1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
It was the goal of this study to examine the well-documented problem of partisan
conflict in the United States Congress (Dionne, 2012; Quirk, 2011; Ramirez, 2009) by
examining the relationship between morality and politics in the U.S. Through
investigating this phenomenon by analyzing video data of current members of Congress
in action, it was hoped that this study could address an apparent gap in the existing
literature. Adding this unique perspective of assessing the speeches of those who are
working in this environment should add clarity invaluable for strategizing solutions to
this ongoing conflict. The restoration of effective functioning in this organization could
result in the quicker passage of laws to help correct the listing economy and fractured
social fabric of this country. The work of elected officials could once again have an
effective impact on reshaping the nation, through increased productivity borne of
renewed cooperation across the aisle and a more civil work environment.
It is important to begin this inquiry by comprehending the complexity of the
United States Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded, wherein the
original desire of the country’s founders to create a nation free from the tyranny of
supreme power (Cato Institute, 2002) were reflected. The founders of the Constitution
were truly brilliant and enlightened men, whose genius would still be enviable today. In
creating a system of government laden with a series of checks and balances to prevent
runaway power, their vision to establish a nation based on liberty, equality, and justice
was realized. These remain as solid guiding principles for the nation today.
2
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. has become more complex. The
population has increased (United States Census Bureau, 2014a) and the general populace
has increasingly moved away from farming to living in the cities and suburbs (United
States Census Bureau, 2014b). With geographic mobility, local community and family
support has eroded (Starbuck, 2001) and individual and national economic cycles have
sequentially ebbed and flowed. The society of the United States has matured,
modernized, and globalized. Employment opportunities for lower skilled occupations
have significantly diminished with the advent of the technological revolution (Mark,
1987). Life in the United States has changed.
Such changes, materializing in the last two hundred plus years, have brought
about corresponding adaptations in the structure of the federal government (Levin, 2012).
Once restrained by the mutual checks and balances of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches, the federal government has increasingly adopted a role previously
designed for the legislatures of the individual states (Levin, 2013). Such adaptations may
be viewed with equal vigor as positive or negative, depending on the political persuasion
of the person in question. These changes have resulted the federal government being
more present in the lives of the nation’s citizens than was provided for by the
Constitution (Levin, 2013).
This growth and maturation of the country and the resulting interventions of the
federal government have provided a significant source for debate and disagreement.
Those who may be described as progressive or liberal have welcomed the growing safety
net (Dionne, 2012) against starvation, extreme poverty, inaccessible health care, and lack
3
of support in old age. As a global superpower and a first world nation the United States,
liberals argue, should not consider doing otherwise. However, for those who may be
described as conservative and whose belief systems are strongly bound to liberty and the
rugged individuality of those who helped create this nation, this involvement by the
federal government oversteps the limits put firmly in place in the Constitution (Levin,
2013). They argue that it insults the spirit of individuality in those who believe we should
rely solely on ourselves and should not be required to support those who refuse to work
hard for their living. These individuals argue that the over involvement of the federal
government will lead to tyranny (Levin, 2012), and ultimately to the surrender of one’s
liberty to the common good.
These foundational principles for liberals and conservatives today appear to be at
irreconcilable odds and may provide the template from which to uncover a potential
source for the current political conflict witnessed in the U.S. government (Dionne, 2012).
This dichotomy, also evident within the populace, clearly represents a challenging
obstacle to overcome. Current political partisanship “threatens to stifle practical solutions
to real world problems…[which are proposed]…in order to advance the common good”
(Rhodes, 2014, p.136). The current inability of both ends of the political spectrum to find
common ground is preventing all but microscopic progress in Congress (Benen, 2013)
and holding the populace hostage to how the winds in the chambers of our elected
officials deem to blow. “Governance by crisis” (Obama, 2013) appears to be the modus
operandi. Essentially, the work of the federal government is not getting done (Benen,
2013). It is of vital concern that we increase our understanding of what may prevent the
4
effective running of this organization. Discovering and understanding the underlying
mechanisms that are fueling the current partisanship in the U.S. government, provides the
purpose of this research study.
As in many situations, with a crisis comes the opportunity for change. It is
certainly apparent that this organization is in dire need of positive change in order to
increase its effectiveness and productivity. This study provides a greater understanding of
what may be inflaming exchanges between members of Congress so that potential
solutions can be developed. The social implications of a more functional federal
government that may result, include the potential to allow for more effective lawmaking,
greater bipartisan support for bills introduced to Congress, and a more accurate
representation of the desires and concerns of the citizens of the U.S..
After summarizing the background to this study, this chapter presents the
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, definitions and
assumptions. The conceptual framework for the study is briefly introduced and then
described in further detail in Chapter 2. With a brief discussion of methodological
considerations, which is described in greater detail in Chapter 3, a clear and concise
framework with which the reader can establish the overall direction of the study is
provided.
Background
In the last forty years party ideology in Congress has polarized significantly, with
midcentury moderates and centrists significantly differentiating, condensing to the
extremes of the liberal-conservative continuum (Blendon & Benson, 2011; Quirk, 2011).
5
Previously, party moderates would frequently cross over party lines, making bipartisan
compromise feasible (Quirk, 2011). However, since Congressional members distilled into
each end of the political spectrum, the center has disappeared, resulting in diminishing
cooperation between parties (Blendon & Benson, 2011; Pildes, 2011). Conflict has
increased between the two ideologically distinct ends of the spectrum as members’ policy
positions become more homogeneous within each party and increasingly heterogeneous
between parties (Pildes, 2011). From this, gridlock ensues (Quirk, 2011), causing
members of Congress to have the “inability to effect policy change” (Quirk, 2011, p. 2)
or execute many of the functions they were elected to perform (Blendon & Benson,
2011).
It is important to determine whether movement by members of Congress towards
the ideological poles of the political spectrum is indicative of the influence these
members exert over the direction of their party’s platform, or whether politically active
members of the public and other core constituents in each party’s base significantly
influence the direction their elected officials take (Pildes, 2011; Quirk, 2011).
Determining which of these has influenced the direction politicians have taken over the
last several decades is important for discovering why partisan conflict in the government
persists (Dionne, 2012). A primary goal of this research was to increase the overall
understanding of this conflict through the analysis of a sample of videos of Congressional
politicians. This can hopefully help to highlight potential solutions and interventions
contingent on this increased knowledge base to address the ongoing negative impact of
this conflict on the smooth running of the U.S. (Albert & Moskowitz, 2014; Andersson &
6
Pearson, 1999; Condon, 2013; Dean, 2007; Dinan & Klimas, 2013; Pelosi, 2013; Ricci &
Seymour, 2012; Taibbi, 2012; Weiner & O’Keefe, 2013).
Contrary to Pildes (2011), who stated that the current conflict in Congress is
simply evidence of a maturing democracy and is here to stay, I believe that this is a
temporary condition, which has the potential to respond effectively to organizational
interventions deemed useful in the business world. Rhodes (2014) has described the
polarization of parties in Congress as changeable over time. He contends that the
organizational cultures of Democrats and Republicans are different, with Democrats
“emphasizing equality, inclusiveness and fairness” and Republicans demonstrating a
“more hierarchical, orderly, and efficient organization” (p.126). As with organizational
cultures in the business world, differences in the cultures of each party should be
considered when developing possible solutions to the current dysfunction in Congress.
This study contributes to the current research, filling an apparent gap in the
literature regarding a qualitative evaluation of video data of current members of Congress
concerning the ongoing partisan conflict. It was hoped that emerging themes garnered
from an exploration of U.S. Congressional members in action in the Congress would
highlight factors not previously evident to researchers. This is intended to provide a
platform from which to construct prospective solutions for alleviating the negative impact
of this conflict on the productivity and efficiency of this organization. The solutions that
were uncovered from this study are clearly needed in order to disrupt the dynamics
responsible for the endless cycle of incivility, conflict and problematic organizational
performance evident in the U.S. government.
7
Problem Statement
The problem under investigation in this research study was the partisan conflict
evident within the U.S. government (Dionne, 2012; Haidt, 2012c; Harbridge, Malhotra &
Harrrison, 2014; Mann & Ornstein, 2012; Pildes, 2011; Rhodes, 2014) its impact on the
effective running of this governmental organization (Albert & Moskowitz, 2014;
Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Harbridge et al., 2014; Quirk, 2011; Rhodes, 2014;
Schraufnagel, 2005) and by extension, the U.S. as a whole. The polarization that has bred
this dysfunction and conflict has produced an organization steeped in indecision,
incivility, confrontation, and paralysis (Blendon & Benson, 2011; Dionne, 2012; Haidt,
2012c; Pildes, 2011; Ramirez, 2009; Rhodes, 2014). Even though strongly differentiated
parties are thought to be integral to a ‘healthy democracy’ (Pildes, 2011), the lack of
progress and productivity (Benen, 2013; Burwell, 2013; Dinan & Klimas, 2013; Pelosi,
2013; Ricci & Seymor, 2012; Taibbi, 2012; Wack, 2012) evident in recent years suggests
that this differentiation has moved past healthy and now occupies a position in the
dysfunctional sphere.
The increase in partisanship, conflict and polarization in the U.S. Congress over
the last several decades (Pew Research, 2012) has impacted a variety of policy issues,
spreading from the traditional areas of disagreement regarding the economy to those that
are racial and cultural in nature (Brewer, 2005). Additionally, conflict has obstructed
productivity in one of the primary functions of this organization—lawmaking—evident
with the lack of legislation being passed (Pelosi, 2013; Weiner & O’Keefe, 2013), along
with stalling of those laws that have been passed (Condon, 2013; Ricci & Seymour, 2012;
8
Taibbi, 2012; Wack, 2012). The entire organization was shut down in 2013 (Burwell,
2013), directly relating to the ongoing conflict in Congress and the lack of ability of
members to compromise, problem solve, and find mutually acceptable solutions (Rhodes,
2014). Tactics preventing productivity, such as the use of the filibuster (Dinan, 2014;
Dinan & Klimas, 2013; Milbank, 2013) have spiked, preventing any real progress from
occurring. Without any clear measure of cooperation between the two political parties,
the work of the government continues to be significantly diminished, thereby indicating
an organizational problem that needs to be addressed.
Public evaluation of Congress is primarily judged by policy output since the job
of Congress is to legislate (Ramirez, 2013). With diminished output and increased
partisanship, public confidence in Congress has diminished (Harbridge & Malhotra,
2011; Ramirez, 2009). In addition, Harbridge & Malhotra (2011) and Ramirez (2009)
noted that since the electorate is not as polarized as Congress, members are arguably not
accurately representing the desires of the voting public who elected them to their current
position. Evidence indicates that the public prefers bipartisan solutions and is more
supportive of members cooperating across the aisle (Harbridge & Malhotra, 2011;
Ramirez, 2013), particularly when it prevents legislative gridlock (Harbridge & Flynn,
2014). Voters are not supportive of the divisiveness and lack of cooperation occurring
today, unless it advances their own policy preferences (Harbridge & Flynn, 2014).
Viewing this through the lens of organizational psychology, I might describe these
employees (members of Congress) as failing to perform the job that their employers (the
public) hired them to do, both through not representing the overall desires of the nation
9
and not functioning in the manner the nation wishes them to (Klein, 2012; Newsweek
Staff, 2010). Additionally, I would note that they have also lost the confidence of their
employers (the voting public) to perform the job they were elected (hired) to do
(McCarthy, 2014).
This study contributed to current research, filling a gap in the literature by
evaluating videos of current members of Congress in relation to the on-going partisan
conflict. There is a dearth of research in which partisan conflict between members of
Congress is investigated. It was found that by qualitatively evaluating videos of members
of Congress in action, emerging themes highlighting unique factors involved in the
partisan conflict surfaced. When viewed through the lens of MFT, this provided a
platform from which to construct prospective solutions for alleviating the negative impact
of this conflict on the productivity and efficiency of this organization.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine videos of members of
Congress regarding the ongoing partisan conflict in the U.S. Congress. Through this,
potential solutions to this situation could be developed through uncovering from where
the polarization in American politics (Quirk, 2011) originates and to what degree
individual politicians perpetuate the partisan conflict that is endemic in the federal
government (Dionne, 2012). By qualitatively analyzing video data of current
Congressional members, the answers to several questions regarding this phenomenon can
be found.
10
A primary goal of this study was to discover whether members of Congress are
driven by their own belief systems and morality (Haidt, 2012c) when actively working on
policy in Congress, or whether they seek to accurately represent the wishes of their
constituents (Pildes, 2011; Quirk, 2011). An additional goal was to determine whether
politicians could rediscover common ground from which to rebuild bipartisan
compromise and thus improve the function and productivity of the U.S. government.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to answer these and other questions, as
themes gathered from the qualitative evaluation of videos of Congressional politicians
were explored. In order to ameliorate the continuing negative impact of partisan conflict
on the effective running of this organization (McCarty, Poole & Rosenthal, 2011), it was
assumed that sufficient light could be shed on the situation in order to develop remedies
to assuage the processes keeping the U.S. government locked in conflict and dysfunction.
Research Questions
The following three research questions guided the study, serving to explore the
nature of the ongoing partisan conflict in the U.S. Congress:
1. What is the nature of partisan conflict for Republican and Democratic
members of Congress?
2. How do Democrats and Republicans describe their core values?
3. How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs and fuel partisan conflict
in the U.S. government?
11
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework grounding this study was Jonathan Haidt’s moral
foundations theory (MFT, Haidt, 2012c; Haidt & Graham, 2007). The complexity of the
problems within the organization under study necessitates discovery, inquiry, and
understanding in order to ascertain their potential origin. From a review of the literature it
was evident that the application of Jonathan Haidt’s MFT (2012c) as a conceptual
framework from which to build an understanding of this problem could serve as a viable
platform from which to explain the continued conflict and apparent lack of understanding
between Congressional members. Through comprehending the actions of members of
Congress in relationship to the different moral foundations liberals and conservatives are
argued to possess (Haidt, 2012c), this research provided a greater understanding of the
problems in Congress.
In MFT, six moral principles are described as providing the foundation for the moral
judgments people make (Haidt, 2012c; Koleva & Haidt, 2012). These judgments are
based on intuitive responses to moral triggers that developed as a result of evolutionary
necessities for survival (Haidt, 2012c). Such responses served to inform people
instinctively how they should respond to certain situations in the most efficacious manner
for their survival. The moral foundations delineated by Haidt (2012c) are as follows:
1. Care/Harm Foundation.
2. Fairness/Cheating Foundation.
3. Liberty/Oppression Foundation.
4. Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation.
12
5. Authority/Subversion Foundation.
6. Sanctity/Degradation Foundation.
Haidt noted that distinctive triggers activate each moral foundation, after which an
individual responds intuitively and automatically to the situation. He noted that reasoning
follows this intuitive response, where post hoc arguments justifying the individual’s
initial response are rapidly formulated. Although these responses are no longer grounded
in survival, they do play a significant role in defining the everyday environment and
informing the judgments individuals make on a daily basis (Haidt, 2012c).
Using Haidt’s MFT as a lens through which to view the ongoing conflict evident
in the U.S. government provides a unique perspective for understanding how this conflict
is perpetuated. Haidt has demonstrated, through numerous studies, that liberals and
conservatives tend to reliably differ with regard to the foundations they endorse (Graham,
Haidt & Nosek, 2009; Haidt, 2012c; Haidt & Graham, 2007). Liberals routinely endorse
the first three dimensions of care/harm, fairness/cheating, and liberty/oppression and
assign only minimal value to the latter three dimensions of loyalty/betrayal,
authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Conservatives, however, attribute the
same value to all six dimensions. As partisans develop and pursue their respective
policies in Congress, MFT can explain why one political party finds it challenging to
comprehend the belief system of the other. Naturally, this makes compromise and
cooperation difficult and thus provides a fertile ground upon which to foment conflict. It
is evident that this theory has the potential to provide a conceptual framework for this
study as a basis for explaining the partisan conflict in Congress.
13
Nature of the Study
The goal of this study is to qualitatively examine video data of members of
Congress regarding the partisan conflict evident in the U.S. government (Dionne, 2012).
MFT (Haidt, 2012c) acts as a framework for the study, potentially explaining the
presence of continued conflict. Given the nature of the information obtained from this
study, a qualitative methodology was the most appropriate choice for the research.
This study employed qualitative content analysis and coding to analyze video data
of members of Congress. By selecting qualitative content analysis and coding, a greater
understanding of the challenges experienced between members and how this conflict
impacts their ability to work effectively was possible. It was assumed that themes would
surface during the analysis of the data, providing a rich understanding of the ongoing
conflict between current Congressional members. It was further hoped that this
understanding would provide a foundation from which to build potential solutions to this
ongoing issue in Congress.
Definitions
The following are definitions of words used in this research study, provided to
ensure that this researcher and readers have a mutual understanding of the topic of
inquiry:
Conflict: For the purpose of this research study, the term conflict was used to
describe the incivility, lack of cooperation, lack of compromise, diminished mutual
problem solving and difficulty working effectively together by members of Congress, to
achieve success in the work they were hired to do (Pildes, 2011).
14
Divided government: Different parties controlling at least two of the House,
Senate and Presidency (Pildes, 2011).
Gerrymandering: This refers to the process of redistricting and changing
boundaries regarding which voters fall into a specific district, in order to stack the odds in
a specific party’s favor. This provides politicians the ability to select and place in their
district those most likely to vote for them, thus allowing for an electoral advantage.
Essentially this practice allows for politicians to choose the voters before the voters can
choose them (FairVote, 2014).
Partisan: In this research project, partisan refers to being in support of either the
Democratic (liberals) or the Republican (conservative) Party (Haidt, 2012c; Pildes,
2011).
Social Intuitionist: Where moral judgments are grounded in emotion, and
psychological responses and moral reasoning follows after these initial moral judgments
have occurred (Gould, 2009).
Unified government: One party controlling the House, Senate and Presidency
(Pildes, 2011).
Assumptions
It was assumed that members of Congress experience the conflict in their place of
work as a problem that needs to be addressed. It was also assumed that, using purposeful,
criterion-based sampling, enough useful data could be gathered from the videos of
current members of Congress that would represent the problem under investigation.
15
Further, it was also assumed that the behavior and speeches of participants in the videos
analyzed accurately showcased their everyday interactions in Congress.
Scope and Delimitations
The scope of this study was limited to current members of the United States
Congress. I did not include other lawmakers at the state or local levels, limiting
participants to those in the federal government. Other delimitations included the decision
to not include Independents within this study, focusing instead on the Republican-
Democrat distinction on the liberal-conservative continuum. Also, this study focused to a
greater extent on partisan conflict that has developed over approximately the last 30
years, with a particular focus on the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Additionally, information regarding moral development was not discussed, as this study
focuses on adults who already have developed morally. Further, results gained from this
study applied only to liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans and
conservative Republicans. Finally, this study did not use quantitative methodology since
this study focused on qualitatively exploring and analyzing the problem. Qualitative
methodology is more conducive to this style of data collection in which the motivation
for discovery lies with deepening understanding of a particular phenomenon.
The focus of this study was examining video data of members of Congress in
action, regarding the partisan conflict evident in the U.S. government. This focus was
chosen due to the potential for gaining a better understanding of the dynamics involved in
this conflict. By directly viewing the behavior and speeches of individuals who are living
16
and experiencing the phenomenon under investigation, guess work should be eliminated
and experience-laden data gathered.
The potential for the generalizability of these findings rested with how many
aspects of the purposeful, criterion-based sampling were met within the final sample. In
order to consider the data gathered from this study generalizable, it was important that
many of the sampling criteria were successfully met (Grbich, 2013). If there were not
enough potential participants from both parties, from a range of geographic areas of the
United States or from a variety of points on the liberal-conservative continuum, then the
results of this study would be less generalizable, with the data gleaned from the
participants only generalizable to others who embody the same criteria (Grbich, 2013).
While uniqueness of experience is key in qualitative research, a sample that reflects
enough of the various criteria of interest to a study can provide a foundation for a critical
analysis of the population as a whole (Grbich, 2013). By following this guidline, my
results were applicable to members of Congress as a whole.
Limitations
Two potential limitations existed in the design of this inquiry. First, a smaller
sample size was used. Second, not all Democrats are routinely liberal in their voting
patterns, just at not all Republicans are routinely conservative in theirs. Voting patterns
often change based on the specific issue about which a vote is being cast.
These limitations were addressed by first taking every measure to attempt to
ensure that all possible avenues were pursued to ensure a representative criterion-based
sample was obtained. Voting records and ideological positions were accessed via
17
Congress.gov (n.d.) and GovTrack.us (2004) in order to discover the voting patterns and
ideological stances of participants in this study and as a vehicle for confirming or
disconfirming findings.
A bias that potentially exerted a powerful influence on this study and its outcomes
relates to my personal political beliefs. My political ideology potentially influenced the
way in which the data were collected or interpreted. Personal bias may have acted as
either a negative or positive filter through which I interpreted the data, depending on
whether the participant possessed the same or opposing ideological stance. I addressed
this potential for bias through the use of bracketing (Wertz, et al., 2011) and reflexivity
(Creswell, 2013).
Significance
It was believed that this study would add a valuable dimension to the literature
regarding understanding the partisanship and conflict in the U.S. Congress. This
information should be of significance to current members of Congress, as well as others
who may have an interest in political issues and an investment in whether this
organization is running effectively. Through gathering rich qualitative data and analyzing
videos of members of Congress engaged in their daily duties in Congress, I believe that
the everyday rules and workings of the U.S. Congress can be positively impacted. Going
forward, stakeholders may start to consider the future before acting from a place of
misinformation (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and defiance. If cooperation and
bipartisanship become the starting place for those who are employed to govern our
nation, then there is likely to be a far greater chance for increased productivity, better
18
working conditions, and more positive relationships among those who work closely
together on a daily basis (Wheelan, 2009).
