For U.S. readers, the first thing to realize is that the decline in party identifications is not uniquely America. Similar trends are evident in almost all affluent democracies over the past several decades.
This implies that specific aspects of U.S. politics–the role of the media, the structure of the parties and elections, or specific political events and scandals–are not the driving force behind the decline of partisanship.
I believe this reflects general changes in citizen values that lead people to be more independent of political parties in making their political decisions, and more skeptical of political elites in general.
For the past decade at least, about 40 percent of Americans say they are independent of any political party, and among Millennials this rises to 50 percent. Similarly, more people are registering to vote as non-partisans, which is even a stronger sign of their disenchantment with both parties.
I see this trend as a positive thing, because most of the growth in independents comes from young, better educated and politically engaged citizens. They are less likely to vote out of a sense of habitual party ties, and more issue oriented than tribal partisans.
Haidt’s wonderful book, The Righteous Mind, illustrates how the blinders of partisanship can contribute to misconceptions of political issues and poor political choices.
Is it possible for third parties to gain a foothold in our lifetime?
The US electoral system is becoming a rarer and rarer example of two-party politics. In most other affluent democracies, citizens’ disenchantment with the political status quo and the party choices lead to new parties forming that win seats in proportional representation electoral systems.
Third parties as a national force would be very difficult to establish in the United States, and under our electoral system would be severely disadvantaged, much like the Liberal Party in the UK.
And the current office holders are unlikely to support electoral reform because they owe their position to the current system. So while third parties might arise occasionally in the US, then also disappear almost as quickly.
What would the layman find most interesting and accessible within your research?
This is a hard question to answer. For a scholar, the most interesting puzzle is the one you are currently working on.
My next book, The Participation Gap, comes out from Oxford University Press this fall. This research finds that citizens in affluent democracies are participating more and in more varied ways than the did a generation ago.
Voting is a critical exception, but other forms of activity are increasing. That is the good news.
However, the bad news is that the social status gap in participation is widening. The politically rich–the better educated, the more affluent–have been gaining more voice in politics, while those most needy of government support–the poor, the working class, the less educated–are seeing their voice diminish.
This isn’t good for citizens in need, and isn’t good for democracy overall. The final chapter presents cross-national evidence that democracy works best when more people are politically active, AND when the inequality in who participates is lower.
In a real sense, it is an empirical confirmation of Tocquevillian views of maximizing democracy.
What is the most interesting story in your academic career? Your greatest adventure, mishap, fortuitous incident etc.
Do academics live interesting lives? Most of my interesting academic stories involve getting lost–in the London Zoo at night, on a train going the wrong way in Germany. Otherwise, its boring scholarship like an episode of “Big Bang Theory.”
Why did you gravitate toward studying political parties, and how did that interest develop overtime?
I think we are living through an era of exceptional change in citizens values and their political orientations. This has been a core theme throughout my career.
But for policy change to occur in a democracy, it requires that people work through democratic institutions. This led to my recent studies of political parties and the relationship between voters and parties.
A common quote states that democratic politics are unthinkable without political parties, and this has been an implicit subtitle in my recent research. And parties themselves are changing as a result of broad societal changes. All this makes it a very interesting time to study mass politics.
With all the funding in the world, what would you have researched and how?
Societies and governments improve when people are able to express their opinions and participate in decisions affecting their lives.
We have a couple large international projects that struggle to do systematic public opinion research on a global scale: the World Values Survey and the Global Barometers Network.
Both projects struggle for funding, cut corners and barely tap the surface of what we should be studying. And there total costs are probably less than a month of running CERN or other big science projects.
If I were Bill Gates, I would pick a project and give it the funding to provide high quality surveys to monitor public opinion on a global scale that researchers can use to address the questions of our time.
This is especially important in the developing world where the infrastructure for research is limited.
There is one side point to this decision.
I have participated in international surveys in many developing nations. These studies have stripped away our biases of what people in the developing world think and value. And in many ways the survey was the only way to give voice to their opinions without fear of recrimination. Presenting this facts helps press for social change.