It's natural to think that people on your side are the "uniters" and that your political opponents are the "dividers."
Now that gay marriage is a done deal, who remains to disapprove of?
The logic of the argument is that if parties want to win elections, they will back more moderate candidates, so giving them more power will bring more centrist politics. But does this really hold up?
New research finds that Americans are increasingly politically "clustered," and this may be driving the parties in Congress further apart.
Unlike others, we find no relationship at all between public funding and legislative polarization.
Nebraska shows that people who want partisanship in a legislature are often those outside the chamber who advocate policy changes.
The House lawsuit is not the answer to executive power - old-fashioned legislating is.
The only thing worse than gridlocked political parties that can't enact their agenda? Unfettered parties that can.
Think the U.S. could use less polarization, more centrist politicians, and maybe a third party? At look at British politics might change your mind.
In Canada, polarization is real--and it's the product of parties' strategic choices, not voters' changing views.