There are several positive social change implications of this study. These included
the potential for improvement in the interactions between the two political parties in the
U.S government along with a corresponding expansion in productivity and enhanced
overall functioning of the U.S. government. This will be evidenced by progress in civility
in Congress and with an increase in the successful passage of bipartisan bills through
Congress, as well as greater success with other Congressional responsibilities. Given the
current economic situation in the U.S., it seems that now more than ever, the government
needs to be more effective. Thus, finding solutions to the conflict occurring between
Republican and Democrat politicians in Washington is essential for social change within
the government, which would potentially produce a positive ripple effect and impact the
entire nation.
Summary
The polarization and resulting conflict that exist within the U.S. government has
been the subject of much research and discussion. However, the experiences of
Congressional members who spend their workday in this dysfunctional work
environment seems to have been largely overlooked as a focus for gaining insight.
Through the qualitative analysis of video data in this study, it was believed that a clearer
understanding of this phenomenon would emerge. I believe that Haidt’s (2012c) MFT
can provide a conceptual framework for understanding this issue and offer the
19
opportunity to grasp how this conflict is demonstrated by those whom it impacts the
most.
These ideas, presented in the background, statement of the problem, purpose, and
conceptual framework sections of this chapter, were addressed using the qualitative
research tradition to answer three key research questions. Assumptions of the study, as
well as its presumed limitations, delimitations and scope were presented. Finally, the
significance of this study to those who occupy a role within the organization of the U.S.
government was noted. The following chapter will provide a detailed analysis of the
existing literature on the topic under investigation. Any pertinent history regarding the
structure of the central government, history of the relationship between those occupying
both sides of the conflict, previous evidence of the functionality of the relationships under
investigation, as well as of efficient periods of productivity will be included.
20
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The problem under investigation in this research study was the partisan conflict
evident within the U.S. government (Dionne, 2012; Haidt, 2012c; Harbridge, Malhotra &
Harrrison, 2014; Mann & Ornstein, 2012; Pildes, 2011; Rhodes, 2014), the resulting
impact on the effective running of this governmental organization (Albert & Moskowitz,
2014; Harbridge et al., 2014; Quirk, 2011; Rhodes, 2014; Schraufnagel, 2005), and by
extension, the nation as a whole. The polarization that has bred this dysfunction and
conflict has produced an organization steeped in indecision, incivility, confrontation, and
paralysis (Blendon & Benson, 2011; Dionne, 2012; Haidt, 2012c; Pildes, 2011; Ramirez,
2009; Rhodes, 2014). The purpose of this study was to explore the ongoing partisan
conflict in the U.S. Congress through examining video data of members of Congress in
action. Through this, it was believed that potential solutions to this situation could be
developed by uncovering the origination of the polarization in American politics (Quirk,
2011) and to what degree individual politicians perpetuate the partisan conflict that is
endemic in the federal government (Dionne, 2012).
Included in this chapter are the literature search strategy, the conceptual
framework providing the foundation for this study, and a detailed account of the
significant background of the problem under investigation. Key changes in each party
over time are noted, as this provides important contextual information regarding the
history of the problem. Additionally, a comprehensive review of how smoothly this
governmental organization has run during several previous administrations is included.
21
After a discussion of the current culture wars evident between liberals and conservatives
in the U.S., templates for potential solutions are noted. These provided a platform upon
which to build once the data in this study had been collected and analyzed.
Literature Search Strategy
The initial source of information used to begin to structure this study was derived
from current books within the political sphere and current media articles. This provided
an up to date general perspective on the problem under investigation. It also allowed for a
clear understanding of the way in which various politicians and those with whom they
closely worked experienced and described the problem. Following this, web searches for
key organizations relating to each political party were conducted in order to understand
party values and establish context. Web searches of various government sites, including
those for the Senate, the House, individual Congressional members, archival sites
regarding laws that have been passed and various other agencies, were conducted. This
provided additional contextual and historical information to demonstrate important
moments of both partisanship and bipartisanship over time between the two parties.
Within the Walden Library, databases were searched, including Academic Search
Complete, Business Source Complete, Political Science Complete, PsycARTICLES,
PsycINFO, and SocINDEX, Search terms included partisan conflict, Jonathan Haidt and
morality, group conflict and productivity and religion and politics. This last search term
produced too diverse a selection of articles. The adoption of other terms such as Religious
Right and Christian Right reduced the number of articles that were offered. Greater
concentrations of applicable articles and studies were then found when using the SAGE
22
Premier database and when accessing multiple databases through THOREAU. The latter
was particularly successful in finding specific articles. Search terms used in SAGE
Premier and THOREAU included group conflict and productivity, partisan conflict and
morality, Jonathan Haidt, along with Jonathan Haidt and Moral Foundations Theory.
These search terms were also later used to access articles through GOOGLE SCHOLAR,
which, when linked to the Walden library usually provided free access to full-text
articles. Many very applicable and interesting articles were found by referring to the
reference list of articles found within these databases.
Conceptual Framework
Rationalist theories of moral development, such as Kohlberg’s cognitive
developmental theory (Gould, 2011) have been used to explain the differences between
liberals and conservatives in the moral judgments and decisions they make. Using such
theories as an explanation seems to provide fuel for derogatory assessments concerning
the moral development of one’s political adversaries (Elmer, Renwick & Malone, 1983;
Frimer, Biesanz, Walker & MacKinlay, 2013). This is particularly true regarding how
this theory explains the moral development of conservatives – a situation that is not likely
to be good for positive relationships between the two ends of the political spectrum
(Elmer et al., 1983). Kohlberg’s theory (Gould, 2011) implied that liberals have reached a
higher level of cognitive development than their conservative counterparts and therefore
have a more mature ability to reason than conservatives (Elmer et al., 1983; Frimer et al.,
2013). The implication is that those who adopt a conservative viewpoint are unable to
reason at higher levels – certainly fuel for partisan conflict.
23
In comparison, MFT (Graham, Haidt & Nosek, 2009; Haidt, 2012c) is described
as a social-intuitionist approach to explaining moral development (Haidt, 2013; 2001). In
this approach, reasoning is relegated to following initial intuitive responses rather than
driving them. Regarding political moral reasoning, this theory is more prudent with its
description of the differences between liberals and conservatives, being very careful not
to speak pejoratively about either end of the political spectrum (Haidt, 2012c; Haidt &
Joseph, 2004). Consequently, the moral judgments of liberals and conservatives are
viewed as merely different, instead of better or worse than one another. This fact
increases the likelihood of greater acceptance of this theory within the political realm
and, therefore, demonstrates its relevance as a theoretical basis for this study.
Moral Foundations Theory
Modern day theorist, Jonathan Haidt, developed what he termed moral
foundations theory (MFT) (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2012c), which will serve as the
theoretical foundation of this study. He completed numerous cross-cultural studies on the
nature of morality and how and why it may have developed in humans. Like everyday
reasoning, Haidt (2013; 2012c) argued that moral reasoning is automatic and intuitive
and has developed in this manner through the process of natural selection (Haidt &
Joseph, 2004). Haidt (2012c) argued that humans developed complex systems to aid in
group cooperation and individual accountability, ultimately leading to the natural
selection of successful groups over those with less cooperation and accountability. On an
individual level, he noted that people are more concerned about how they appear to
others than doing the right thing for its own sake. In an evolutionary sense, individuals
24
who were more attuned to how they were viewed and trusted by others in a group were
more likely to survive than those were not trusted and were ousted from the group.
Caring about reputation and pro-social behaviors was a key feature of natural selection in
humans (Haidt, 2012c; Haidt & Joseph, 2004). The use of strategic reasoning to justify
their initial intuitive judgments was of significant importance for acceptance and survival.
Politically, Haidt (2012c) noted that, rather than individuals voting selfishly for
what is better for them, they actually seem to vote for what is preferable for the group
with which they identify. This further indicates that group membership is valued above
individual gain, providing additional support for the importance to the individual of
acceptance within a group.
As previously mentioned, Haidt, in opposition to Kohlberg, argued that moral
reasoning does not precede moral behavior, rather post hoc reasoning searches for
plausible justification after the behaviors or choices have occurred (Haidt, 2013; 2012c;
2001; Sauer, 2012). He proposed that our moral judgments developed intuitively,
automatically, and below the level of consciousness in order for humans to be able to
react to situations with the speed necessary for survival (Haidt 2012c; 2001; Sauer,
2012). He then stated that strategic reasoning follows this initial intuitive reaction when
assessing a situation. Intuitive responses occur almost instantaneously, giving people
ample time to react accordingly and in accordance with their cultural sphere of influence.
While culture will dictate what activates a moral intuition, Haidt argued that the same six
dimensions he developed can be used to explain the moral intuitions of all humans
(Haidt, 2012c; Haidt & Joseph, 2004).
25
People are very good at developing arguments that support their moral choices
and decisions, justifying their behaviors and choices after the fact. He noted that people
tend to look for evidence to support these existing beliefs, leading to what Wason (1960)
termed confirmation bias. Wason (1960) found that while people are effective in
questioning the beliefs of others, they notably lack in the ability to question themselves
and their belief systems. Instead, they highlight only the evidence that supports or
justifies their beliefs, arguing persuasively to defend their own viewpoint, even at the
expense of the truth and when plenty of evidence exists to the contrary (Haidt 2012c;
2001).
The Moral Foundations
As noted, MFT relies on the premise that moral judgments are based on intuitions
rather than reasoning (Haidt, 2012c; 2001). Covering a vast amount of research in
anthropology, sociology, and psychology, with detailed accounts of evolutionary and
cultural trends in the progression of human social development, Haidt (2013; 2012c)
uncovered compelling data that led him to the creation of this theory. He argued that the
moral principles people hold are most effectively explained by six areas, which act as the
foundation for the moral judgments people make (Haidt, 2012c; Koleva & Haidt, 2012).
He noted that these six key moral modules developed in response to evolutionary
demands, particularly when humans began to settle into communities and leave nomadic
life behind. Today, each moral dimension is triggered by events and thoughts that are
qualitatively different from the original triggers but which are conceptually related.
26
The initial five moral foundations proposed by Haidt were created to represent
five key adaptive challenges (Haidt, 2012c; p.125) that were evolutionarily necessary to
overcome for survival. The care/harm foundation highlights the adaptive challenge
relating to caring for one’s young. Today it can be triggered by images of suffering, such
as the poor in the U.S. or suffering in third world nations. The fairness/cheating
foundation represents the adaptive challenge of finding a mutually beneficial two-way
relationship, one in which the workload is evenly divided. Today’s triggers for this
foundation include those who break the law or scam others. The loyalty/betrayal
foundation originally activated with the formation of groups that were beneficial to
survival. Today, dueling sports teams and the national pride seen between citizens from
different nations can trigger this. The foundation for authority/subversion likely met the
“adaptive challenge of forging beneficial…[hierarchical]…relationships” (Haidt, 2012c,
p.144) in developing societies. The development and preservation of order lay with
leaders who were imbued with divine authority to maintain societal order. Leaders have
exploited this authority for malevolent reasons. However, it is likely that this moral
dimension is frequently tempered by several of the other foundations. Today, current
triggers include levels of obedience and respect, law enforcement, and individuals in a
position of authority. Finally, the sanctity/degradation foundation evolved in order to
meet the adaptive challenge of avoiding the contaminants that became more pervasive as
humans began living in larger groups. Original triggers of human waste and disease have
now sublimated into current triggers such as purity, holiness, and taboo issues.
27
The liberty/oppression foundation was added later, when Haidt (2012c) concluded
that the fairness dimension of fairness/cheating differed for liberals and conservatives.
Liberals tended to view this dimension through the lens of equality, while conservatives
deemed proportionality to be important when considering the fairness module. The
adaptive challenge represented by the liberty foundation was the ability to live in
cooperative social groups that successfully constrained the power of dominant males.
Individuals showing dominance and attempts at oppression would have originally
triggered this dimension. Today’s triggers include the multiple global examples of the
oppressed rising up to overthrow those who dominate. Within the U.S., examples include
the desire for social justice and equality (liberals) and the freedom from government
interferences in our lives (conservatives).
While other theories of morality are useful in understanding general moral
development, MFT is a particularly useful theoretical model for understanding moral
judgments, particularly in relation to political decisions regarding policy (Graham et al.,
2009). This theory broadens our understanding of morality into six dimensions, detailing
aspects of morality in more areas than offered by previous theorists. Liberals and
conservatives endorse each of these six dimensions to differing degrees. It is not
surprising that political discourse is replete with misunderstandings, poor
communication, and reflexive judgments concerning the moral character and motivation
of those occupying different positions on the liberal-conservative continuum.
28
Moral Foundations Differ for Liberals and Conservatives
Haidt has found that liberals and conservatives tend to be guided by different
moral matrices (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2012c; Haidt & Graham, 2007). Cultures and
people who place value on individualism tend to base their moral judgments in three
critical areas: caring, fairness. and liberty (Haidt, 2012a; 2012c). Individuals and cultures
that value community above the individual will value three additional morality-based
themes: loyalty, authority, and sanctity (Haidt, 2012c). In MFT these themes are applied
to the liberal-conservative continuum, with liberals tending to focus their moral
judgments almost exclusively on the caring, fairness, and liberty foundations, while
conservatives valued these foundations to a lesser degree but were additionally concerned
with the areas of loyalty, authority, and sanctity (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2012a;
2012b; 2012c; Haidt & Graham, 2007).
In a study using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) they developed,
Graham et al. (2009) asked 1,600 subjects to rate their political identity on a continuum
ranging from very liberal to very conservative. Subjects then answered a series of
questions designed to elicit responses, scoring how personally relevant they found each
of the original five moral foundations to be. While liberals seemed to place greater
emphasis on the importance of the care and fairness dimensions and almost no emphasis
on the loyalty, authority and sanctity dimensions with regard to their moral judgments
(see Figure 1), conservatives rated all five of the original dimensions to be of almost
equal relevance when considering moral issues (Graham et al., 2009 – see Figure 2).
These findings were replicated and validated further by Graham, Nosek, Haidt, Iyer,
29
Koleva and Ditto in 2011, through a massive online international study in which over
100,000 subjects answered the revised MFQ at YourMorals.org., and also by Graham,
Nosek and Haidt (2012).
Figure 1. The moral matrix of American liberals. (Taken with permission from ‘The
Righteous Mind’ by Jonathan Haidt, 2012, p.297, see Appendix A).
30
Figure 2. The moral matrix of American social conservatives. (Taken with permission
from: ‘The Righteous Mind’ by Jonathan Haidt, 2012, p. 306, see Appendix A)
Thus, between the two ends of the political spectrum, individuals attach moral
significance to distinctive threads of the moral foundations in MFT. Those who tend to
inhabit the extreme ends of the spectrum often more zealously expound their values and
beliefs (Haidt, 2012c). This can be seen with the Tea Party movement and the religious
right on the one extreme and the Occupy movement on the other (discussed later). With a
different array of moral foundations woven through the liberal mind than through that of
the conservative, the relevance of MFT is self evident for our understanding of why
partisan conflict remains prevalent in the U.S. government. When extremists from either
party then hijack the public conversation, the existence of the political stalemate routinely
witnessed in Congress begins to make sense. Each party ferociously adheres to their party
31
positions, which highlight the underlying moral principles that guide their party’s
platform, driving the elected officials of this nation further apart.
Examples of the policy positions of the Republican and Democratic parties will be
introduced later in this chapter. Firstly, however, it is necessary to comprehend the
philosophical foundation, upon which the U.S. was built, to grasp the evolution of the
liberal and conservative values and beliefs and to understand the conflict seen between
them today. Through understanding how the U.S. began and how extremes of political
belief may differ one can potentially explain what may be fueling the current level of
conflict in this organization, the U.S. federal government in Washington.
The Philosophical Underpinnings of the United States Republic
“E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One.
Philosophers throughout history have attempted theoretically to construct the
perfect utopian society – and failed. Thinkers such as Plato, Thomas More, Thomas
Hobbes and Karl Marx have variously attempted to develop such a utopian society – one
in which everyone is equal (Levin, 2012). However in order to achieve this,
individualism, liberty and rights are necessarily removed. In these sometimes ‘radically
egalitarian’ societies (Levin, 2012), everyone is required to dress, eat and live in the same
way. Believing that individualism works counter to the collective good, these
philosophers determined that equality was the preferred state and were willing to sacrifice
liberty in pursuit of the utopian dream.
32
This obsession with equality at all costs is clearly at odds with the key tenets of
liberty and individualism upon which this nation was founded. The Founding Fathers
drew from these works, the lessons of history and the works of various brilliant
philosophers of the Enlightenment, in seeking to frame the structure of the new nation.
Philosophers such as John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu and Alex de Tocqueville,
seeking to comprehend the nature of man and society, provided fertile philosophical
ground upon which the seeds of the new republic were germinated (Levin, 2012). Their
belief in the importance of liberty and property rights, and the relationship between the
two, “[was] at the core of America’s origin” (Levin, 2012, p.117). The ownership of
property was viewed as the vehicle to equality, within the scope of liberty and
individuality. Anyone who was industrious should be rewarded with the rights to the land
he or she worked. The spirit of commerce was seen as a key facet for prosperity, which in
its turn was viewed as paramount to liberty.
With the shared belief in the overriding core values of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness, the diverse collection of citizens and immigrants across the country,
became united as one nation. Along with the protections provided in the Constitution,
these were the cornerstones of the emerging republic of the United States.
Framing the Constitution
Aware of the difficulty of the task with which they were faced, the Founding
Fathers sought to frame the new U.S. government as a ‘republic,’ in which “the
administration of [government] affairs is open to all the citizens……for their own benefit
rather than for the benefit of a ruler” (Legal dictionary, 2014). History had taught them to
33
understand the nature of man and his tendency towards tyrannous behavior, when placed
in a position of power (Cato Institute, 2002; Levin, 2012). They knew their core value
system, grounded in liberty and unalienable rights, would not be safe without detailed
protections, checks and balances in the design of the new republic. History had
demonstrated this time and again (Levin, 2012).
Thus, to avoid the mistakes of history the United States of America became a
republic, under the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The citizens of
the new nation were safeguarded from the formation of a despotic government, by the
division of power between three branches of the federal government and the limits placed
on its power (Cato Institute, 2002). Additionally, the emphasis placed on maintaining the
sovereignty of the States and their individual citizens assured a further check to the
unleashing of tyrannous pursuits by those in power. Protections and rights established in
the Constitution for individual citizens included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
(Cato Institute, 2002). These additionally acted as further layers to protect society against
the runaway powers previously witnessed in history.
Shared U.S. Values and Principles
Thus was built a nation founded on a shared vision of freedom, independence,
individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout the history of the United
States, citizens and countless immigrants alike have followed the guiding light of these
values and principles, which remain central to the makeup and fabric of the United States
today. Traditional values of individualism and a caring community spirit continue to
undergird the essence of the American character (Dionne, 2012). On a daily basis, the
34
populace of the U.S. is subtly immersed in a constant exposure to twenty-four hour news
cycles. These are accessed through T.V., tablets, smartphones, computers, and other
streaming platforms, and feature pundits espousing these American ideals. Billboards,
magazines, newsprint, and other vehicles for advertising, remind Americans constantly of
the freedom and independence they have to make a thousand choices a day. As within a
family, citizens have been and continue to be “united by their core principles, values and
standards” (Salamone & Morris, 2012, p.6).
Communicated in perhaps more muted tones against a forceful push to focus on
individualism, the importance of community and caring for one’s neighbor is widely
evident. The media outlets of the U.S. are flavored with this tone, with calls to join the
military, to defend the nation and the ideals it stands for, along with well-known reality
T.V. shows publicizing the police force, firefighters and medics. Teachers, nurses,
doctors, and volunteers are commended for their services and for lasting changes they
make to their communities. From Alaska and Hawaii to Maine and Florida the essence of
what it is to be American is mutually understood by the citizens of this nation.
American Individualism and Communitarian Spirit
The foundational belief in the importance of individualism and a devotion to a
communitarian spirit thus act as two core values of the U.S. (Dionne, 2012). These values
capture the substance of the American spirit that drove the initial success of the first
settlers. The hardy self-reliance of those who have come before helped to tame the land,
build a nation and grow the entrepreneurial spirit that is woven into the very fabric of the
American dream. Simultaneously, a strong communitarian spirit has flavored the
35
American culture, even as individuals steadfastly pursue their personal agenda. Small
communities acted as a safety net against the harsh realities of rural life. The balance
between these opposing values helped to give rise to the success and prosperity of
America (Dionne, 2012), wherein citizens value equally both individualism and
community as necessary countervailing forces inherent in a successful democracy.
The U.S. was founded on the belief that individuals have the freedom to follow
their chosen life and to reach their potential, but not at the expense of another’s freedom.
Neighbors and local communities have historically come to the aid of those who are
negatively impacted by the self-serving actions of others. In recent history, this was
achieved by using the government as a “constructive force” (Dionne, 2012, p.5), in order
to contain radical individualism and to liberate the masses from the abuses of those with
excessive influence.
American Communitarian Spirit
Indicative of its communitarian spirit, the United States is often noted for its
generosity (Salamone & Morris, 2012). Citizens have traditionally given of themselves to
other citizens within their communities, helping those less fortunate and operating from a
place of empathy (Dionne, 2012; Salamone & Morris, 2012;). This was never more
evident than after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001.
Citizens from every useful sphere of work and from the furthest reaches of the country,
whether professionals or manual laborers arrived to offer their services, while others
around the nation donated blood or money to charity, in order to help their fellow
Americans (History.com, 2015). Globally, the Unites States has stepped in to aid other
36
countries, in wartime as well as for humanitarian and relief efforts, as seen with the
Tsunami in Thailand in 2004 (The White House: President George W. Bush, 2005) and
the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 (Salamone & Morris, 2012; USAID, 2014). These acts of
generosity are usually funded by the U.S. and rarely come with strings attached.
