Political Polarization in America
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am reflecting on a moment that occurred just after I was sworn in to this office.
My former Republican colleague Mark Kirk gave me some of the best advice I had ever received. He said: In the end, anything that gets done here that is any good gets done in the middle, through compromise.
It begs the question: Are we currently in a position to work well together? Can we effectively govern?
The fact is, right now, the occasions when we work together are few and far between. No established democracy in recent history has been as deeply polarized as the United States is now.
A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that polarization in the U.S. has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in any other country they have examined.
We are not just uniquely polarized on the world stage. We are also uniquely polarized in the context of our own history.
Here is one example. In 1960, 4 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said they would be displeased if their son or daughter married someone of the opposite party. In 2019, that number is 45 percent of Democrats said they would be unhappy if their child married a Republican, and 35 percent of Republicans said they would be unhappy if their child married a Democrat.
Well, the reasons are manyfold. Americans today read less print than ever before. They can now pick and choose their own news, perspectives, and facts. Cable news channels have moved further to the extremes to keep their audiences engaged. When we all read news designed to affirm our own thoughts, we lose empathy and understanding of how other people come to their decisions.
We must each take responsibility for broadening our sources. You don't have to seek out the opinions of extremists to do this. Seeking out balanced news and news sources, supporting local news, and not rewarding so-called hot takes with money and clicks can all get us closer to a return to more fact-based news.
The rise of social media has also heightened tensions and encouraged extremism to flourish. In an environment where the loudest voices rise to the top, it is all too easy for politicians and elected officials to begin believing that they, too, must be the loudest, most extreme voice.
The words of our leaders have always carried significant weight, but in today's world of heightened tensions, they have even more ability to shape the perceptions of our citizens. As leaders, we have a responsibility to cool the temperature of public discourse. Instead, many conservative speakers have chosen to ramp up the temperature and exploit the tensions that exist.
Dangerous, polarizing rhetoric is not the answer. It is poison. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to lead through example in how we address one another.
At the time of our greatest division, the President stressed the importance of leading ``with malice toward none, with charity for all.''
As John Adams said: ``I fear that in every [elected office,] members will obtain an influence by noise, not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by ignorance, not learning. . . . There must be a decency and respect.''
There must be decency and respect on both sides.
Gerrymandering has also played a role in our national polarization. Let's look at it. Between our two parties, only about 60 of the 435 seats in this House are truly contested in general elections. A lack of true swing districts means that candidates are driven to the polls to win their primaries and that fewer are concerned about appealing to the center in a general election. As a result, items that were once nonpartisan have become bitterly so, issues like funding the government, violence prevention, trade, and even raising the debt ceiling.
Now, finding common ground on core issues can be nearly impossible. Dismantling gerrymandered districts can help put our country on the path of depolarization and produce a Congress and State legislatures that are more reflective of the majority of Americans' views.
Our country has faced deep, polarizing challenges before. To put our current moment in perspective, let's look back at the words of the President who guided our country through the most divided of times.
In a January 1838 speech in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln said: ``At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.''
We must heed the call to action from these words. We must change how we address our country, how we are elected, how we speak to each other, and how we learn and get informed. We must all learn that empathy and compromise should be commended, not condemned. Our success or failure will determine if ``any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source