might determine the constitutional future of partisan gerrymandering. Scholars and advocates have been discussing the arguments at the heart of the case – as well as those involved in related cases heading toward the Supreme Court. At a December event at the National Constitution Center, Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, Nolan McCarty, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and David Wasserman, house editor for The Cook Political Report, explored the practical effects of gerrymandering, including its impact on polarization and competitive elections. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates this discussion. To learn more about this week's topic, visit our podcast resources page to explore show notes, guest bios, related Interactive Constitution essays, and more. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org