Americans as a whole also abhor injustice, as evidenced by passing constitutional
amendments such as the ratification of the 13
th
Amendment - the abolition of slavery in
1865 (National Archives, n.d.c) and the 19
th
Amendment – women’s right to vote in
1920, (National Archives, n.d.b). As this nation matures, it appears to be moving towards
a purer form of democracy, through community and political action aimed at aiding and
protecting the rights of those who have suffered injustices and misfortune.
American Individualism
The United States has often been referred to as the land of opportunity. The
possibilities that exist for newcomers to this country are frequently unimaginable in the
countries from which they come. The resulting hope and fervor that arrives with each
new immigrant adds in immeasurable ways to the critical momentum of the unstoppable
mass that is the U.S. economy. Traditionally, this has fueled the economic might of the
U.S., adding to its previously untouchable prosperity (Salamone & Morris, 2012). This
has often led Americans to experience a shared pride in the wealth of opportunity and
affluence that is possible to achieve through hard work and innovative ideas in this nation
(Levin, 2012). In direct contrast to other nations, few barriers exist in the U.S. to prevent
an individual with a strong work ethic and an entrepreneurial spirit from becoming very
successful (Levin, 2012).
37
Additionally, the liberties and rights afforded to citizens of the U.S. are largely
inconceivable in many other nations. Americans enjoy the freedom to travel and live
wherever they choose, partake in any career, and read or research whatever their interests
dictate. They are also free to achieve what they want in the pursuit of happiness, along
with enjoying the right to free speech without fear of repercussions. These are just some
aspects of daily life available to those who call the United States home (Salamone &
Morris, 2012). Those who choose to strive have very few hurdles to overcome to build
their life as they desire. All of these freedoms fuel the individualism for which the United
States is well known.
Divergence of Republican and Democratic Viewpoints
From these common core values focusing on individual freedom and community,
grew today’s Republican and Democrat parties. Born of the same ideals and principles,
these two political extremes have become separated by opposing modern philosophies.
The agreeableness of decades past and shared concern by lawmakers for the citizens and
country alike (Dionne, 2012; Matthews, 2013), have all but evaporated. No longer are
party members close confidants and friends outside the workday in D.C. (Biden, 2008;
Matthews, 2013). No longer do they seem to fight for a common objective. Today,
members of Congress appear to endorse such divergent viewpoints that it remains highly
improbable that they can find a middle ground (Dionne, 2012). “Americans disagree
about who we are because we can’t agree about who we’ve been” (Dionne, 2012, p.4).
There no longer seems to be conscious awareness of or agreement about what it is to be
American. The U.S. has been pulled from our shared notion of the American spirit and
38
our common values of individuality, liberty and community (Dionne, 2012). These values
have traditionally woven together in such a fashion as to strengthen and fuel the
prosperity of this republic for all citizens, but something has occurred to change this
balance. Something needs to alter if a solution is going to be possible. For any hope of
progress to occur, it is essential to grasp the differences in the world-views held by
today’s Republican and Democrat party members and politicians. The following is a
discussion of these divergent views.
Conservative/Republican World View
The conservative/republican world-view (or republicanism) holds as centrally
important, the belief that individuals should have the freedom to make their own
decisions, should have equal rights and opportunity and that government should be
limited in scope, resting mostly at the state level and with the people (GOP, 2014). Self-
identified as the “party of the Constitution” (GOP, 2014), the Republican Party argues for
the ordered liberty that can be achieved through the ideals enumerated in the
Constitution. Discrimination based on any and all demographic characteristics is
considered immoral and is rejected. Help for low-income individuals is supported but not
at the cost of accepting quotas or preferences of any kind. Republicans also believe that
advancement in our free society should result from hard work, innate ability and aptitude
(GOP, 2014).
The current Republican focus includes the defense of and adherence to
Constitutional principles, along with observing the rule of law and remaining true to the
ideals of the Founding Fathers. Republicans maintain that all laws and public servants
39
must operate from these principles and original intentions of the Framers of the U.S.
Constitution (GOP, 2014) and act to guarantee liberty in the United States. They hold as
centrally important the sovereignty of individual states and the rights of the States and
individual citizens guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment (Cato Institute, 2002; GOP,
2014). They strongly believe that the governance of the people should lie mostly with the
state legislature. They then feel that the balance of power between the federal government
and that of the States should return to what was intended by the Framers. Additionally,
they vow aggressively to stamp out voter fraud and conduct elections with transparency,
in order to protect the very “foundation of representative government” (GOP, 2014).
Republicans also strongly support both the First Amendment – the protection of
religious freedom and the right to free speech, and the Second Amendment – the right to
bear arms. Along with these, Republicans support the Fourth and Fifth Amendments –
liberty, privacy and the protection of private property. The Ninth Amendment – affirming
our rights, along with the concept that power in the government comes from and remains
with the people, except for that which is determined to be a government function (GOP,
2014) – is also of great importance to Republicans. In addition, Republicans defend the
rights of the unborn child and support the sanctity of life (Family Research Council,
2014). Members of the Republican Party steadfastly hold true to these beliefs and
principles, which undoubtedly drive their decision-making and their interaction with
others.
40
The Christian Right
The fundamentalist Christian Right’s influence over the Republican Party began
in embryonic form in the mid to late 1950s during the presidency of Eisenhower
(Blumenthal, 2009). Right wing paranoia was evident as ‘McCarthyism’ swept through
Washington, in which virtual witch-hunts for alleged Communists within the ranks of the
U.S. Government and military were undertaken. Members of the various factions of the
political right were united by their anti-communist beliefs, which began to take root after
World War II (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Blumenthal, 2009). However, as fears of
communism began to subside, theocratic ideology gained traction through the combined
efforts of influential media personalities, high ranking religious leaders and wealthy
conservative donors (Berlet, 2011b; Blumenthal, 2009). Various conservative right wing
religious groups then began to congeal into what is now known as the fundamentalist
Christian Right (Blumenthal, 2009).
The Christian Right follows a very strict moral code which members adhere to
once they are ‘born again’ (Blumenthal, 2009), which is “a process of confession,
conversion and submission to a strict father figure” (p.9). Frequently, members have
experienced a crisis of character and become ‘born again,’ which serves to separate the
‘sinful’ part of their lives from the part in which they ‘walk with Jesus.’ Tolerance for
liberal stances concerning several social and civil rights issues is absent, as Christian
Right adherents hold diametrically opposing viewpoints to liberals (Blumenthal, 2009).
Consequently, the Christian Right is described as being engaged in a ‘culture war’
with secular humanists and progressives, with a goal of achieving the conservative
41
agenda regarding ‘traditional family values’ (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Combs, 2014;
Family Research Council, 2014; Focus on the Family, 2014a). Members abhor many of
the civil rights advances that were made during the last century with regards to individual
freedoms, women’s rights, gay rights and the rights of minorities (Blumenthal, 2009;
Family Research Council, 2014). Additionally, the culture war extends into the
educational system, wherein the Christian Right battles secular education curriculum
regarding evolution and sex education (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Blumenthal, 2009;
Family Research Council, 2014). There is also contempt for taxation and other methods
in which wealth is more evenly distributed (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Combs, 2014;
Family Research Council, 2014).
Several of the Christian Right’s religious leaders hold beliefs in ‘Christian
Reconstructionism’ and ‘dominionism,’ wherein they seek for Christians “ to dominate
the political process as part of a mandate from God” (Berlet, 2013, para. 3). In addition,
‘hard dominionists’ wish to impose Biblical Law onto the Constitution and operate the
United States as a Christian society (Berlet, 2011b; Blumenthal, 2009; Clarkson, 1994;
McVicar, 2007). Some extreme Reconstructionists even declare that abortion and
homosexuality should become capital crimes and believe that women should remain in
the home raising children and lose their right to vote (McVicar, 2007). In the words of
Berlet and Quigley (1995), “Taken as a whole the [dominionists] …call for clerical
fascism in defense of wealth and patriarchy” (para. 45) and “challenge the very notion of
a secular, pluralistic democracy” (para. 73). With a strong influence over the right wing
of the Republican Party, this is indeed noteworthy.
42
Dominionists maintain their goal of eliminating religious freedom, which is
protected by the First Amendment and of denoting Christianity as the only acceptable
religion to practice within the United States (McVicar, 2007). Furthermore, the Christian
Right has actively disregarded both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 through discrimination in hiring practices and through gerrymandering
Congressional districts, as witnessed in Texas (Theocracy Watch, 2006).
Over the last two to three decades, the Christian Right has expanded its grassroots
reach, with the development of a highly intricate organizing infrastructure (Blumenthal,
2009; Diamond, 1995; Family Research Council, 2014; Focus on the Family, 2014a). The
research, resources and solidarity provided by this infrastructure have given right wing
strategists the tools to successfully use the media, churches and direct-mailing to get their
message out to potential voters (Berlet, 2013; Family Research Council, 2014; Focus on
the Family, 2014a). Within this movement, Reconstructionists have a surprisingly large
voice and influence, primarily as a result of the deep pockets of several key figures.
These individuals wish to spread their belief systems with the ultimate goal being a
widespread dominion (Berlet & Quigley, 1995; Blumenthal, 2009).
The Tea Party Movement
Also on the far right of the conservative movement lives the ‘Tea Party,’ which
was formed in 2009 as a result of dissatisfaction with the actions of the Obama
administration (Ballhaus, 2014). While many of the values and principles of the
Republican Party and those of the Tea Party intersect, the Tea Party is widely recognized
as occupying the radical end of the conservative movement. Sharing this position with the
43
Christian Right, the Tea Party advances its cause with political figures such as Rick
Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin conveying their hard right Dominionist
agendas (Berlet, 2011a). This movement has gathered rapid momentum since 2009 and
has multiple representatives who are supportive of its principles in place in Congress.
Lobbyist are registered in Washington to push the agenda of the movement, and the Tea
Party caucus has been reestablished in the House and has gained recognition in the Senate
(Tea Party, 2014).
The key principles of this movement include “fiscal responsibility,
constitutionally limited government and free market economic policies” (Tea Party
Patriots, 2014). Other advocates of the Tea Party movement also endorse core principles
relating to individual freedom and a return to personal responsibility (Tea Party, 2014).
Societal expectations for social responsibility and civic duty are viewed negatively, as
evidence that socialism is insidiously seeping into American life (Dionne, 2012). As
strong supporters of the original founding principles of the United States, Tea Party
members seek a government that operates in a more fiscally responsible manner and does
not overspend. Members also support limiting the federal government and returning
power to the state level, as was the objective of the original Framers. Additionally they
offer strong support for a return to a free market economy and promote limits to
government interventions into this process (Tea Party Patriots, 2014).
Conservative/Republican Worldview Changes From Reagan to Obama
In order to comprehend the potential root causes of today’s partisan conflict, it is
helpful to discuss influences to the conservative/Republican worldview during each of
44
the most recent presidencies. Through studying the influences affecting the development
of this conflict, it is possible that light may be shed on key factors behind the emergence
of the extreme Republican partisan thought, which seems currently to occupy the vast
majority of right leaning politicians. This is explored next.
The Reagan/Bush Senior Years
Just prior to Ronald Reagan taking office in 1980, the Moral Majority was formed
with Jerry Falwell at the helm, and an anti-abortion stance as a guiding issue
(Blumenthal, 2009). Moderate Republicans found the level of activism in this and other
right wing groups too radical, but leaders of various fundamentalist right wing groups
began to solidify into an alliance centered on theocratic ideology (Berlet and Quigley,
1995; Family Research Council, 2014). While their influence during the Reagan years
was effective in drawing the conservative Democrat’s vote for Reagan’s second term,
very little of their favored issues made any headway in Congress during this time (Berlet
and Quigley, 1995).
However, even with the televangelism scandals of the late 1980s and Pat
Robertson losing his presidential bid, hard right Christians packed substantial clout
through their grassroots infrastructure and networks of coalitions (Berlet and Quigley,
1995; Diamond, 1995; Family Research Council, 2014; Hardisty, 1995). While growth of
this movement remained at a slow simmer during the presidency of George H.W. Bush,
the 1992 election year saw a renewed vigor at the Republican convention for a “culture
war against secular humanism” (Berlet and Quigley, 1995). This convention was
evidence that Pat Robertson and other leaders had successfully achieved what they had
45
originally strategized – the development of a powerful Christian base that coalesced the
multitude of fundamentalist Christian groups (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Hardisty, 1995).
The Clinton Years
During the Clinton administration, the hard right adopted cultural issues (Berlet
and Quigley, 1995) as their unifying platform, moving away from an economic and anti-
communist agenda. The Christian Right’s stance on issues ranging from abortion,
homosexuality, sex education in the schools, feminism, immigration and racism became
the glue that bound the various facets of the hard and radical right (Berlet and Quigley,
1995; Blumenthal, 2009; Family Research Council, 2014; Focus on the Family, 2014b;
Hardisty, 1995). The John Birch Society, traditionally more concerned with fighting
communism, independence for the U.S. and limiting the reach of the federal government,
also began to push a conservative social agenda that mirrored that of the Christian Right
(Hardisty, 1995; The John Birch Society, n.d.).
Supporting anti-gay initiatives was high on the John Birch Society’s agenda early
in Clinton’s first term (Hardisty, 1995). Hate crimes stemming from a rising tide of
homophobia increased during this time (Ross, 1995), even as the Christian Right’s
platform enjoyed greater mainstream acceptance. The momentum of the Christian Right
movement simultaneously began to exert a negative influence over several of President
Clinton’s proposals and fuel Republican electoral successes around the nation (Ross,
1995). With this rising tide of influence from the Christian Right within the Republican
Party, seemed to come a corresponding reduction in civility among members of Congress
(Dean, 2006).
46
Along with this rightward shift, centrist Goldwater conservatives were
progressively replaced by those from the hard right, who expected loyalty from
individual members of Congress. Those with arguably more authoritarian styles, such as
Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, began to exert a stronger influence over
their party and members who dared to follow their own conscience risked the wrath of
these leaders raining down on them and challenges to their Congressional seats (Dean,
2006). Gingrich also chose to end the seniority system for selecting a committee
chairperson, opting instead to appoint whom he chose (Dean, 2007; Pildes, 2011). This
situation undoubtedly produced the favoritism, competition and backstabbing that would
be evident in any organization employing this style of upward mobility. However, the
U.S. Government is based on democracy, and favoritism is not a democratic selection
process.
The conservative legacy of civility, respect, dignity and professionalism within
Congress began to disappear, subsumed instead by the radical and inflexible style of the
hard right and the authoritarian cultural platform to which they now subscribed (Dean,
2006). With impeachment proceedings during Clinton’s second term concluding in his
being impeached on two articles of impeachment (Mitchell, 1998), the opposition’s
disdain for this liberal president was realized and the stage was set for a Republican
White House win in 2000.
The George W. Bush Years
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a profound impact on the sense of
safety long enjoyed by the populace of the United States. Occurring early on in the Bush
47
presidency, these events arguably played a defining role in his governance style. National
security and foreign policy took center stage in the Bush White House, as key leaders and
politicians sought to institute draconian measures in response to the attacks (Dean, 2007).
Under the guise of national security, Bush and Cheney pushed for changes that would
normally have been at best questionable and at worst unconstitutional (Dean, 2006).
The expansion of presidential powers became a key focus for the Bush
administration, with justification resting on the need for rapid action during times of
national emergency (Dean, 2007; Dean 2006). Unsubstantiated evidence for the existence
of weapons of mass destruction was used as justification for a war with Iraq. A veil of
secrecy slowly descended around the Bush administration, where those who questioned
and probed were accused of being unpatriotic (Blumenthal, 2009; Dean 2007). Secrecy
within a government is dysfunctional and often leads to fear among the citizenry, which
is counter-intuitive for a democracy. As quoted by Thomas Jefferson, “When the people
fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is
liberty” (The Quotations Page, 2013).
Rules against torture, established through the Geneva Convention (International
Committee of the Red Cross, 1988), were set aside, as enemy combatants were
transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and interrogated without representation, (Dean
2007; Dean 2006) or the right to habeas corpus (Center For Constitutional Rights, n.d.).
A central provision of a free society, the writ of habeas corpus was enshrined by the
Founders in Article 1 of the Constitution to prevent abuses of power to individual liberty
(Bill of Rights Institute, 2010). This right, along with the Geneva Convention rules were
48
both effectively suspended with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006
(The White House: President George W. Bush, 2006; United States Government Printing
Office, 2006). Justification for these unconstitutional behaviors was attributed to national
security, and criticism of them was viewed as condoning the actions of the detainees.
Thus as evidenced by the above, with very few successful checks to the Bush agenda,
presidential powers within this administration reached new levels and many of the
protections enjoyed by U.S. citizens began to falter.
Bush’s administration aggressively pursued the concept of unitary executive
theory, first advanced during the Reagan administration (Dean, 2007). Within this
concept, the executive branch of the government is given virtually infinite power,
including over independent agencies. The checks and balances set forth in the
Constitution would therefore be essentially worthless, allowing for the executive to
function how it deemed appropriate. While other administrations had lightly tapped into
this proposed theory, the Bush-Cheney administration took the possibilities offered in this
concept to new extremes (Dean, 2007). Loss of rights related to liberty as seen in the
passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (The White House: President George
W. Bush, 2006), along with privacy rights impacted by electronic spying by the National
Security Agency (NSA) (Greenwald and Ackerman, 2013), were evidence that the Bush
administration was pushing the Constitutional boundaries of the executive branch.
Congressional Republicans rapidly became the standard bearers for these changes,
fighting hard in Congress to protect and pass new legislation that would support the
White House agenda (Dean, 2007). Designed as a check on the executive branch of the
49
government, Congress during the second Bush presidency was woefully inadequate at
performing this function (Dean, 2007). Whether this was due to an overly authoritarian
style of the Bush presidency and Republicans in Congress at this time or a lack of
sufficient pushback from the Democrats is a matter of debate (Dean, 2007). Certainly,
however, there was cause for alarm as constitutionally protected rights were foregone
(Greenwald & Ackerman, 2013; The White House: President George W. Bush, 2006).
During the Bush administration, House Republicans altered process issues to their
advantage (Dean, 2007). For the few Democrats who did push back, this became a
contentious point. Complaints were verbalized about the lack of democratic debate or
inclusion in conference committees in the House (Dean 2007). However, the Republicans
in Washington during this time were singularly focused on the Republican agenda that
continued to be fueled and financed by the Christian Right (Blumenthal, 2009). With
tunnel vision, their collective eye was likely on the prized agenda for their party and not
for what might’ve been good for the country as a whole. The resulting environment,
clearly not conducive to constructive debate and compromise between the two parties,
instead produced enough tension to ignite further the partisan battles that had been
building in the U.S. Congress.
The Obama Years: In-Fighting within the GOP
As a radical fringe of the GOP, the Tea Party essentially broke away from the
traditional moderate Republican mindset. Strongly supportive of liberty and
independence, their agenda rejected the importance of community – a central value
traditionally held by the Republican Party (Dionne, 2012). Conservatism has long
50
purported the significance of family and community values, expressed through the church
and various other institutions within a community (GOP, 2014). In recent times, however,
a faction of conservatives began to move steadily away from this focus, frequently
placing a greater emphasis on individual and states’ rights. The extreme bi-product of this
trend fueled the germination of the Tea Party, which was duly fertilized by the economic
disaster of 2008 (Tea Party Patriots, 2015).
Around this time, the Tea Party agenda began to be accepted even by moderate
Republicans (Altman, 2013). Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) (Krieg,
2012), simultaneously poured funds into the political campaigns of Tea Party candidates
across the nation (Altman, 2013; Dionne, 2012). Those who criticized the growing focus
on individuality and called for a return to the community were viewed as socialists and
were accused of being virtually treasonous to American individualism (Dionne, 2012).
Soon, traditional conservatives began to be viewed as not being conservative enough,
including their beliefs concerning moral issues like abortion and gay rights, along with
funding for the poor, universal health care and Social Security (Dionne, 2012). Liberal
advances in these highly charged areas were viewed as antithetical to Tea Party values.
Reversing these became the clarion call of the radical right wing and by default the
Republican Party as a whole (Dionne, 2012).
Not all conservatives were pulled so far to the right however and moderate
Republicans today occupy many seats in both houses of Congress. Naturally, with this
broad reach of what constitutes conservatism, conflict within the Republican Party has
flourished. This lack of unity in the Republican Party came to a head, with the
51
government shutdown in October 2013. Radicals in the Republican Party fanned the
flames of dissent, encouraging fellow Congressmen to deny the President’s requests to
keep the government open. Even after the Senate agreed that the government closure was
the wrong thing to do, filibuster speeches in the House persuaded enough House
Republicans to shut the doors of the government (Dinan & Klimas, 2013). Although this
course of action appeared to be largely approved by the Republican Party at its outset,
many moderate Republican Congressmen and women began to second guess themselves
as the closure dragged on.
Since this time a palpable shift has occurred nationally, where moderate
Republicans appear to be separating themselves from the radical right. Battles in
congressional primaries between far-right and moderate conservatives have intensified as
these two conservative viewpoints struggle to find unity and agreement on the future
direction of the Republican Party (Altman, 2013). Traditional Republicans have begun to
adopt strategies to oust Tea Party members of Congress in the wake of the damage
caused by the government shutdown (Altman, 2013). Super PACs funneled money into
the primary season in an attempt to influence which candidates would represent the
Republican Party during the 2014 election cycle (Altman, 2013). Several Super PACs,
who funded candidates in favor of the government shutdown, turned their coats and
directed their funding towards moderate Republicans (Altman, 2013).
Liberal/Democratic World View
The Democratic Party today is the champion of the progressive/liberal political
agenda. An open proponent of a strong federal government and the protective role it can
52
assume (Charles River Editors, 2014), the Democratic Party believes in the value of
working together and giving everyone an equal chance to succeed (Democrats.org,
2014a). Key issues within the Democratic Party agenda include ensuring equal access to
education and health care along with a focus on job creation and clean energy
(Democrats.org, 2014a; Lakoff & Wehling, 2012). Historically, the Democratic Party has
fought for civil rights, women’s rights and the rights of workers and various minority
groups (Democrats.org, 2014b). Leaders have implemented many progressive changes,
including the 19
th
Amendment – guaranteeing a woman’s right to vote, the New Deal and
the Social Security Act, the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act and, most recently, the
Affordable Care Act (Democrats.org, 2014b).
With its beginnings rooted in Jeffersonian ideology under the banner of the
Democratic-Republicans and led by Thomas Jefferson, todays Democratic Party began
life with a different persona, calling for stronger states’ rights and a smaller central
government (Charles River Editors, 2014). During Andrew Jackson’s second bid for the
Presidency in 1828, Jackson adopted the term ‘Democrats’ to replace Democratic-
Republicans label and hijacked much of its existing platform. This did not leave John
Quincy Adams, the incumbent, a large constituency to court. Fighting back, he publically
branded Jackson a “jackass” – which to this day remains the mascot of the Democrats
(Charles River Editors, 2014).
The platform for the Democrats began to change under Woodrow Wilson, who
saw the benefit of using the federal government to help workers. However, the character
and ideology of the modern Democratic Party sprang most directly from the FDR
53
administration (Charles River Editors, 2014). Roosevelt is best known for spearheading
the ‘New Deal,’ which included programs such as unemployment relief and Social
Security. These programs, introduced in response to the crushing impact of the Great
Depression on the national economy, were easily accepted at a time when so many
needed help and assistance. Roosevelt’s stance on involvement in World War II also
designated the Democratic Party as the “internationalist party” (Charles River Editors,
2014, p. 25), while the Republican Party preferred to focus on domestic issues. These
aspects of the Democratic Party ideology all led to an increase in spending and related
expansion of the federal government, which experienced the greatest period of growth
under Roosevelt (Charles River Editors, 2014). This overarching power and involvement
of the federal government in the lives of U.S. citizens remains a point of contention today
between the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress.
During the presidency of Harry Truman, the Democratic Party began to address
civil rights and issues regarding race. Truman solidly supported desegregation in the
military, enacting it into law in 1948 (Charles River Editors, 2014). Racial issues were
now being addressed at the federal level, but only the Northern Democrats possessed this
more liberal ideological platform. Since Wilson and Roosevelt, Democratic presidents
had shifted the party’s stance on the involvement of the federal government in the lives of
everyday Americans, now using it as a tool to improve the lives of working class
Americans and minorities alike (Charles River Editors, 2014). Through these changes,
the Democratic Party expanded its appeal to a wide array of constituents. From those who
54
were well educated to farmers, along with both urban and rural populations, the
Democrats broadened its base significantly (Charles River Editors, 2014).
Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), Southern Democrats were the
conservative wing of the Democratic Party, particularly with regards to any issues related
to race (Pildes, 2011). During and after Reconstruction, they controlled the southern
states and maintained a powerful position in Congress for decades (Charles River Editors,
2014). With the Democratic Party stranglehold on the South, there was essentially a one
party system in operation in these states. However, once the VRA passed, the electorate
took on a different hue moving from blue to purple. Large swaths of previously
disenfranchised voters began to exercise their right to vote, but many of the existing
Southern Democrats chose to escape the liberal leanings of these incoming new voters
and moved over to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, leaving the
Democratic Party in the south to ideologically align with the more liberal agenda of its
national party (Pildes, 2011). Accordingly, the influx of Southern Democrats to the
Republican Party gave this party a foothold in the South that it had not previously
enjoyed. This translated into a true national two-party system during the Clinton era that
now included the South, when the VRA amendments created safe minority districts
(Pildes, 2011).
President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the 1965 VRA into law, continued the
legacy of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, in using the federal government to
improve the lives of those needing assistance. He passed laws that helped minorities gain
greater equality, gave assistance to the poor, disabled and unemployed and provided
55
healthcare to the elderly and those in need (Charles River Editors, 2014). These laws
constituted the ‘Great Society Program,’ which continued the progressive trajectory from
the New Deal to the Democratic Party of today (Charles River Editors, 2014). Around
this time, each of the two parties began to purify and polarize into very distinct
ideologies, thus laying the groundwork for the partisan conflict seen between Democrats
and Republicans in Congress today.
Democrats did not see another president from their party, apart from the one term
of Jimmy Carter, until President Bill Clinton in 1992. Under President Clinton, the label
of ‘New Democrats’ was adopted, along with the new brand he billed as centrist (Pildes,
2011). He wanted to leave behind the ultra liberal wings of the Democratic Party and
appeal across the aisle to those with more moderate viewpoints in both parties. However,
with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House during Clinton’s term, partisan conflict
began to simmer and then boil as Republican Congressional members tried to ruin
President Clinton (Charles River Editors, 2014). Clinton’s adoption of a moderate
platform for the Democratic Party in the 1990s preceded the push to become more
partisan after Clinton, where ‘New New Democrats’ with more partisan ideology
effectively replaced centrist Democrats of the Clinton era (Pildes, 2011).
Today’s Democratic Party under President Barack Obama continues with many of
the liberal agenda items that were initially proposed and implemented by previous
administrations. Using the federal government to better the lives of citizens, Democrats
support employee’s rights over those of their employers, advocate abortion and gay
rights, embrace a pluralist society and remain internationalist (Charles River Editors,
56
2014; Lakoff & Wehling, 2012). The most far-reaching legislation of this administration
is arguably the ‘Affordable Care Act’ of 2010 (Condon, 2013) – the crowning jewel of
legislative achievements for the Obama administration. This law provides access to
affordable health care for all citizens, but has caused a massive rift between Democrats
and Republicans in Congress whose singular mission is to repeal this law (Condon, 2013;
Ricci & Seymour, 2012).
With liberal agenda items on the Democratic platform and opposing conservative
items on the Republican platform, it is not surprising that conflict is commonplace
between the two parties. The liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, who
previously provided a bridge to bipartisanship, seem to have congealed towards the purer
end of their party’s ideology, thus polarizing further from the center (Charles River
Editors, 2014; Pildes, 2011). Finding common ground for compromise and cooperation
appears to be becoming more challenging, but is necessary for civility and respect to
return to the halls of Congress. This may be possible by uncovering the fact that,
although Democrats and Republicans favor opposing issues much of the time, beneath
these policy stances most Americans operate from the same set of basic principles,
including equality, freedom, justice and fairness (Lakoff & Wehling, 2012). It is the
outward expression of the differences between liberal and conservative moralities
grounded in these principles, that are responsible for much of the conflict evident in
Congress today, according to Jonathan Haidt’s (2012c) MFT.
57
The ‘Long Consensus’ Between Conservatives and Liberals
The early 1900’s saw a time of great change in the United States, as a broader
focus on fairness, safety and individual rights began to overshadow the unencumbered
power enjoyed by large industrial companies and other prosperous enterprises (Dionne,
2012). The balance began to tip towards equality - meeting more people’s needs,
addressing injustices and correcting glaring inequalities, to give more citizens a shot at
the American Dream. Allowing more of the populace to share in the prosperity of the
United States shored up the economy, particularly after World War II and Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s New Deal (Dionne, 2012). Legislation, such as the Social Security Act of
1935 (National Archives, n.d.a), provided a social safety net that alleviated the fears
associated with various risks to one’s welfare, including old age, unemployment or
illness. Paradoxically, this fomented greater entrepreneurial and economic risk-taking
behaviors in the populace, which in turn further stimulated the economy (Dionne, 2012).
For a vast majority of the twentieth century, the support to citizens provided by
the federal government to “temper the brutality of the industrial economy” (Dionne,
2012, p.210), and provide for “fair economic competition” (p.217), leveled the playing
field and grew both the economy and the middle class. By tempering the power of the
monopolies in the early part of the 1900s and continuing to address this issue through the
anti-trust laws of this nation (The United States Department of Justice, n.d.a), both
consumers and small business owners were protected by the federal government from the
unconstrained power of big business. These changes arguably indicated a move away
from a focus on unrestrained individualism, to one of caring and concern for one’s fellow
58
citizens. As the citizenry became more geographically mobile, the safety net provided for
by local communities gave way to community and institution building by the federal
government (Dionne, 2012). During this time, the YWCA, Red Cross, Boy Scouts of
America, Rotary and Sierra Clubs provided a sense of community and belonging across
the U.S. (Dionne, 2012).
The term the ‘Long Consensus’ was coined by Dionne, (2012) to capture the
essence of this delicate balance between individualism and community witnessed
throughout most of the twentieth century. As the government increased it’s constructive
influence in the nation, prosperity and individual freedoms grew. The National Parks
Service was created in 1916 under the Organic Act, 1916 (National Park Service, 2014),
women gained the right to vote in 1920 (National Archives, n.d.b), anti-trust laws were
established (the United States Department of Justice, n.d.a), and the Food and Drug
Administration was established under its current name in 1930 (U.S. Food And Drug
Administration, 2013). These were all protections for the individual, against the self-
serving interests of those in business who may disregard individual rights, freedoms and
safety in the name of capitalism and profit. Even with these influences from the federal
government – and arguably as a result of them – the country continued to see a general
increase in prosperity throughout the last century. The balance between individualism and
community, profit and concern for others, freedom and security was largely maintained
and saw the United States develop into a global economic powerhouse.
As the nation experienced the Great Depression and World War II, citizens and
politicians of both liberal and conservative leanings grasped the value of the progressive
59
changes that swept the nation. The War had been the great equalizer, eradicating many of
the social barriers evident in the pre-war era. The G.I. Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment
Act, 1944 – ourdocuments.gov, n.d.), amongst other things opened up post-secondary
education to returning veterans. With the development of the interstate highway system
through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (nationalatlas.gov, 1996), increased
geographic mobility led to greater employment opportunities that became available to a
more educated work force. Many of these social changes enjoyed bipartisan support. The
federal government was the vehicle through which these far-reaching, positive changes
were implemented across the U.S., permanently improving the lives of millions. Thus,
individualism and community, conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats
alike appeared to find common territory from which to work together after mutually
suffering the devastating effects of the Depression and the War.
When Bipartisanship Worked - Ronald Reagan, 1980-1988
Thus, although there have been several periods in history that have witnessed the
federal government polarizing over highly charged issues, for the most part mutual
respect and civility have been common in the last century. This was particularly evident
during the Reagan administration in the 1980s, where Matthews (2013), who occupied a
ringside seat as an aide to Speaker Tip O’Neill, described how President Reagan and the
Speaker shared a mutual respect for each other even as they fought hard for their
respective agendas. During the Reagan administration, a fair and democratic fight was the
norm in which both parties honored the system of checks and balances laid down in the
Constitution. They mutually demonstrated “joint loyalty to American self-government”
60
(Matthews, 2013, p.xvi) and represented the voters by whom they were elected. Both
parties abhorred anything that would inhibit the forward momentum and effective
operation of the federal government. They were efficient at meeting deadlines, as well as
being respectful and civil with the opposition during times of debate, decision-making
and accomplishing goals. In a nutshell, the Government and the Republic worked the way
it was supposed to – effectively, efficiently and for the country and American people as a
whole (Matthews, 2013).
Thus bipartisan deals, although hard fought on both sides of the aisle, were
tempered with an overriding respect for opponents and a clear demonstration of respect
and congeniality during the Reagan years (Matthews, 2013). Conservatives and liberals
appeared to remain open to the bigger picture regarding what was best for the country as
a whole, even as they pressed their party’s agenda. This was evidence of democracy and
the U.S. Constitution at work – no party was favored above another, the checks and
balances of the tiers of Government were effective and the will of the American people
was enacted into law (Matthews, 2013). This was most clearly evidenced during the
negotiations of the National Commission on Social Security Reform, a bipartisan group
selected by leaders in Congress and President Reagan to reach an agreement concerning
revisions to the Social Security Act (Ball, n.d.). These recommendations led to the 1983
Amendments to the Social Security Act (Ball, n.d.). Bipartisan compromise was the
foundation for its resounding success and although it meant concessions from both sides
of the aisle, it demonstrated that the organization of the U.S. Government could work
effectively to find a solution for the benefit of the entire nation (Ball, n.d.).
61
This ability for Republicans and Democrats to work together to find solutions to
significant legislative issues facing the nation continued into Reagan’s second term, when
a bipartisan compromise was once again reached in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Bell &
Akabas, 2013; Matthews, 2013). The “herculean bipartisan effort” (Bell & Akabas, 2013)
that was needed to pass this Bill again demonstrates that liberals and conservatives can
indeed find a common ground and perform the work required and expected of an elected
U.S. Congressman. Additionally, both Speaker O’Neill and President Reagan remained
unified on foreign policy regarding the Soviets, sharing a strong revulsion for the creep of
communism (Matthews, 2013). This bipartisanship regarding foreign policy allowed the
U.S. to project itself as a nation united in its collective mistrust of communist philosophy
(Matthews, 2013) and to present itself as undivided to the powerful Soviet Union. Both
facets of this immense organization demonstrated effectiveness in accomplishing the task
at hand and working together to complete the work they were hired to do.
What then may have shifted since this time when bipartisan friendships,
luncheons, and international travel were the norm? Mingling socially appeared to ease the
potential for political tensions that might originate from opposing political philosophies
(Biden, 2008; Wheelan, Davidson & Tilin, 2003)). Speaker O’Neill lived by his motto
that the work of the Government should end at 6 p.m. (Matthews, 2013). After this time,
members of Congress were mutually friendly, frequently socializing with each other’s
families. This offered the benefit of humanizing one another and of helping to develop
trusting and mutually beneficial relationships. Having this kind of rapport naturally can
be expected to have transferred to the floor of the House and the Senate, grounding the
62
daily interactions of party members in civility. Opposing party members enjoyed the
honest fruits of their debates via the democratic process rather than by sabotage and
dysfunction, which is arguably the overriding methodology observed in more recent
times (Dean, 2007; Matthews, 2013).
The focus of this inquiry rested on discovering how the efficiency and
productivity of the U.S. Government became destabilized over the last 20-25 years.
Discovering why Congressional members no longer appear able or willing to work
together effectively for the overriding good of the country, was also of interest. These
questions fuel the purpose behind this study, where it is hoped that answers may be
uncovered that will enable potential solutions to be developed to address this
organizational challenge.
The Beginning of the End of Bipartisan Civility
George H.W. Bush, 1988-1992 and Bill Clinton, 1992-2000
Prior to and during President George H.W. Bush’s term as president, Democrats
with more liberal ideology began to enter Congress (Pildes, 2011). They disliked the
seniority system that was in place for selection to committee chairmanship and so they
began slowly to dismantle this system of power. This trend was further continued by
Speaker Newt Gingrich, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, where chair terms were
limited to six years and seniority was officially eliminated as a selection criterion for
chairmanship (Pildes, 2011). As a result, committee chairs needed to toe the party line to
a greater extent, most likely resulting in more polarized policy positions and less common
ground between committee members.
63
The rise of the Christian Right during Bush senior’s presidency exacted an
immense and growing impact on the direction of the Republican Party at the time Clinton
was elected President. The political activism of this movement was fueled by the deep
pockets of Christian donors, with the aim of increasing the electoral base of the
Republican Party and of electing numerous hard right Republicans to local, state and
federal political positions (Berlet and Quigley, 1995; Blumenthal, 2009; Dean, 2007;
Dean 2006).
During Clinton’s two terms, Washington became ever more polarized, and
incivility increased (Dean, 2006). Speaker Newt Gingrich instigated several changes that
negatively impacted the Washington social networking, which had been a very real
benefit during the Reagan administration. These changes included discouraging members
to move their families to Washington and instead remain in their home districts to which
members should return after the two-day work week (Dean, 2007). Additionally,
Congressional foreign travel was also discouraged. Both of these changes exacted a
negative impact on the bipartisanship and compromise that had been evident during the
Reagan years and beyond. Without the opportunity for members and their families to
socialize with each other, it was easy for members to become partisan and view those in
the opposing party as adversaries (Kornblut, 2006). Ideologies likely took precedence
over personalities and character in defining political opponents on Capitol Hill, thus
making civility less likely.
As the Republican Party’s platform began to crystallize toward the hard right, the
Republican and Democrat ideologies continued to polarize. This further decreased the
64
ability for members of Congress to compromise, make concessions across the aisle and
interact civilly. Religion seeped into the historically nuanced style of democratic political
debate within Congress, tearing it from its traditional, civil foundations and replacing it
with a rigid and unswerving expectation for those on the Right to remain true to the party
platform (Dean, 2006). Mixing politics and religion, as forewarned by the Founders,
negatively impacted the democratic process and the ability for lawmakers to get their jobs
done (Dean, 2006).
Soon the civility between members of Congress seen under Reagan rapidly
deteriorated into full-scale warfare, as impeachment proceedings were initiated during
Clinton’s second term (Dean, 2006). As the impeachment battles raged, retired Senator
Barry Goldwater condemned the viral spread of incivility that was overtaking Congress,
arguing that this shift had occurred since cultural and social issues had become the key
focus of the Republican Party platform (Dean, 2006). In a phone discussion between
retired Senator Goldwater and Dean (2006), the Senator noted that “politics and
governing demand compromise,” (p.xxiv) and that the Christian Right believed they were
on a mission from God, thus making compromise unlikely. His trepidation for how this
could ultimately negatively impact the democratic process of governing upon which this
nation was built, is still of concern today.
Political Polarization and the Final Demise of the Bipartisanship Era
George W. Bush – 2000-2008
While there has long been spirited debate and heated interaction between
members of Congress, the flavor of these interactions in recent times has changed
65
significantly (Dionne, 2012). Conservatives and liberals naturally harbor opposing
ideologies. Smaller government, economic freedom, Second Amendment rights, and
reduced taxes make up the agenda on the Right. On the Left, however, personal freedom,
civil liberties, gun control, government assistance in ensuring equality and fairness for all
citizens are the areas of greatest importance. Bringing these two ideologies, often
grounded in differing moral foundations (Haidt, 2012c), to any useful agreement in the
realm of the federal government has frequently proven challenging. However, in recent
times the partisanship evident in the halls of Washington has been particularly
paralyzing, resulting from the continued polarizing of the two parties over the last two
decades (Dean, 2007; Dionne, 2012). The possibility of compromise on key issues has
become more elusive, with fewer areas in which ideologies overlap as both ends of the
political spectrum have edged toward their extremes (Blendon & Benson, 2011; Quirk,
2011). This further widening of the existing gulf between conservatives and liberals has
had serious ramifications for the effectiveness of several recent Congressional sessions
(Dean, 2007; Dionne, 2012; Haidt, 2012c).
During the administration of President George W. Bush, the Republicans
controlled both the Senate (United States Senate, n.d.b) and the House (History, Art &
Archives: U.S. House of Representatives, n.d.) for the majority of his presidency. Several
process changes were introduced that arguably drove a final wedge between the parties
and could be factors that potentially explain the increase of partisanship in Congress
occurring during the presidency of George W. Bush (Dean, 2007). Process changes
included shortening of the Congressional workweek, lack of bipartisan inclusion in
66
committee conferences and extended voting periods on the floor of the House leading to
more time for members to potentially be cajoled into voting a certain way (Dean, 2007).
Debate and deliberation, the norm on the floor of the House and Senate, were foregone
by the Republican majority, in favor of pushing through their favored legislation (Dean,
2007).
Compromise was no longer commonplace in the halls of Congress (Dean, 2007)
as the Hard Right continued to push their agenda. Large donations were funneled to the
campaigns of those who identified with this agenda, resulting in greater numbers of
supporters of the Hard Right winning seats in Congress and having influence over the
passage of laws and selections to the judiciary (Blumenthal, 2009; Dean, 2007). While
pushback from the Democrats was certainly limited, this environment was ultimately not
conducive to the democratic debate upon which this country was founded (Dean, 2007).
Much of the camaraderie common during the Reagan administration had withered
away as a result of the social changes instigated by Newt Gingrich under President
Clinton. With Congressional members returning home to their districts after a two-day
workweek in Washington, members no longer developed close bipartisan social ties to
others and their families (Dean, 2007; Matthews, 2013). Additionally, the removal of
regular Congressional trips eliminated further opportunities for members to become more
familiar with each other. This lack of opportunity for members and their families to
socialize arguably added to the partisanship evident within Congress. Removing the
humanizing quality afforded by social networking, quite possibly made partisan conflict
67
and lack of compromise acceptable to those Congressional members who would
otherwise have maintained respect for each other.
In 2004, Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton benefitted from
traveling together, forming a bond that allowed them to work successfully across the aisle
(Kornblut, 2006). In a similar vein to the relationship that was formed between President
Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill, the camaraderie that developed between Senator
McCain and Senator Clinton allowed for each individual to become familiar with the
other in a personal light outside of the expectations of the workplace (Kornblut, 2006).
Thus, the incivility that would be the norm for two Senators from opposing parties in
Washington became unnecessary when each knew the other personally (Kornblut, 2006).
The removal of social networking opportunities within Congress, which facilitated
bipartisanship, may indeed prove to have been a mistake. Instead, the lack of social
contact has arguably provided a perfect venue for frustrations to continue building
between Congressional Republicans and Democrats, potentially pushing each party’s
radical extremes to begin to ignite and take root (Wheelan et al., 2003).
In 2007, the last year of Bush’s second term, Nancy Pelosi was elected to Speaker
of the House (Pelosi.house.gov, n.d.). She pushed for non-compromise from Democrats
in order to try to highlight to voters the differences between the Republican and
Democrat Party and to prevent the Republicans from being successful with bipartisanship
(Pildes, 2011). She was arguably mirroring the same strategies employed by Speaker
Gingrich under Clinton, which continued to be enforced more recently with Speaker
Boehner (Pildes, 2011).
68
Partisan war - Barack H. Obama 2008-Present
With two opposing political movements rising in response to the difficulties faced
by the U.S. during the economic meltdown of 2008, the rift that was developing between
liberals and conservatives split wide open. Initially, with the 2008 Democratic wins in
Congress and the White House, the Right became mobilized. They sensed that
communitarian values comprised the overriding force that had swung the election so
definitively towards the Democrats. Those on the far Right felt especially alarmed that
individualism would be swept aside and that, with the election of President Obama,
socialism would begin creeping in and taking over (Dionne, 2012).
As the radical Tea Party fringe of the Republican Party grew, the polarization
between liberals and conservatives increased exponentially as conservatives became
emboldened by the results of the midterm elections of 2010. The Republican Party dug in
and made a concerted and strategic effort to prevent President Obama from being elected
to a second term (Dionne, 2012). They pushed back on anything that was proposed by the
Democratic Party, using the weight of their success in the House in an attempt to achieve
this goal. On the left, however, the movement was slower, coming to life in September of
2011 (Occupywallst, n.d.). The lack of liberal organizing until the Occupy Wall Street
movement occurred begs the question as to why this might have been. Key progressive
movements centered around specific issues such as feminism, environmentalism, and gay
rights continued, but these core liberal issues failed to congeal into an overarching liberal
movement (Berlet and Quigley, 1995). Perhaps this occurred as a result of the general
progressive trend that gathered momentum from the 1960s onward, during which time
69
liberal victories ensued in the domains of civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights and the
political issue of school prayer (Berlet, 2011a). As a result, liberals may have become
complacent, failing to grasp the need for action until resentment built into the Occupy
movement.
Referred to as the Occupy Wall Street movement, liberals decried the misdeeds of
those in positions of power in finance, who had successfully made themselves fabulously
wealthy through spurious channels while fueling the onset of the financial crisis
(Occupywallst, n.d.; Haidt, 2012d). The federal government was seen as negligent in
failing to use its power to prevent the transgressions of those in the financial world. The
protesters also sought to demonstrate about the inequities in financial growth experienced
by this top financial bracket of the country, which had not been equally realized by the
masses of the American populace (Dionne, 2012). While Occupy Wall Street pulled hard
to the left, the Tea Party fringe pulled squarely in the opposite direction, between them
mutually ripping apart the fabric of compromise that had long been frayed.
It is noteworthy that the absence of a countervailing liberal movement until 2011
had left the political narrative wide open to be hijacked by those who identified with the
Tea Party agenda. Numerous talk show hosts on T.V., as well as radio, took advantage of
the apparent apathy evident on the left, who were mistakenly over-confident from the
wins in 2008. With a wide-open field, the Tea Party advocates began to mix a particularly
strong cocktail of attacks, which was clearly demonstrated by “a sizable contingent of
House members who view any compromise whatsoever as tantamount to treason”
(Cottle, 2014). It took the vast Occupy Wall Street movement that spread rapidly across
70
the nation, to mobilize the liberal base into becoming more vocal. With President
Obama’s second term win in 2012 he became emboldened to push back against the far
Right. Liberals in Congress equally gained confidence to begin to deflect the
conservative narrative and agenda.
Any previously shared sense of values, principles and morality no longer provided
an acceptable foundation upon which the two parties could build compromise. Both sides
of the aisle have since continued stubbornly and inflexibly to hold onto their party ideals
(Blendon & Benson, 2011), forgetting that beneath it all they are all Americans (Dionne,
2012). On a foundational level, liberals and conservatives alike recognize individualism,
community and liberty equally. These principles, established deliberately and
methodically by the Founders, are shared on a visceral level. Americans all understand
the importance of offering a helping hand to those in need as much as they fiercely
defend their rights and liberties. They all know that no matter how prepared one is life
can deliver unanticipated curve balls. All Americans are exposed to the same
unpredictability of life. They are also simultaneously all subject to the same overarching
ethical and moral obligations to assist their neighbors – obligations that accompany the
liberties and rights they all enjoy. Runaway liberty and individualism without community
and consideration for others begins to resemble the tyrannical despotism that drove the
Founders to separate from England and issue the Declaration of Independence (Dionne,
2012).
71
Current Status of the U.S. Government
This diminishing ability for members of Congress to compromise has created a
litany of issues in the current session, which collectively have demonstrated that the
federal government isn’t working efficiently (Pildes, 2011; Rhodes, 2014). Congress is
replete with examples of dysfunction and difficulties, as lawmakers attempt to create
policy and function effectively under the process rules laid out by House leaders. Laws
have not been passed (Pelosi, 2013; Weiner & O’Keefe, 2013), others have been
relentlessly attacked since taking effect (‘Dodd-Frank Act’ – Taibbi, 2012; Wack, 2012;
‘Affordable Care Act’ – Condon, 2013; Ricci & Seymour, 2012); the Government has
been forced to shut down (Burwell, 2013) and members of Congress have adopted the
use of the filibuster as a frequently used weapon in their box of rhetorical tricks (Dinan,
2014; Dinan & Klimas, 2013; Milbank, 2013). Many of these tactics are a continuation
from previous Congressional sessions in which process issues arguably impacted the
smooth running of Congress (Dean, 2007).
Possible Paradigms To Explain Partisan Conflict
So, it is troubling to find that these two political groups can no longer work
together to successfully execute all of the duties they were elected to perform. The work
that our politicians were elected for has seemingly become difficult to accomplish.
Conflict and incivility in the workplace can be detrimental to effective operations in an
organization (Albert & Moskowitz, 2014) and can continue to negatively spiral as each
act of incivility feeds off the next (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The lack of successful
interaction and compromise in Congress as noted above, has had serious repercussions
72
for the nation already thus underscoring the pressing nature of this problem. With the
government shutdown, stalemates in Congress, and reduction in the number of Bills
passed by Congress (Benen, 2013) it is certainly evident that this issue needs to be
addressed. Whatever has led to this souring of the congeniality and respect, which was
once the mainstay of the halls of power in our nation’s capitol, requires intervention.
Explanations for the reduction in civility, cooperation and compromise seem to be
lacking. Researchers, such as myself, are searching for clarification and understanding in
an attempt to uncover solutions that may address the political polarization in Congress. I
believe that if bipartisanship and civility amongst our elected officials can be increased,
perhaps members of Congress can once again work toward the common goal of
efficiently and smoothly performing the work they were elected to undertake. Civility,
cooperation, and respect have cohabitated with effective lawmaking in the federal
government in recent times and must be possible once more.
Researchers such as Pildes (2011) have offered various paradigms as explanations
for the continued conflict within Congress. Pildes identifies three potential causes that
have been proposed to explain the political polarization and resulting conflict in the U.S.
Government, persons, history, and institutions. He notes that certain key politicians are
argued to be the catalyst for increasing polarization, especially those who are notably
divisive in nature. Liberals during the last Bush presidency would argue this to be the
case with President George W. Bush (Pildes, 2011). However, he further states that
partisanship can be viewed as continuing under President Obama, with his recent
stimulus and health care bills failing to garner bipartisan support (Pildes, 2011). Both
73
Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich were viewed as divisive elites in Congress, who each
spearheaded the mirror image opposition to the respective Presidents they served under,
fueling the partisanship evident in Washington (Pildes, 2011). Occurring under both
Presidents and Speakers of different parties, this continuation of polarization suggests
that other forces are at work.
Party primaries have held the blame for hyper-partisanship (Pildes, 2011), where
party members who stray too far toward the center have found themselves challenged by
their own party’s primary. Voters in the primaries could thus be described as forcing the
hand of existing Congressional members, influencing them to lean toward either end of
the political spectrum and to remain solidly aligned with the party platform (Pildes,
2011). New members are also likely to be more partisan prior to the election, in order to
avoid the same fate as existing members and to increase the likelihood of winning the
election. However, while polarization in Congress can be explained through the party
primary process, what might explain the reason for the concurrent polarization in the
electorate that necessarily influences both the primary and general election process? This
is considered next.
Historical influences on polarization, stemming from the results of immense
social movements, have also impacted the way in which parties and electorates align
(Pildes, 2011), as seen with the direct effect of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (The
United States Department of Justice, n.d.b) on party affiliation. Prior to this time, the
Southern states were dominated by affiliation to the Democratic Party. Each party held
moderates, along with those who were aligned with the more extreme ideological policy
74
positions held by their respective bases (Pildes, 2011). After the passage of this law, there
was a political realignment that occurred, where the South began to move slowly toward
the right (Pildes, 2011). The Southern Democrats shifted towards the Republican Party,
due in part to their stance on racial issues. As party policy began to purify along
ideological lines, those in the center diverged to the outer ends of the liberal-conservative
continuum, organizing themselves under significant political figures espousing the values
they held dear (Pildes, 2011). As the Republican Party once again became a key player in
the politics of the South, and moderates began to disappear, the balance of power began
to shift in Congress setting the stage for a “massive political restructuring” over the next
thirty years (Pildes, 2011). It is the results of this restructuring and continuing party
purification and polarization that act as one possible reason for the persistent and
pervasive partisan conflict impacting Congress today (Pildes, 2011).
Pildes (2011) noted that institutional factors such as gerrymandering have been
suggested to be a third potential influence on the polarization of Congress. In his research
however, he found little evidence for this. In contrast, he notes that the influence of
House rules hold more weight as an explanation for polarization. Changes in rules for
committee chairmanship selection has arguably caused more polarization, since members
who hope to be selected would necessarily need to distill their values to meet those held
by the party base selecting them to such a position. Additionally, he notes that campaign
financing has undoubtedly impacted polarization, since financing from a candidate’s
party committee gives party leaders the ability to exert greater control over the voting
patterns of newly elected members (Pildes, 2011).
75
In general Pildes’ (2011) argument for what might have exerted the greatest
influence on polarization and the resulting conflict, appears to be the realignment
occurring from the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (The United States
Department of Justice, n.d.b). His understanding of how this impacted the resorting of
allegiances within the government is compelling. With the disappearance of moderates
and centrists to cross over party lines, he argues that during periods of divided
government, stalemate is likely to be the only outcome.
From his viewpoint Pildes (2011) believed this to be the characteristic of a more
mature democracy, one in which parties have purified to each end of the liberal-
conservative spectrum and remain true to their party’s ideology. Strong parties that are
ideologically coherent and highly differentiated from one another provide the electorate
with a clear picture as to how their government is performing and where to lay blame. He
contended that gridlock will be the norm for the U.S. government, except for in the rare
instances that there is a unified government – one which is in control simultaneously of
the House, the Senate and the Presidency. He did not see that it is likely that the factors
influencing polarization and partisan conflict can be addressed. However, he conceded
that perhaps attention can be given to examining the consequences resulting from the
partisan interactions between political parties in Washington that have reached a
crescendo during the last decade.
I wished to discover whether, with additional information gleaned from
examining video data of current members of Congress, it was possible to build a
framework from which to develop viable solutions to the dysfunction evident in this
76
organization. Through applying Haidt’s MFT it was hoped that the current functioning of
Congress can be understood through the exploration of the behavior and speeches of
members who live and work with these issues on a daily basis. I hoped to comprehend
what factors drive their interactions with the opposition. It was hoped that by viewing
policy differences between liberals and conservatives through this lens it could help to
shed light on how members of Congress potentially make decisions. Through
understanding these factors, the development of solutions may be enhanced so that the
Government may once again work for the best interest of all Americans equally.
Policy Expressions of Contrasting Moral Matrices for Liberals and Conservatives
The Republican agenda appeals to all six moral principles in moral foundations
theory, giving them a distinct advantage when campaigning for office. Where Democrats
can trigger the care, fairness and liberty foundations during campaigning, the Republican
agenda provides additional campaigning opportunities for tapping into the loyalty,
authority and sanctity foundations that are of less importance to liberals (Haidt, 2012b;
2012c). Republicans thus clearly have an advantage in the number of ways they can
engage voters, by virtue of a greater number of moral foundations informing their policy
positions. It is noteworthy that, by viewing the ongoing culture wars in the U.S. through
this lens of MFT, it is easy to comprehend how a partisan can possess what appears to be
conflicting policy positions – such as the endorsement by conservatives of a pro-life
stance on abortion, yet their support for capital punishment, or the liberal endorsement
77
for pro-choice positions, but a commitment to gun control (Koleva, Graham, Iyer, Ditto
& Haidt, 2012).
MFT can also help to explain why working class Democrats moved over to the
Republican Party under Reagan (Reagan Democrats), seeming to vote against their own
best economic interests. The moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity were
not sufficiently represented in the liberal agenda during recent times. Great social change
occurred in several areas, including globalization, increasing crime rates, abortion, and
gay rights. However, it appears that the binding foundations evident in the developing
conservative agenda of this time exerted a greater influence on these voters than the
foundations evident in the policies offered by the Democratic ticket. Voters clearly
needed the sense of stability offered by Reagan’s policies in response to the sweeping
social changes that were taking place (Haidt, 2012b) and as a way to assuage the resulting
sense of uncertainty during this period in history (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway,
2003).
Thus, even though the very people who would stand to benefit the most from social
programs began to vote against them by voting for the Republican platform, they
arguably found more comfort in the broader aspects of the conservative agenda that
appealed to their sense of belonging, order and sanctity (Haidt, 2012b) even at the
expense of economic protections (Haidt, 2012b). These culture war issues continue to be
evident in policy platforms today, fueling the ongoing warfare evident between the left
and the right. Some of these policy issues, taken from Haidt (2012b; 2012c) are presented
next:
78
• Care: The liberal agenda activates the Care foundation with issues relating to
helping the poor, children’s programs, health policy, and welfare programs. The
care foundation for conservatives rests on slightly different agenda items and is
typically directed to those who have sacrificed for the greater good – such as
members of the military. Conservative caring is also evident more locally in
communities, with church programs that help those in need (Haidt, 2012b;
2012c).
• Fairness: Liberal policy relating to social justice rests squarely on the fairness
foundation. As such, taxation policies that look for tax increases on the rich and
fairness in housing, education and opportunity for the underprivileged are some of
the ways in which this dimension is expressed in liberal policy. Fairness of the
taxation system was the focus for the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011. For
conservatives, however, the fairness foundation motivates policy related to the
welfare system, the tax system and health care system overhaul. Conservatives do
not see it as fair that their hard earned money should be redistributed to those they
consider to be lazy. Haidt (2012c) noted that there is a difference in the way in
which liberals and conservatives view fairness. Liberals view it through the lens
of equality while for conservatives it is related to proportionality (i.e., that the
harder a person works, the more they earn).
• Loyalty: The loyalty foundation is more important to conservatives than for
liberals, as evidenced by their nationalism and dislike of globalization (Haidt,
2012b; 2012c). Conservatives tend to advocate for America first. Conversely,
79
liberals are open to universalism and are more likely to support global policy
where the rights of the United States are not placed above those of other nations.
• Authority: The authority dimension is also of greater importance to conservatives
than liberals and is evident in policy regarding crime laws and rules under the
majority party within Congress. Conservatives traditionally believe in being tough
on crime, where liberals tend to rely on their care and fairness foundations, often
looking to advance social policy to improve the lives of underprivileged members
of society (Haidt, 2012b; 2012c). Additionally, when Republicans are the
majority party in Congress, there is a tendency to imbue the President with greater
powers and be comfortable with less oversight by Congress (Pildes, 2011),
whereas Democrats prefer to spread the powers between the executive and
legislative branches of the government.
• Sanctity Foundation: The sanctity foundation is the third foundation that is of
more importance to conservatives. It is evident in their policy regarding abortion,
euthanasia, religion in schools, gay rights and issues related to sex. While
conservatives view these issues through the lens of preserving the sanctity of life,
purity, Christianity and marriage, the liberal policy gives little weight to sanctity
when considering these areas. This essentially gives conservatives control of the
family values platform – a key aspect of the American culture wars. Interestingly,
however, sanctity for liberals can arguably be found in the grocery store in any
number of organic products and also in liberal environmental policy (Haidt,
2012b; 2012c).
80
• Liberty: Haidt (2012c) added the liberty foundation after discovering that liberals
and conservatives hold a different perspective on the concept of fairness. He felt
that the lens of equality through which liberals typically viewed the fairness
foundation left the need for the addition of the liberty foundation to capture the
liberal love of liberty. This leaves fairness to be viewed through the filter of
proportionality for conservatives. Liberals view liberty in terms of the right for
individuals to make major life decisions for themselves and as such, adopt policy
that fights for the right to choose regarding abortion and euthanasia.
Conservatives, however, view the liberty foundation through the lens of freedom
from the interference and control of government on their lives and businesses and
pursue corresponding policy themes. Once the fairness foundation was re-
categorized in this manner, Conservatives began to score slightly higher than
Liberals, indicating the importance they allocate to proportionality with regards to
fairness (Haidt, 2012c).
Psychological and Moral Underpinnings of the American Culture Wars
In the same manner as moral decisions, political judgments are also formed
intuitively (Haidt, 2012c). Individuals with similar moral matrices tend to converge
politically, possessing mutual interest in specific policy issues. However, understanding
other moral matrices is extremely challenging when different moral foundations than
those of others support one’s worldview (Haidt & Graham, 2007). The moral foundations
described in Haidt’s theory inform liberals and conservatives moral judgments in
different ways and to various extents (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2012a; 2012b; 2012c).
81
When individuals operate from dissimilar moral foundations, this undoubtedly makes for
challenging collegial discourse between ideological opposites as evidenced by the
continued conflict witnessed in the U.S. government. The intensity with which each
political team supports their opposing policy positions blinds them to the values inherent
in the opposing policy, putting compromise and bipartisan agreement solidly out of reach.
Ditto and Koleva, (2011) have referred to this lack of understanding as “moral
empathy gaps” (p. 331), wherein people are unable to correctly infer the moral reasoning
behind the judgments and beliefs of others in opposing political camps. Since moral
intuitions directly influence one’s political viewpoint, this can aggravate already
contentious political dialogue as members of opposing ideological groups view the
policies of their adversaries as founded in malicious intent and narrow intellect (Ditto &
Koleva, 2011). Partisans at each end of the ideological spectrum tend to incorrectly judge
the motivation for the other’s moral agendas as resting on a desire for opposition with
them, rather than a desire to pursue their own values (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006). If
partisans in Congress mistakenly attribute the opposing party’s agenda to that party’s
desire to intentionally attack their core values, tempers are likely to fly, mistrust increase
and cooperation cease as members of Congress go on the defensive.
Furthermore, it appears that partisans across the political spectrum tend to hold
mistaken judgments and erroneous stereotypes concerning the values of their political
adversaries, particularly with regards to those values that are central to their own political
platform (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006; Graham et al., 2012; Haidt, 2012a; Haidt &
Graham, 2007). Liberals were found to be the least accurate in gauging the characteristics
82
of a typical liberal and a typical conservative, most notably over-exaggerating the
importance of the individualizing liberal moral dimensions of care and fairness for
liberals and underestimating the importance of these dimensions for conservatives
(Graham et al., 2012; Haidt, 2012a). They regard Republicans as being unsupportive of
their central issues such as rights of minorities and the right to choice regarding
reproduction (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006). Conservatives however, underestimate the
degree to which liberals held issues representative of the binding dimensions of loyalty,
authority and sanctity as important (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006; Graham et al., 2012).
For example, Republicans underestimate the degree to which Democrats support national
defense, crime legislation and other issues related to the conservative agenda. Employing
these stereotypes only adds further fuel to the increasingly flammable culture wars.
Interestingly, neither party tends to disagree with the opposing party regarding issues that
are not central to their party’s policy platform (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006).
The above is noteworthy information for the current study, since exaggerated
stereotyping by liberals and conservatives regarding themselves and their political
opposites, provides a fertile breeding ground for the continued growth of hyper-
partisanship political rhetoric. Such rhetoric in turn likely provides further fuel for the
conflict occurring within the U.S. government. Viewing the American culture war
through the lens of MFT (Ditto & Koleva, 2011; Graham et al., 2011; Koleva et al.,
2012)), our understanding of the partisanship in Congress takes on a new clarity, washing
it of the multiple layers of misunderstanding and blame that have made the likelihood of
finding bipartisan solutions to our nations ongoing problems remote.
83
It is noteworthy that liberals and conservatives are found to contrast on measures
of openness to experience (Jost et al., 2003; McCrae, 1996), intolerance for ambiguity,
resistance to change, uncertainty avoidance, a need for order, structure and closure (Jost
et al., 2003). “Political conservatism is related to psychological conservatism” (McCrae,
1996, p. 325), and other “psychological correlates of political ideology” that have been
replicated in numerous cross-cultural studies (McCrae, 1996, p.326). Openness, described
as heritable (Bouchard, 2004: McCrae, 1996), tends to impact whether the individual
takes into consideration all significant factors when making a decision (McCrae, 1996).
Those who are low on scores of openness to experience are found to be impervious to
persuasion once they have already settled on a decision (McCrae, 1996).
Thus, relating this to MFT, the intuitive responses individuals display when a
particular moral dimension is activated are potentially more resistant to influence for
conservatives than for liberals. Both conservatives and liberals employ the strategic post
hoc reasoning previously described and are both subject to the confirmation bias formerly
noted (Wason, 1960), to justify their intuitive responses to moral situations. However, to
use a term coined by Baron-Cohen in 1995 (Ditto & Koleva, 2011), perhaps
conservatives are particularly ‘mind blind’, since the conservative mindset is less open to
any new disconfirming information to their current beliefs. This arguably makes them
less able to “apprehend another’s moral mind...and…appreciate the visceral responses
that motivate another person’s moral concerns” (Ditto & Koleva, 2011, p. 332). Unable
to empathize easily with the liberal moral position, political partisans on the right will
naturally go on the defensive and crank up the partisan rhetoric in support of their own
84
strongly held beliefs. This in turn, exacerbates the liberal oratory in defense of their
equally strongly held principles. Until moral empathy gaps can be bridged, this
continuing vicious cycle of blindness to the other’s viewpoint is likely to remain the
norm.
Templates for Culture War Solutions
Perhaps if the inaccuracy of stereotypes could be demonstrated to members of
Congress (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006) and creative ways developed to encourage them
to be open to alternative information, it is possible that inter-party conflict could begin to
dampen with the rise of mutual understanding. As Chambers and Melnyk (2006) noted,
“explicitly informing partisans about their adversaries’ true motives ha[ve] been
demonstrated to facilitate harmonious and productive inter-group relations” (p.1309).
Clearly this has implications for the development of potential solutions to the ongoing
partisan conflict that currently permeates the federal government of the United States.
Interestingly, Haidt noted that political and other judgments could be influenced
by the current affective state of the individual (Haidt, 2012c; Lai, Haidt & Nosek, 2014;
Sauer, 2012). He discussed evidence that demonstrates moral judgments can be affected
by environmental cues, which trigger a particular moral foundation. For instance hand
sanitizer, a cleansing agent, elicits thoughts relating to cleanliness and moral purity – thus
activating the moral foundation of sanctity, which is associated more with conservatism.
Using this fact, political parties have most likely attempted to employ campaigning
techniques that utilize moral module triggers in order to secure votes (Haidt, 2012c).
Debates in Congress undoubtedly engage the same techniques, where speechwriters
85
include topics that harness the intuitive responses associated with one’s moral
foundations. These scenarios of course only fan the flames of the culture wars in the U.S.,
making cooperation and bipartisanship increasingly more challenging to achieve. Perhaps
this knowledge could be applied beneficially to bring partisans together, instead of
driving them further apart.
In addition Chambers and Melnyk (2006) asked self-described Democrats and
Republicans how likely they were to develop friendships with and think positively of
individuals from the opposing party. Given the current hyper-partisan mood in politics in
the U.S., it is not surprising that members of each of these political groups gave more
positive ratings to members of their own party. They also had a greater interest in
developing friendships with these same members, over members from the opposing
party. The ramifications of this distinct in-group bias for developing prospective
resolutions for the conflict in Congress are self-evident. However, increased exposure of
members to those in the opposing political camp (Wheelan et al., 2003), in humanizing
and non-threatening situations, requiring the adoption of neutral roles with regard to each
other, may enable Congressional staff to begin to view each other in a different, perhaps
more positive light.
It is noteworthy that Haidt (2012c) also demonstrated that our intuitive judgments
are open to influence and even change, if there is a positive relationship between the
people who possess different judgments and opinions. As a result Haidt (2012c) argued
that it is important that decisions made for groups or society (such as policy decisions
within the government) should be made by a group of individuals demonstrating
86
“intellectual and ideological diversity” (p.90), wherein their joint powers of reasoning
can be harnessed to civilly discuss the topic at hand. This would address issues associated
with confirmation bias, which could occur in the development of public policy, if
decision-making were left to an individual or a highly homogeneous partisan group.
Clearly, such a group would need to possess a positive and civil relationship in
order for its members to remain open to each other’s moral matrix or point of view. As
noted by Haidt (2012c), “Liberal and conservative policies…[can be viewed as]...deeply
conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society” (p. 109). Even though other
theorists in the field of morality take exception to several aspects of Haidt’s Moral
Foundations Theory (Blum, 2013), this author believes that the above quote captures one
of the key applications of this theory to the political incivility in the U.S. That is, MFT
contends that both liberals and conservatives arguably place equivalent value on the
principles they live by and espouse and should thus give one another the respect due to an
alternative viewpoint. Liberals can be quite vocal about the ways in which they feel
conservatives are closed to other viewpoints, but it is important for social psychologists
and liberals to be aware that they are also potentially discriminatory to conservatives
(Klasios, 2012). As Haidt suggests, both ends of the political spectrum need to realize
that the other end holds their viewpoint to be equally as sacred as they do (Haidt, 2012c)
in order to move away from the “tribal moral communities” (Klasios, 2012, p. 718) that
seem to comprise the flavor of the politics in Congress today.
In adopting this view, partisans could perhaps begin to accept that other political
viewpoints may have merit. Those who balk at opening up to the value their adversaries
87
give to their own beliefs and the possibility that these beliefs may have merit, are
demonstrating exactly the ‘groupish’ behavior discussed by Haidt (2012c). His argument
that “Morality binds and blinds” is confirmed time and again in U.S. politics, as both
liberals and conservatives employ empty rhetorical attacks on each other’s core policies
and belief systems (Haidt, 2012c, p. 311). As empathy for the viewpoint of another
grows, anger and mistrust would naturally subside, allowing one to open one’s mind to
other possibilities. This information has important ramifications for formulating potential
solutions to address the current partisanship in Congress.
Summary and Conclusions
The current functioning of the U.S. federal government is less than satisfactory
(Harbridge et al., 2014; Quirk, 2011; Rhodes, 2014; Schraufnagel, 2005) and the ongoing
partisan conflict that is widely evident in Congress self perpetuates (Dionne, 2012;
Harbridge et al., 2014; Mann & Ornstein, 2012; Pildes, 2011; Rhodes, 2014). MFT
(Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2012c) has successfully been used to explain differences in
moral preferences between liberals and conservatives. Using this information, this study
employed MFT as a conceptual framework from which to potentially explain the never-
ending cycle of conflict in which members of Congress appear to be locked. In this
explanation, partisan conflict can be viewed as resulting from the differing moral
preferences of liberals and conservatives. Through examining qualitatively the video data
of this conflict in Congress, it was hoped that some light was shed on how these factors
fuel this cycle. This can provide us with more insight into the ways in which the moral
88
belief systems of liberal and conservative members of Congress may irreconcilably
differ.
This approach can provide a unique perspective from which to explain and
describe the flavor and intensity of the Congressional rhetoric, while offering the
additional benefit of providing a window into the nature of the conflict as it occurs in
Congress. Thus, this study intends to bridge the gap in the literature between what is
currently known about the moral preferences of liberals and conservatives (Haidt, 2012c)
and what is known about the conflict occupying Congressional members and their ability
to effectively perform the duties for which they were hired (Harbridge et al., 2014; Quirk,
2011; Rhodes, 2014; Schraufnagel, 2005).
Within this literature review, an overview of the founding of the United States and
the beliefs upon which this rests provided evidence for the uniting principles of the
United States, common to all Americans. Following this, a summary of the various facets
of today’s conservatives/Republican Party helped to delineate the many and varied
viewpoints existing at this end of the political spectrum. Each facet of the Republican
Party naturally adheres to a slightly differing moral menu, but all exert an influence on
the overall platform for the Republican Party. Vocal proponents of each wing of the
Republicans are likely to push hard for their deeply held beliefs. In turn, members of the
liberal end of the political spectrum/Democrats who adhere with equivalent passion to
their opposing beliefs push back equally as hard. Aspects of liberal/Democrat ideology
and history were then explored in detail.
89
The impact of major societal, ideological, and political changes under the last
several presidents was then investigated. This was addressed in order to highlight any
external influences that may have added to the lack of understanding, cooperation and the
level of conflict evident within Congress. Additionally, process changes in Congress that
were likely to have inflamed marginal working relationships were explored. Further,
several specific possibilities offered as potential explanations for the partisan conflict in
the current literature were presented. This chronological investigation into the
progression from relatively successful and productive Congressional working
relationships to today’s dysfunction, inefficiency and lack of productivity was helpful. It
helped to shed some light on the broad range of influences that needed to be considered
when attempting to develop solutions to this organizational problem.
Finally, in this chapter the policy preferences of Democrats and Republicans were
studied. Since these demonstrate the moral preferences of each party, how these
differences likely fuel the current culture wars and conflict within the halls of Congress
was discussed. Additionally, various studies presented provided other possible
explanations for the current conflict, including those studies that focus on cognitive and
psychological errors as explanations. When paired with MFT, these explanations provide
a powerful rationale with which to describe and understand the processes evident in
today’s dysfunctional Congressional working relationships. This chapter concludes with
an introduction to some potential solutions to ameliorate the interactions in Congress,
which will be considered further in Chapter 5. The following chapter will focus on the
90
methods for this study, which fall under the qualitative tradition, using qualitative content
analysis and coding to analyze video data of current members of Congress.
91
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the ongoing partisan conflict in the U.S.
Congress. It was hoped that potential solutions to this situation could be developed by
uncovering the origination of the polarization in American politics (Quirk, 2011) and to
what degree individual politicians perpetuated the conflict (Dionne, 2012). I determined
that a viable source of data for my study was available using video footage of Congress in
action, found on C-Span. This provided a rich source of data in which members of
Congress are videoed as they conduct their legislative duties in the House or the Senate.
This chapter presents the rationale for the choice of research tradition and
approach that was used in this study. It also delineates the research questions that were
under investigation, discusses the role of the researcher, describes the logic used for
participant selection, and introduces the instrumentation used to collect the relevant data.
Issues of trustworthiness related to dependability, credibility, transferability, and
confirmability are then addressed, which collectively tackle the equivalent of reliability
and validity concerns within the qualitative research tradition. Procedures for ensuring
the ethical nature of this study are covered last. Research questions and factors inherent
in the rationale behind the selection of qualitative content analysis in the qualitative
research tradition will be discussed next.
Research Design and Rationale
C-Span as a source of data had the capability to showcase members of Congress
actually engaging in the behavior that constitutes the focal point of this study: partisan
92
conflict. Additionally, as this study used a qualitative methodology, it provided the
opportunity for me to select the most desirable participants for this particular study, those
who exhibited the clearest examples of the phenomenon of partisan conflict. I determined
that six individuals in Congress—four Senators and two Representatives with an equal
number from each party—would provide me with an excellent source of data. Examining
videos of these six preselected members of Congress for meaning and themes, promised
to provide a very rich set of data for this study. By essentially having a window into
observing the dynamics that occur within this organization, it was determined that the
data collected from this procedure would be representative of the problem under
investigation.
Data extracted from the video footage of Congress in action from C-Span were
applicable for addressing the problem statement and for answering research questions 1-3
that follow.
1. What is the nature of partisan conflict for Republican and Democratic
members of Congress?
2. How do Democrats and Republicans indicate their core values?
3. How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs and fuel partisan conflict
in the U.S. government?
During my research of the Congressional website (Congress.gov, n.d.), I
discovered transcripts of Senate and House sessions. These were found under
“Congressional Record” and provided an additional way to analyze the content of a video
from which themes could surface. Having access to both the video and transcribed text
93
had the potential to significantly enhance the data analysis of this material, as the ability
to observe footage of members of Congress giving speeches offers a rich addition to
reading the verbatim transcripts. These combined sources of data furnished rich
information, as themes were harvested from the data through qualitative content analysis
and coding. This provided insight into the dynamics involved in the continuing partisan
conflict in the halls of Congress.
Research Tradition
While researching the direction for data collection and analysis for this inquiry, I
maintained my commitment to the qualitative tradition. I initially considered discourse
analysis as my approach for data analysis, as much of the literature describes discourse
analysis as being focused on understanding the construction of meaning through the
structures and practices used in discourse (Herrera & Braumoeller, 2004; Hopf, 2004). It
also relates to how social reality is produced and how it is impossible to disconnect
discourse from its wider social and historical context (Antaki, Billing, Edwards & Potter,
2003; Crawford, 2004; Hardy, Harley & Phillips, 2004; Hopf, 2004; Neuendorf, 2004).
As I was dealing with discourse, I gave this approach a great deal of consideration. A key
assumption of discourse analysis is that ontology cannot be separated from epistemology
(Fierke, 2004). Analysts must have a comprehensive understanding of the historical and
social context behind the discourse under analysis (Crawford, 2004), in order to correctly
position and explain their findings.
This concept is important to qualitative analysis in general in order to grasp the
historical context of a research problem. Three steps noted by Parker (2013) necessary
94
prior to conducting discourse analysis, include this concept. It is my belief that these are
necessary for qualitative research generally and were focal to the direction and approach
my study ultimately took. These three steps are as follows. Parker (2013) notes that firstly
it is important to historically orient the phenomenon under investigation - that is, the
researcher needs to know the history of how the phenomenon came to be. Relating to this
research study, chapter two provides a detailed historical context for the partisan conflict
evident in Congress today. Thus in order to appropriately situate my data, I maintained
my awareness of this broader historical context during the analysis phase of this study.
Secondly, Parker (2013) states that the phenomenon should be grounded in a
theoretical framework in order to steer and give structure to the research being
conducted. In this study, Jonathan Haidt’s MFT (2012c) acted as the theoretical guide for
this study, providing the lens through which I examined the data. This theoretical
framework provided a clear structure from which to formulate a coding frame used to
analyze the data deductively. Lastly, Parker (2013) notes that it is important to
acknowledge researcher subjectivity when analyzing data in discourse analysis. Such
reflexivity (Parker, 2013; Patton, 2002) is also important generally in qualitative analysis
and was accomplished through an account of my position regarding the data and the
phenomenon under investigation. These three steps were employed in the methodology
for this study, in order to ground this research in theory and to increase the
trustworthiness of the analysis and the resulting findings.
As my final choice for data analysis I employed a combination of qualitative
content analysis (QCA) and coding. Using QCA and coding as the approaches for the
95
analysis of these C-Span videos provided the potential to extract exactly the kind of
information I needed in order to answer my research questions. This made these
techniques the preferred choices for this study. QCA allows for the systematic description
and interpretation of meaning in qualitative data, initially through the use of a coding
frame that I designed with concept-driven and data-driven categories (Schreier, 2012).
Schreier (2012) notes that the validity of the coding frame is contingent upon the extent
to which the research question is represented in the coding frame categories.
Role of Researcher
In this study, the role of the researcher is that of a key interpretive instrument in
the collection and analysis of the data under investigation (Creswell, 2013). As such,
researcher subjectivity and reflexivity are imperative to acknowledge and activate to
ensure the trustworthiness of the data analysis and interpretation. With the use of analytic
memo writing (discussed in a later section), all related thoughts, concerns, interpretations,
intuitions, connections, and realizations during the initial viewing of the videos and
throughout data analysis were recorded and considered. These assisted in maintaining
researcher reflexivity during the entire analysis and interpretation phase of this study
(Saldana, 2013).
Methodology
Participant Selection
The population for this study consisted of current members of Congress in the
U.S. federal government. Two participants did not meet the original criteria for longevity.
I chose six participants purposefully (Patton, 2002) for this methodological approach.
96
These individuals were all high profile members of Congress who tended to be directly
associated with much of the conflict and who appeared to be very vocal, partisan, and
opinionated. The methods for this study focused on searching for and coding themes in
video data gathered from C-Span, initially deductively via a coding frame based on my
conceptual framework and subsequently inductively. I determined that these individuals
embodied partisan conflict to a greater extent than other potential participants and thus
would provide rich data conducive of being analyzed in this fashion.
Although two of these were freshmen Senators, one from each party, I firmly
believe that the data I gleaned from their C-Span sessions in Congress provided me with
ample rich and meaningful themes to assist me in my interpretation of this continuing
phenomenon in Congress. I thus believe that their lack of longevity was outweighed by
their formidable presence in the current makeup of Congress and stood to provide me
with a unique perspective into what drives this conflict in Washington.
Instrumentation
As the researcher in this study, I constituted the instrumentation. I purposely
chose the participants and selected which videos became my data, thus effectively acting
as an instrument for data collection. I selected videos based on those that addressed issues
likely to highlight facets of MFT, in order to demonstrate how issues grounded in
morality are potentially at the root of the conflict occurring in Congress. These
purposeful selections assisted in uncovering meanings and themes with the potential to
answer the three research questions central to the study. Additionally, I acted as the
instrument of analysis when I developed a coding frame for the initial deductive analysis,
97
along with when I subsequently coded the data inductively. Given how intricately I was
involved in data collection and analysis, it was imperative to maintain reflexivity
throughout this entire process.
Procedures
The procedures for this study began with purposefully selecting the members of
Congress who best represent the phenomenon under investigation. Having selected six
members, three from each party, the videos on C-Span that were viewed were selected
based on topics that related to the moral foundations in Haidt’s (2012c) model. I then
searched for the appropriate transcripts to the corresponding C-Span video on the
Congressional website (Congress.gov, n.d.). In addition to these sources of data, I studied
the voting records and ideological position of each participant, which were found on
GovTrack.us (2004). These provided an ideological and voting reference point for each
of the participants.
The data for three participants was drawn from press conferences, instead of from
their speeches on the floor of the Senate or the House. This was due to the brevity of
these individual’s appearances in their respective chambers of Congress. In these
instances, transcripts were developed from the videos of these press conferences. These
data were analyzed in an identical manner. Due to the availability of the video data and
transcripts for three of the participants, it was not deemed necessary to make a separate
recording of the videos. However, a hard copy of the transcripts was retained for coding
purposes.
98
Prior to selecting individual videos for each participant, however, time was spent
viewing entire debates in both the House and the Senate in order to situate the data
collection within the broader context of Congressional operations. To accomplish this I
studied several day-length debates within both the House and the Senate that included a
varied mix of members of Congress in action. These were debates in the current
Congress, which occurred in June/July 2015. Issues ranged from Planned Parenthood, the
Highway Bill, The Iran Nuclear Agreement, coal ash regulation, pay equality, and health
care.
This gave me an overall perspective regarding the procedures followed for
debates in Congress, along with insight into how individual senators and representatives
interact with each other and an idea into the level of mutual respect present between these
members. During viewing of these video debates, I created analytic memos of my
resulting impressions and reactions in order to develop a contextual lens through which to
view and analyze my key data. By keeping record of my impressions and reactions
throughout the data collection process, I ensured trustworthiness.
After viewing many hours of these debates and taking corresponding analytic
memo notes, I took the time to consider my impression of this overall big picture
regarding the operations of and ambiance in Congress. From this, I developed several
insights important to this study. These are noted in Chapter 4 and my interpretations are
discussed in Chapter 5. With this background context formulated, I began my data
analysis, which included analyzing the videos of individual Congressional members and
their specific debates that had come to my attention during this initial phase of my study.
99
Each individual participant’s video was previewed with a hard copy of the
transcript in hand and a notebook available for analytic memo writing. This enabled me
to make quick notes on the transcript that were first impressions, along with writing
memos in the notebook regarding awareness of any corresponding thoughts or intuitions
that surfaced. I then conducted the data analysis as described in the following section.
Data Analysis
The data gathered in this study were C-Span videos six to thirty minutes in length,
(see Table 1) and corresponding transcripts from the daily activities in Congress in July
and August 2015. They were of selected topics representative of Haidt’s moral
foundations, (care/harm; fairness/cheating; loyalty/betrayal; authority/subversion;
sanctity/degradation; liberty/oppression) such as the Planned Parenthood debate, the Iran
Nuclear Agreement and climate change, and targeted participants who were commonly
known to demonstrate many of the partisan behaviors that are the focus of this study.
Three Democrat and three Republican members of Congress were the subjects of the
various videos viewed and analyzed. The main data analysis techniques used in this study
included Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) (Schreier, 2012) and an eclectic fusion of
invivo, descriptive, initial, affective, process, emotion and values coding that collectively
constituted the inductive analysis (Saldana, 2013).
Table 1 Length of Videos (in minutes) Used for Data Analysis
Participant 1
Republican
2
Republican
3
Democrat
4
Democrat
5
Republican
6
Democrat
Length of
video in
minutes
20:00
6:17
13:38
6:83
8:02
26:34
100
Mayring (2000; 2014) describes using deductive category assignment during data
analysis, wherein the data is coded according to preconceived coding categories, which
themselves are grounded in the overarching theoretical foundation for the study, as noted
by Parker (2013) and Schreier (2012) in QCA. QCA helps to designate meaning to
qualitative material in a systematic way. Saldana (2013) however, describes inductive
coding as a heuristic, which links data to ideas, giving shape and form to the essence of
the data and allowing for the development of a coherent whole understanding. Applying
these two techniques enabled me to highlight and classify aspects of the data as instances
of the categories in the coding frame as well as to extract meaning and themes inherent in
the material.
As previously noted, Haidt’s (2012c) MFT provided the conceptual framework
upon which to structure this coding frame, thus making it specific to the data under
investigation. I directly superimposed on this coding frame the six moral foundations that
Haidt (2012c) proposed. This contained the six moral foundations that are the central
tenets of MFT (Haidt, 2012c), along with several other data-driven categories that were
considered to be integral to the essence of this study. These were confrontational,
partisan, bi-partisan, respectful-disrespectful, defensive, accusatory, disbelief and
infighting. These additional coding frame categories were inductively derived from the
data as the coding frame was being developed. This occurred prior to the final data
analysis and was based on previewing the data. This process was described by Schreier
(2012) as “data-driven” category structuring, while the use of MFT dimensions
constituted “concept-driven” category structuring of the coding frame (p.84). The coding
101
frame and definitions can be viewed in Appendix B. This coding frame enabled me to
begin to distill the data and make it more manageable (Saldana, 2013).
Subsequently, in accordance with Mayring (2000; 2014) and Schreier (2012),
after applying the coding frame as described above, the total body of material was
analyzed inductively (see Appendix C), where coding was applied to interpretations and
understanding of meanings in the data as they surfaced. Mayring (2000; 2014) notes the
importance of this inductive process, wherein areas of significant meaning emerge from
the data as it is analyzed, and are then designated with a code that best captures the
essence of the meaning being coded. This process of decoding the raw material and
encoding it with a specific code that denotes the meaning (Saldana, 2013) also
significantly condenses the data and allows for key themes to emerge and be identified.
Once the entire set of data is coded in this First Cycle coding, Saldana (2013)
suggests that sets of codes can be woven together into longer phrases or paragraphs
forming categories. These categories, while somewhat distinct from each other, will
likely still remain interconnected, due to the nature of qualitative data and human
interaction (Saldana, 2013). Weaving these clusters of categories together and thus
developing themes in order to further elucidate the underlying meaning during Second
Cycle coding, is called themeing (Saldana, 2013) and is a technique that I employed
during data analysis.
These categories and themes efficiently reduce the data further into manageable
units of meaning (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Themes for each participant are then merged
together to create a holistic picture for each participant and then into an overall picture
102
for all participants combined. This data then forms the backbone of the research findings
to be addressed during the write up of the results and discussion. In relation to my study,
emerging themes that directly related back to MFT helped to explain the conflict that is
widespread in today’s Congress. It was important to keep my research questions clearly
in mind also, in order to streamline the process.
Additionally, analytic memo writing offers the opportunity for researcher
reflexivity, as the researcher ponders and writes about his/her own process in analyzing
the data (Saldana, 2013). In this study, I wrote analytic memos as I watched the C-Span
videos, which were then examined and reflected upon during later coding (Saldana,
2013). By writing memos throughout the analysis phase of this study and expounding on
my data analysis process, I provided further richness and depth to the analysis of the data
under investigation.
The steps for the data analysis approach for this study were as follows. These
steps were applied in an identical manner to videos for each participant, yielding a data
set for each participant.
Step 1. I had a notepad available in which to write analytic memos, as I watched
the individual video an initial time through. I began adding data-driven categories to my
concept-driven coding frame (Schreier, 2012) that was grounded in MFT (Haidt, 2012c).
As indicated by Schreier (2012), I kept in mind the overall problem under investigation in
my research study, the research questions I wished to address and my chosen theoretical
background – in this instance Haidt’s (2012c) MFT - as reference points. I wrote memos
on aspects of the video that struck me as particularly noteworthy on an initial run through
103
and also noted any thoughts that this elicited for me. I also highlighted on the transcript,
those aspects of the video that initially provoked a reaction in me. Hsieh and Shannon
(2005) suggest that these highlighted areas should then be coded according to the coding
frame before commencing with further analysis.
Step 2. This step entailed watching the video through again and beginning to code
the related verbatim transcript deductively, using the coding frame that I had already
developed from Haidt’s MFT (2012c) (see Appendix B). Utilizing this deductive
category application allowed me to highlight those aspects of the data that connect back
to the conceptual framework for my study – Haidt’s MFT (2012c). These codes were
noted on the written transcript. Examples of these codes can also be found in Appendix
B.
Step 3. I repeated step 2, but this time analyzing the data inductively, developing
codes relevant to meanings that surface from the body of material (see Appendix C)
(Saldana, 2013). These codes were also noted on the written transcript. I moved back and
forth between the video data and the transcripts, watching the video and noting codes on
the transcripts. Each time I actively analyzed the data and assigned codes to those aspects
of the data that have relevance, I made any analytic memos that I deemed necessary,
based on reflexivity and an awareness of myself as an instrument of the analysis. The
videos provided the richest source of data but the transcripts served to slow the
information down, so that I could think more accurately about what themes were
emerging as I verified what I had just heard on the video. The videos also provided a
104
broader and fuller data set for each participant, allowing themes to be based on far more
than merely the content of their speech.
Step 4. At this point in my analysis of each individual participant, I had gathered a
significant amount of data. While this undoubtedly condensed and summarized the
original raw data, it was still in need of being distilled further. Thus, for each participant,
I assigned various codes to conceptually similar categories and these are shown for each
individual in Appendix D.
Step 5. After first cycle coding, I then ran through the data again and reassessed
the codes assigned to each piece of data, in order to see if there was room for
improvement in the code chosen. This acted as a way of re-checking my data analysis.
Step 6. Categories were then joined into themes, further reducing and
simultaneously enriching the data.
Step 7. Themes for each participant were then gathered into an overall description
for each participant. Additional information was gathered as a form of verification from
GovTrack.us (2004). This process involved reviewing voting records and ideological
positions to verify my findings. This information provided verification for the
trustworthiness of the overall description that was formed for each participant.
Step 8. Finally, these were combined into deductive and inductive tables (see
Appendix E and F) and a coherent discussion representing all participants within a
particular party. At this point it was assumed that the findings would shed light on the
research questions that were central to this inquiry.
105
Issues of Trustworthiness
Studying phenomena qualitatively necessitates ecological validity (Wertz et al.,
2011). The C-Span videos and transcripts that constituted the data for this inquiry were
grounded in the naturalistic environment, where the phenomenon under investigation,
partisan conflict, naturally occurs. Thus, capturing speeches and interactions in Congress
on video as they are actually happening garnered data that was steeped in ecological
validity. Other aspects related to the trustworthiness such as credibility, transferability,
dependability and confirmability, are discussed next.
Credibility
Credibility was established through strategies confirming that the analysis was
actually measuring what it claimed to be measuring (Gregory, 2011). In QCA, credibility
(validity) relates to the degree to which the categories in the coding frame capture the
concepts inherent in the research question(s) (Schreier, 2012). As the data were analyzed
deductively with the coding frame, the presence of these concepts in the data became
evident. Additionally, studying each participant’s website for their professed stance on
various issues, along with the various statistics, voting records and ideological ratings
offered on GovTrack.us (2004), were a form of methods verification (Patton, 2002,
p.556) and acted as an additional check to the credibility/validity of this study. This
provided me with the opportunity to look for confirming and disconfirming information
relative to my findings.
Analyst triangulation (Kline, 2002; Patton, 2002, p.556) was also a useful
credibility strategy, in which an additional coder coded approximately 20% of my data in
106
order to confirm that themes in the data were recognized and independently validated by
an additional individual. This coder was familiar with MFT and therefore understood the
concepts in my coding frame. The second coder was not part of developing the coding
frame. Their coding of the data was compared to mine for agreement and a consensus
was reached regarding the application of codes.
Transferability
Lincoln and Guba (1985) referred to transferability as the “degree of congruence”
or “fittingness” (Patton, 2002, p.584) between the research context and other contexts. In
this study, transferability of the findings was considered to be possible due to the
congruence between the research context and that of everyday operations in Congress.
Operations in Congress follow a specific protocol and operate within narrow parameters,
which allows for one to assume the trustworthiness of the transferability of these
findings.
Dependability
Acting as the qualitative equivalent to reliability, this aspect of ensuring the
trustworthiness of the study aims to ensure that results can be replicated (Wertz, et al.,
2011). In relation to the QCA and coding that were employed, this was achieved in two
ways. Firstly, I coded my data and then recoded the same data 10 days to 2 weeks later.
This indicated the degree to which my coding was reliable across time (Schreier, 2012).
This is also referred to as “consistency” by Schreier, (2012, p.167) in QCA, “where
reliability therefore translates into consistency.” The degree of consistency was extremely
107
high, given the limited number of deductive categories that were available to be
employed.
Additionally, I had a peer code approximately 20% of my data to determine inter-
subjectivity with an additional coder, validating that the themes surfacing for one
researcher’s reading of the data will be the themes that emerge for another researcher.
This inter-subjectivity with another coder helps to ensure that the perspectives and biases
of the key researcher in the study do not significantly influence the data. Analyst
triangulation achieves this and was planned as a trustworthiness check to establish the
dependability of this study (Schreier, 2012). Also, ensuring that both myself and the
additional coder were clear regarding the definitions of codes in the coding frame and
fully understood the research questions and conceptual framework for the study were
other aspects that increased the dependability of this study.
Confirmability
Within this qualitative research direction, it was of extreme importance to
maintain objectivity to the degree possible with the researcher acting as both the
instrument of data collection and of analysis. Saldana (2013) suggests that even though
coding “requires you to wear your researcher’s analytic lens” (p.7), the researcher’s own
filter covers this lens and is influenced by their choice of qualitative approach. Thus, a
grounded theorist may use a different code than an ethnographer. Additionally, the
researcher’s beliefs, values, experiences, history and culture among other factors will also
act as filters when analyzing the data. Other influences to consider are what the research
questions are trying to discover and what the conceptual foundation for the study is.
108
Analytic memo writing helped to serve this purpose in this study, reminding me to
maintain a position of reflexivity regarding my thoughts, biases, beliefs and opinions as
they related to data collection and analysis. Of key importance for confirmability in this
study, was maintaining reflexivity regarding my personal political belief system. Since
political beliefs are highly emotionally charged, they pose potentially more risk to the
objectivity and validity of the study. Writing analytic memos before, during and after
data analysis helped me to assess this and anything else that I may have brought to the
study that may have negatively influenced its objectivity. This assisted me in remaining
as objective as possible in my interaction with the data, allowing for themes to surface
from the data and to be deductively uncovered with the application of the coding frame.
Ethical Procedures
The Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association clearly delineates
guidelines and expectations for ethical conduct in research in Standard 8 of the ‘Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct’ (American Psychological Association,
2010). Institutional approval to collect and analyze data was necessary (Standard 8.01)
and was obtained from the Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Walden
University dissertations are required to gain approval from the IRB prior to the collection
of data and, as such, the IRB approval (Approval # 03-16-15-0073021) was obtained
prior to the data collection phase of this study.
Each of the potential participants in this study was an active member of the U.S.
Congress. Due to the sensitive nature of the participants’ careers within the U.S.
Congress, utmost care was taken in this study to ensure that individual participants could
109
not be readily identified. This is in light of the negative way in which information is often
used against politicians by the media and by political opponents. Consequently, each
participant was immediately allocated a code that bore no relationship to his or her
identity, to be used for the duration of the study. Only myself, and members of the
dissertation committee had access to raw data analysis. Confidentiality was maintained
throughout data collection and analysis and will be for a period of 5 years, after which
time all hard copies of transcripts and data analysis will be shredded. Until this time,
transcripts and hard copies will be locked in a safe.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, methodological considerations were addressed. The introduction
of the research design, questions and rationale clearly demonstrates the design of this
study to be grounded in the qualitative tradition. Research questions focusing on the
‘how’ and the ‘what’ of the phenomenon under investigation (Wertz et al., 2011)
naturally channeled this inquiry to qualitative analysis. Qualitative content analysis and
coding were performed, in order to allow themes to be uncovered and to emerge from the
video C-Span and transcript data.
Several factors relating to validity, issues of trustworthiness, participant selection,
the role of the researcher and instrumentation were discussed. From this it was
demonstrated that the study design was structured to produce robust, sound research
results through a very thoughtful design and validation process, structured to ensure the
overall trustworthiness of these results. Procedures to duplicate this study were itemized
within this chapter, and ethical considerations were addressed.
110
Next, in Chapter 4, the results of this study are presented, along with data
analysis, themes and evidence of the trustworthiness of this inquiry.
111
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The dysfunction clearly evident in the U.S. federal government was the focus of
this research study. The problem under investigation was the partisan conflict observed in
the U.S. Congress (Dionne, 2012) and how it has negatively impacted the ability for
members of the government to successfully conduct the job they were elected to perform.
The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of partisan conflict in the U.S.
Congress and to discover how MFT (Haidt, 2012c) and political beliefs connect in order
to offer an explanation for the intensity of the current conflict.
This chapter reviews my findings regarding preliminary impressions of the
general context for daily operations within Congress, along with presenting the setting,
demographics, data collection and data analysis techniques employed to analyze the
individual participant data in this study. Issues of trustworthiness and how they were
addressed in the study are discussed and the results are presented.
Settings
The setting for data collection was the United States Congress in both the Senate
and the House. These data were available via C-Span video recordings in which every
debate or discussion that occurs in Congress is recorded live and is available for viewing
by the general public. There did not appear to be any personal or organizational
conditions evident in any of the video footage viewed for this study that could influence
the interpretation of the study results.
112
Demographics
The participants for this study were purposefully selected members of the U.S.
Congress who demonstrated the partisan conflict that was the topic of inquiry in this
study. Three members of Congress from both major political parties were selected. Four
of these participants were current senators and two were current representatives. All but
two of the participants had longevity of service in the U.S. Congress, and these two were
arguably some of the most vocal critics of the opposing political party. Two women and
four men made up the participants selected and were from the Northeast, Midwest, South,
Deep South, Southwest, and West Coast.
Data Collection
Six current members of the U.S. Congress were included as participants. Archived
video recordings for each of these participants were retrieved from C-Span and viewed
(C-Span.org, 2015). Any corresponding transcripts were downloaded from Congress.gov
(n.d.) and printed. This provided a total of six videos and three transcripts of these videos
that constituted the data for this study. Both videos of participants’ speeches in Congress
as well as videos of press conferences were available on C-Span. As was noted in the
procedures section in Chapter 3, it was deemed necessary to draw the data for three
participants from press conferences, due to the brevity of their speeches in Congress. In
these instances, transcripts were developed from these videos.
For each participant, I searched six or more C-Span videos, in order to find the
video that would provide the best data. My criteria included ensuring that the length of
the video was sufficient to allow me ample opportunity to uncover the underlying themes
113
and meanings in the data. As shown in Table 1, videos ranged from six to thirty minutes
in length. Also of importance was finding a speech/discussion that was focused on
material representative of the individual’s policy beliefs. Further, analytic memos were
created to help to organize my thoughts and ideas as I analyzed the data.
Data Analysis
The speech and press conference data in this study were analyzed using QCA
(Schreier, 2012) and coding (Saldana, 2013). For the press conferences, only what the
participant said was coded. With my initial analysis using QCA, the data from each
participant was analyzed deductively using a coding frame (see Appendix B). Haidt’s
(2012c) MFT provided the conceptual framework for this study and acted as the
framework upon which the coding frame was constructed. This approach enabled me to
highlight meaning and themes in the data that were instances of these categories in the
coding frame. Finding instances in the data of these categories that represent MFT lent
support to the validity of this theory as the conceptual framework for this study.
Inductive Process Used
The data for each participant was then reanalyzed inductively. Saldana (2013)
notes that as data is analyzed it is important to consider not only the situation in which
the data were produced but also the intentions of the communicator and the impact of this
on the recipients. This was more important to keep in mind during the inductive analysis,
since it allows deeper meanings to be considered and coded. During this phase of
analysis, I maintained awareness of these factors, and kept in mind the problem under
investigation, the conceptual framework for the study, and the three research questions.
114
Maintaining awareness of these factors helped me to remain objective as well as open to
meanings, categories, themes, and concepts as they emerged from the data.
Through inductive coding, meaning was extracted from the data and coded for
each participant, then formed into categories, and woven into themes and meaning units
(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). During this inductive analysis phase an eclectic fusion of
invivo, descriptive, initial, affective, process, emotion, and values coding were employed
(Saldana, 2013). Data included not only what the participant said but also their overall
demeanor and nonverbal behavior on the videos being viewed. Comparable individually
coded units were then combined into single categories that captured the deeper essence
integral to these units. These categories organized a range of related aspects of the data,
gathering them together under an umbrella category, thus made the raw data more
manageable.
The individually coded units shared certain characteristics that intuitively
belonged together and, using classification reasoning, were classified as belonging to the
same category (Saldana, 2013). These categories brought into focus the broader themes,
which were developed further as I continued to examine the data. I found it to be
especially helpful to replay the video data as I began to develop themes and meaning
units from the categories that I had formulated. This helped me to conceptualize the
deeper essence of the underlying meaning in each participant’s speech.
As I moved from categories to themes in this way, I contemplated which word or
phrase would most accurately represent groups of categories. This occurred intuitively,
moving from the particular focus of a category to a more abstract concept or
115
phenomenon. All of the terms I chose for the emerging themes passed the touch test,
described by Saldana (2013), wherein they represent abstract concepts that cannot
physically be touched. This level of abstraction is exactly what is expected at this point in
the analysis – wherein the themes I developed offered a clear picture of the underlying
meaning in the data, while remaining grounded in the data. However, Saldana (2013)
cautions about “transcending too high” (p.249) and losing touch with the data and your
ability to clearly conceptualize what information is provided by the data.
From the combination of inductive and deductive analyses, a holistic picture for
each participant was created. After this approach was completed for each participant, an
overall picture capturing the aggregate of all participants within a particular party was
created. Both individual and grouped descriptions provided details and descriptions that
were grounded firmly in the data, which enabled me to apply the findings to the research
questions in this inquiry.
The analytic memos I created during the data analysis phase were also examined.
These notes regarding my own process, insights, impressions, and reactions to the data
analysis provided a deeper level of immersion in the subtleties of the emerging meanings
and a richer grasp of the developing themes. The use of analytic memos assisted me with
researcher reflexivity and objectivity as I progressed further into the analysis of the data,
and allowed me to reflect on any biases I may have had that possessed the potential to
influence my analysis. As noted by Saldana (2013, p.41-42), “Memos are sites of
conversation with ourselves about our data…. The object is researcher reflexivity on the
116
data corpus.” These memos also allowed me to expand my initial impressions of the data
into a more coherent and detailed description of the meanings and themes that surfaced.
Thus, as noted by Saldana (2013), I used analytic memo writing to assist me in
my thought processes regarding what codes may be the most applicable to the data and
how these may combine to form categories and themes. I used them as a way to reflect on
and consider the content of the data and “as a transitional process from coding to the
more formal write up of the study” (Saldana, 2013, p.50). As such, these memos were not
coded, but were used to increase the richness of the coding given to the participant data.
Examples of Category, Theme and Concepts Emerging from the Data
As I deductively analyzed the data, instances of the categories in the coding frame
were highlighted. The coding frame included all six of the MFT dimensions, along with
several additional deductive categories that were considered to be significant for this
study that were data-driven categories structured based on previewing the data (Schreier,
2012). These included categories entitled confrontational, accusatory, infighting,
partisan, bipartisan, respectful-disrespectful, disbelief, and defensive.
In the inductive interpretation section of my analysis, the data for each participant
was coded, categories were then developed, and then themes emerged from weaving
together categories. Examples of each of these levels of the inductive analysis for each
participant can be viewed in Appendix D. Examples of categories and themes for each of
the participants are now presented here. Categories for one Republican participant
included the headings: complains about lobbyists, inaction of Senate, Washington cartel,
complains about career politicians, corporate greed, lying to the Senate, procedural
117
abuse, not representing the American people, not representing the Republican Party,
being a renegade, challenging the system, dishonesty, and lack of support for people with
no lobbyists.
Conversely, with a second Republican, categories included: accepting of
differences, bipartisan, trying to make things work, implementing solutions, future-
focused practical, courteous, professional and honorable. This individual also had
several negative categories including chastising President, blaming Democrats for Senate
failure, and partisan. The overall difference between the categories that emerged for
these two members of the same party was quite striking. Categories for the third
Republican participant included disgust with Planned Parenthood video, attacking
President over policy, protective of national security, abrupt interaction style, defensive,
and avoidance of questions.
Categories for one Democratic participant included oppression of powerless,
Republicans attacking women’s health, dishonesty, bipartisanship, praise for work done,
chastising Republicans for not voting on Bills, criticism of Republicans, job enjoyment,
rule following, use of sarcasm, frustration with Republican policy, and concern for the
environment. Categories for a second Democrat included attacks on women’s healthcare,
attacks on poor women, oppression of women, anger, had her fill, frustrated, disbelief,
and loyalty to policy platform. Clearly the categories for these two members were more
similar than those noted for the two Republican members of Congress. The third
Democratic member produced categories such as proud of party members, supportive of
118
President’s agenda, open about details, respectful, polite, and thoughtful. These
categories were in stark contrast to those uncovered for the third Republican participant.
Themes that emerged for the first Republican participant from further analysis of
the data included: betrayal, subversion, cheating, degradation, adversarial,
argumentative/intransigence, principled, challenging, corruption, influence, avarice,
disloyalty, recalcitrance, disappointment, defensive, and fairness. For the second, themes
were largely more positive and included positive attitude, solution-focused, decisive,
motivational, integrity, liberty, loyalty, and values. Although there were negatively tinged
themes for the second participant—such as chastisement and reproach—they were
expressed in a matter of fact fashion without any evidence of malice or contempt. The
third Republican participant produced themes that included: self-preservation, self-
protective, repugnance, justice, sacredness, and political assault.
Themes that surfaced for one Democrat included: oppression/power,
disillusionment, work ethic, commending, reprimanding, and sanctity of the Earth.
Themes for a second Democratic participant included: power/oppression, rights,
uncompromising, exasperated, and policy adherent. These themes had a different focus
than for the first Democrat and centered on policy differences more than a lack of action
and procedural abuses. For the third Democrat, themes included: allegiance, peace
process, accessible, considerate, and women’s rights. As with the categories, themes for
the third Democrat were notably different than those for the third Republican.
Finally, as I probed further into the data, several concepts became apparent that
were best represented by dimensions from Haidt’s (2012) MFT for the first Republican. It
119
was evident that his speech was constructed to deliver a strong message of his
dissatisfaction regarding his sense of disloyalty and corruption in Congress. Haidt’s
(2012c) MFT loyalty-betrayal dimension was deemed to provide the most accurate
portrayal of the overarching topic of this speech. Additionally, potential aspects of his
character became apparent during data analysis – such as being principled, disappointed
and concerned with fairness. These also lent weight to the loyalty-betrayal dimension of
MFT (Haidt, 2012c).
Further themes uncovered from the data included themes such as challenging,
adversarial, recalcitrant, and defensive. These all suggest an individual who is
potentially acting from the negative end of the authority-subversion dimension. He may
have believed that through challenging and arguing against those with whom he was
displeased, he may have been able to return power to its appropriate place. In my final
findings for participant #1 therefore, it appeared that two of Haidt’s MFT dimensions
were well represented and stood to combine with the results of other participants to
potentially provide answers to the research questions of this study.
For the second Republican, overall findings pointed to the speech for this
individual being steeped in the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal, sanctity-
degradation and liberty-oppression dimensions. The findings for this participant,
especially the first three dimensions, are consistent with Haidt’s MFT (2012c). For the
third Republican participant, three dimensions best represented the content of his
discussion: the loyalty-betrayal, sanctity-degradation and liberty-oppression dimensions..
These were expected findings for this participant.
120
Upon deeper consideration, several themes for the first Democrat were well
represented by the liberty-oppression dimension. This dimension was particularly evident
in the data, since a significant proportion of the raw data content contained references to
the ways in which this participant felt that the opposing party has attacked the freedom
and rights of vulnerable populations. The authority-subversion dimension was evidenced
in themes such as work ethic, degree of courteousness, disillusionment, performing job
duties. The sanctity-degradation dimension was also evident in this participant’s speech.
The presence of the liberty-oppression and authority-subversion dimension, along with
the sanctity-degradation dimension thus seemed to capture the flavor of the speech for
this participant – an interesting discovery for a Democrat.
Themes representing the content of the speech for the second Democrat combined
well and were accurately captured by the liberty-oppression dimension. This was an
expected finding for a Democrat. For the third Democratic participant the loyalty-
betrayal, authority-subversion and the liberty-oppression dimensions captured the
content of her discussion. The presence of the authority-subversion and the loyalty-
betrayal dimensions were less expected for this Democratic participant.
When themes were combined across participants based on party and subsumed
into one of the six moral foundations, an interesting finding emerged. For Republicans,
the loyalty-betrayal and authority-subversion dimensions were the most accurate moral
foundations under which the greatest number of these themes could be included. A few of
the Republican themes fit well within the fairness-cheating and sanctity-degradation
121
dimensions, while only one was captured by the liberty-oppression dimension. The care-
harm dimension was not represented in the themes across Republican participants.
For Democrats, all six of MFT dimensions were evident in the combined themes
across participants and these themes were more evenly distributed between these six
dimensions. However, the sanctity-degradation and the care-harm dimensions only
captured one of the combined Democratic themes respectively. These results are, at first
glance, in opposition to those indicated in Haidt’s (2012c) MFT.
Discrepant Cases
During the data analysis, discrepant cases were treated in the same fashion as all
the cases. A discrepancy was noted when the participant produced data that, when coded,
generated categories, themes and concepts that were unexpected based on Haidt’s
(2012c) findings regarding the individual’s political ideology. When I encountered a
participant who produced this type of unexpected data, I remained aware of my own
biases and beliefs and maintained an objective stance. I noted the discrepancy and
selected themes and concepts that accurately captured what naturally emerged from the
data, regardless of whether it was expected or not. Thus, my personal bias or expectations
did not influence how the data in a discrepant case was analyzed or recorded. These
findings were then considered in the same manner as the findings from all participants.
As a result, I feel confident that the results therefore accurately reflect the underlying raw
content of all of the cases that were analyzed.
It is noteworthy that a striking discrepancy for the Republican representative in
this study was uncovered upon further inspection of the basic statistics available on C-
122
Span. This individual’s total airtime in video footage amounted to approximately one
third of the time spent on air by the Democratic member of the House in this study.
Additionally, individual videos from press conferences for this member lasted about eight
minutes but the Democratic representative averaged thirty minutes. While this may or
may not offer any insight for this study, it certainly was a noteworthy finding.
Airtime was also notably different for leaders in the Senate as opposed to House
leaders, with approximately 27.5 hours spent on camera for the Senate leaders and 1-3
hours for those in the House. This finding may also be of little importance to this study
but presented a significant enough difference to be worthy of mention.
Evidence of Trustworthiness
Credibility
The QCA coding frame for the deductive analysis of the individual participant’s
data was structured to include the six foundations for MFT (Haidt, 2012c), along with
several other categories. This concept-driven data analysis allowed me to analyze the data
for evidence of these moral foundations and thus added credibility to the study.
Accessing ideological ratings from GovTrack.us (2004) was a useful verification and
triangulation tool (Kline, 2008) with which to either confirm or disconfirm findings, thus
adding credibility to this study. In addition, coding by a peer coder also acted as an
additional check to the credibility of this study (Schreier, 2012).
123
Transferability
Due to the fact that the data were gathered in the same context as the everyday
operations in Congress, it was assumed that the findings of this study were transferable to
other members of Congress, as they operate daily within the same setting.
Dependability
Dependability was ensured in this study in three ways. First, I viewed multiple
videos for each participant before selecting the one that would comprise their data. When
I had selected a video that was between six and twenty minutes in length and focused on
issues reflective of MFT, I then ensured that the individual’s overall demeanor was not
significantly different in the chosen video than in all the other videos viewed. This
therefore confirmed that the video that was subject to analysis was a fair representation of
the participant’s general behavior. This facet of data collection assisted in increasing the
overall reliability and therefore the trustworthiness of the study.
Secondly, as noted in Chapter 3, I tested the reliability of my coding over time
(Schreier, 2012). I recoded a portion of the data approximately two weeks after my initial
coding in order to assess the degree to which my coding produced similar findings.
Thirdly, as a form of analyst triangulation, I engaged a peer who was familiar with MFT
to code approximately 20% of my data and compared for agreement the codes they
assigned to those assigned by myself (Schreier, 2012). These actions collectively
increased the dependability of this study, adding to the trustworthiness of the findings.
124
Confirmability
As the instrument of both data collection and analysis in this study, it was
extremely important for this researcher to remain as objective as possible and maintain a
position of reflexivity regarding my existing beliefs, biases and values. Confirmability
was initially maintained in this study with my use of analytic memo writing during my
preliminary viewing of the daily operations of both houses of Congress. I noted my
general impressions regarding the overall ambiance in the House and the Senate, how
interactions between members appeared to flow and the procedural rules that were
followed during discussions and debates. I found the context to be formal, professional
and polite. Each member who wished to speak took their turn discussing their stance and
often provided supporting visual data. Debate appeared to happen more readily in the
House than in the Senate. The daily operations appeared to be adjudicated by a different
presiding member in each video. Overall, daily operations in Congress appeared to run
smoothly.
I adopted a position of reflexivity and maintained awareness of my personal,
political and cultural values, beliefs and biases as I viewed the videos and as I wrote the
analytic memos. This assisted me in remaining aware of any preconceived thoughts I may
have, that could potentially influence my assessment of the individual or speech/debate
content I was viewing. Remaining aware of all possible influences and writing analytic
memos regarding their potential impact on the results was a key ingredient to maintaining
the trustworthiness of this study. A variety of senators and representatives from both
parties, along with a range of topics, were viewed during this initial viewing process.
125
This helped to add a deeper objective understanding of the context surrounding the
individual videos that I subsequently viewed and thus further increased the
trustworthiness of this study.
An identical level of objectivity was maintained during the main phase of data
collection and analysis in this study. As I selected and viewed individual participant’s
videos, I remained aware of my political and personal biases, beliefs and values and any
impact they may have on my selection and analysis of this data. I kept in mind my
problem statement, research questions and conceptual framework as I analyzed the data
to ensure that the essence of the study was held in mind objectively during my analysis of
the data. I then wrote analytic memos to record any reactions I had to the individual
participant’s data, along with my assessment of these reactions. Additionally, I noted my
impressions regarding the possible intention of the participant as the communicator, what
they hoped to achieve in terms of their effects on the intended recipient(s) of their speech
and also the situation in which the communication was produced.
Results
I began by creating analytic memos during my preliminary viewing of several
debates and speeches from both chambers of Congress. In these I noted my initial
impressions and reflections of the overall daily operations of the U.S. Congress. Through
viewing the general operations of Congress during these debates and speeches, I was able
to establish an understanding of the context within which the dysfunction under
investigation in this study was situated. Thus, as a background for my subsequent
analysis of and findings from the videos of the individual members of Congress, the
126
following description captured my overall impression and ensuing reflections regarding
the general operations of and overall ambiance evident in Congress. I remained mindful
of reflexivity and subjectivity as these impressions and reflections were noted in my
analytic memo writing regarding what I observed. This description now follows.
From my initial viewing of several debates in the Senate and the House, my first
impression was that there appeared to be a notable difference between the flavor of the
speeches made by Republicans and those made by Democrats, regardless of the setting in
which they occurred. In general, regardless of the topic under debate, Republican
Senators and Representatives focused their arguments on topics such as states’ rights,
reducing federal government regulation, increasing job opportunities, and the necessity
for the adherence to the correct procedural rules and laws for governing this country. The
perceived impact on business owners and large corporations of whatever Bill was being
discussed, was also of concern to Republican members of Congress, along with any
ensuing cost to the local community. Members of the Republican Party also introduced
issues deeply steeped in morality such as abortion and gay marriage.
In contrast, those speeches given by Democratic Senators and Representatives
generally seemed to focus on highlighting health and safety concerns for both people and
the environment. Bills and amendments that focused on ensuring equitable solutions for
all stakeholders, particularly for those groups who lacked power and voice on the national
stage, also flavored the debates of Democratic members of Congress. Additionally, a
focus on individual rights often influenced the arguments of these legislators.
127
From this preliminary assessment of the general operations within Congress, it
was noteworthy that instances of all of the categories of MFT (Haidt, 2012c) were
observed. This general impression provides an initial rudimentary structure within which
to further explore the applicability of MFT to the problem under investigation in this
study.
Also of note was my general impression concerning the difference in ambiance,
procedural style, and the level of mutual respect between members, in both the Senate
and the House in the U.S. Congress. The Senate appeared to operate with a less hurried
air and with greater formality. During most of the debates viewed, most Senators
regardless of party operated from a place of respect, professionalism and observance for
the established procedures in Congress. These seemed to aid in the smooth running of the
daily functions of Congress, allowing operations to flow well and for progress to be
made. However, it was evident that there were Senators who wished to “jam up the
works,” causing procedural delays and excessive time to be spent on potentially
unnecessary aspects of the legislative process.
Debates in the House appeared to operate in a slightly more informal manner, but
still with respect and professionalism and an adherence to the established procedural rules
for debates in the House. There appeared to be a more argumentative atmosphere evident
and more back-and-forth debate style, with members occasionally addressing each other
directly instead of through the chairperson. In the debates I observed within the Senate,
this did not seem to be the procedural style of this section of Congress and members
128
appeared to generally address each other through the chairperson in third person as if the
other member were not present.
From my preliminary viewing of Congressional proceedings, it also appeared that
certain topic areas elicited more emotive speeches and debates than others. Dry topics
such as general funding bills for highways, federal lands etc., seemed to frequently draw
bipartisan support, thus demonstrating that bipartisanship was often possible. This
support was evidenced in the discussion presented by specific members. However, those
topics grounded in moral issues definitely ignited more emotion from both sides of the
aisle, eliciting debates and discussions that were somewhat disparaging to members of
the opposing political party in general.
Such emotionally laden issues as abortion, health care, immigration reform and
pollution were among these debates/speeches viewed. Members of each party seemed to
generally vilify the opposing party in their debates of these emotionally laden issues and
some Republicans members were finger pointing to the President regarding issues with
which they specifically disagreed. These highly emotionally charged debates/speeches
thus needed further investigation, lending support and credibility for my decision to
select specific instances of participants’ debates/speeches that are steeped in moral issues
as the data for this study. These videos were selected due to the presence of aspects of the
constructs of interest in this study.
Of note was what my personal reflection on my initial viewing of the overall
operations in Congress brought to light. While maintaining a position of reflexivity of my
personal, political and cultural viewpoints I believe I was able to maintain objectivity
129
when forming my initial assessment of the workings of Congress. While maintaining a
position of reflexivity, I was struck by the apparent calmness, professionalism and
courtesy that occurred within each chamber and in general between individual members.
My preconceived impressions from the literature and from the way in which the media
describe the operations of the U.S. Congress, led to my initial notion that partisan conflict
would be evident in every Congressional interaction. While such conflict was certainly
evident with highly charged issues, there were many interactions between multiple
members of Congress that appeared to operate with a great degree of cooperation, respect
and courtesy.
This was contrary to what I had expected prior to conducting research and was an
important realization that was possible to experience as a result of operating from a
position of reflexivity. In the same vein, I was also able to objectively view the
debates/speeches of members of my opposing political party and to realize that they
offered many cogent arguments to support their political position regarding whichever
Bill was under discussion. My knee-jerk response to hearing speeches given by members
of the opposing party had always been to disregard anything they discussed and to
automatically assume that their arguments would be faulty and deliberately
inflammatory. My objective impression found to the contrary. Therefore, adopting a
position of reflexivity assisted me in maintaining awareness of the values, beliefs and
biases that could have had the potential to negatively impact the results and my analysis
of the data.
130
From my preliminary impressions of these examinations of the overall operations
in Congress, I began to notice potential answers to my research questions. I noticed that
these general findings indicated that particular topics seemed to produce a less
cooperative, more defensive posture in debates in general and especially for some
members in particular. These precursory findings began to point to explanations for RQ1:
What is the nature of partisan conflict for Republican and Democratic members of
Congress? And for RQ3: How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs and fuel
partisan conflict in the U.S. government? Answers to RQ2 were less clear at this point in
the study. With these general impressions and reactions in mind, the main data collection
and analysis stage of this study began in earnest. The results of my analysis of the data
gathered from the six participants are now presented as follows.
Research Question 1
What is the nature of partisan conflict for Republican and Democratic members of
Congress?
After conducting this qualitative research study, I found that conflict within the
United States Congress was evident in several situations but was not always partisan. I
found that there were conflicts between certain members (Appendix D, Participant #1),
between parties (Appendix D, Participant #3) and between the two chambers of
Congress. There also seemed to be some animosity from certain members of the
Republican Party directed towards the executive branch, specifically the President
(Appendix D, Participant #5). In addition, conflict seemed to increase with those
legislative topics that were morally charged. These included issues such as abortion,
131
women’s health (Appendix D, Participant #4), universal health care and national security
(Appendix D, Participant #2). Legislation related to funding infrastructure development
and other less emotionally charged issues seemed to enjoy more bipartisan support and
elicited less partisan conflict. Lastly, it appeared that certain personalities were more
likely to be confrontational in their style of interaction than were others (Appendix D,
Participant #1 & #3).
Who?
In relation to the different contexts noted above in which I discovered conflict I
uncovered several noteworthy findings from my research and analysis. Firstly, the
clearest illustration of one member of Congress clashing with another member was with
my initial participant (Appendix D, Participant #1) who adopted a very confrontational
stance towards a member of his own party. This was unexpected based on my preexisting
understanding of the nature of conflict within the government. My impression was that
conflict between individual members would be almost exclusively partisan in nature.
However, as I discovered during my initial viewing of many hours of C-Span videos in
which I studied the general operations of the House and the Senate, I did not encounter
the degree of ongoing partisan conflict that one is lead to believe exists in Congress on a
daily basis. Indeed, my experience was quite to the contrary. Most of the interactions
between individual members of Congress within both chambers were notably devoid of
conflict and were respectful and professional in nature.
Although partisan conflict between specific individuals in Congress was less
evident, I did discover that particular members of Congress on the Republican side of the
132
aisle took exception to certain aspects of the current Democratic president’s behaviors
and beliefs. This led to comments made by one Republican Congressional member
regarding the President that were actually quite disrespectful (“The President’s incendiary
rhetoric”). This was one of the few instances of partisan conflict I witnessed in which a
member of one party directly targeted a specific member of the opposing party (“The
President promised accountability. It hasn’t happened”). Although it is certainly likely
that there are other individuals who take exception to a specific peer within Congress,
this was not evident in the videos I encountered.
Partisan conflict was encountered however, when members were discussing their
position on a certain topic and rebuked the opposing party as a whole. They did not seem
to target a specific individual, but rather the overall party platform of the other party. This
partisanship was noted for members from both sides of the aisle and is arguably an
expected aspect of our democracy. It is noteworthy that from both the general and
specific member’s videos I viewed, this style of conflict still did not seem dysfunctional,
and rather could be construed as passionate debate about strongly held beliefs and values.
However, within the six participants in this study, there definitely seemed to be
certain personalities who were more confrontational and accusatory than others
(Appendix D, Participant #1, #3 & #5). Some members were exceedingly adept at getting
their point across and making it clear that they did not support the policy of the opposing
party, yet remained respectful, courteous and professional in the process (“We ought to
treat this issue with the dignity it deserves;” Appendix D, Participant #2). Unfortunately
however, others were very inflammatory and confrontational in their speeches, presenting
133
their argument in such a way as to make it hard to imagine the possibility for any
successful bipartisan compromise to be reached (“The Republicans are not serious about
governing”). Those who adopted a less cooperative and more partisan approach were
from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Those individuals who were notably
respectful and courteous also came from both parties, as did the two members who gave
very impassioned speeches. From these findings, it appears clear that partisan conflict
does not seem to emanate more from members of one party than another. This was an
interesting finding, as my previous understanding was that partisanship did indeed stem
from one side of the aisle more than the other.
What?
From my initial viewings of the C-Span videos the topic of the speech, press
conference or debate seemed to factor into whether partisan conflict occurred. I watched
many hours of daily operations from the Senate and the House. The videos I chose for the
individual participants were all from June-August 2015, thus ensuring that the topics
were a consistent thread throughout the videos of each participant. These topics included
funding the Highway Bill, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Bill, a bill to defund
Planned Parenthood and the Iran Nuclear Agreement and accompanying review act.
Those bills that related to funding and oversight by Congress regarding the Iran
Nuclear Agreement garnered much greater bipartisan support than these topics. As such,
speeches were less emotive and less confrontational towards the opposing party.
However, the bill to defund Planned Parenthood and aspects of the Iran Nuclear
Agreement certainly produced more extreme responses from both sides of the aisle. As
134
one would expect, these responses were notably greater for those individuals who
appeared to be more adversarial in nature and style.
Where?
In addition to partisan conflict directed at the opposing party as a whole, along
with the instances in which particular Republican members took aim at the current
Democratic president, other conflict within Congress seemed to be between same party
members as noted earlier and between the two chambers of Congress. Listening to
speeches and press conferences from members from both chambers during my initial
viewing of videos, there was a notable amount of criticism regarding the opposing
chamber. This ranged from a respectful nudge to a veritable tear down of the workings of
the other chamber and was witnessed from members of both chambers. For instance,
several Senators were very vocal and opinionated regarding the date set for the August
recess for members of the House, as they felt this left important unfinished business on
the table. Members of the House expressed opinions on some of the legislation being
returned to them from the Senate and complained about amendments added or the lack of
other bills being attached to the legislation. These battles did not appear to be particularly
partisan in nature but instead, seemed to be grounded in inter-chamber conflict.
Overall Findings for Research Question One
Thus, unweaving the many strands of partisan conflict and conflict in general
from the tapestry of everyday operations in Congress has provided a starting point from
which to assess potential ways in which this perceived conflict in Congress can be
mitigated. By understanding that most members of Congress maintain a professional and
135
courteous interaction style and that many topics successfully garner bipartisan support
and move smoothly from one chamber of Congress to another, it is easier to highlight
where the problem areas may lie.
Answering the first research question therefore, one can describe the nature of
partisan conflict for Republican and Democratic members of Congress as the following.
Partisan conflict appears to reside in the interaction style of specific individuals more
than others and with specific topics above others that are being legislated. In general the
partisan attacks appear to emanate equally from both sides of the aisle and seem to be
directed at the opposing party as a whole. This is with the exception of individual attacks
on the current sitting President from across the aisle. Lastly, while conflict does seem to
exist between individual members and between the two chambers of Congress, neither of
these appears to be partisan in nature.
Research Question 2
How do Democrats and Republicans indicate their core values?
To answer this research question I studied the different ways in which members
of Congress expressed core values that are consistent with the six moral dimensions of
Haidt’s MFT (2012c). As discussed previously, the data for each participant was
analyzed deductively and inductively. The deductive analysis produced an overall
impression of the values expressed by participants, through capturing instances of the
moral foundations evident in their speeches and debates (Appendix D). These were
grouped by party and can be viewed in Appendix E. During the inductive analysis
however, themes were collected into groupings that could be subsumed into each of the
136
moral foundations (see Appendix F). My interpretation of these two analyses of the data
comprises the basis for the answer to this research question.
Democrats
For Democrats, the deductive analysis showed instances of the care-harm,
fairness-cheating, liberty-oppression, loyalty-betrayal and authority-subversion
dimensions and very few instances of the sanctity-degradation dimension in the data (see
Appendix E). Collectively these represented the overall essence of the deductive data for
all three Democratic participants. The first three dimensions were expected for
Democrats, but the latter three dimensions usually feature to a lesser extent for liberals
(Haidt, 2012c). Looking further into the findings that emerged from the inductive
analysis, I found that instances of the liberty-oppression dimension were notable in every
Democratic participant’s speech or news conference. This was also in alignment with
Haidt’s MFT (2012c), as liberty and the removal of oppression from those who are
powerless is of central importance to the liberal mindset.
Upon further inspection, it did not seem that the importance attributed to each of
the six dimensions followed the Haidt model for all three Democratic participants.
Instead, in two of these members’ speeches, both the loyalty-betrayal and the authority-
subversion dimensions were strongly represented in the deductive analysis alongside
those dimensions typically associated with the liberal mindset. These individuals both
occupied a leadership role in Congress and spent a considerable amount of time either
praising the work done by party members or criticizing the work of members of the
opposition. One of these leaders demonstrated their extreme loyalty to their party and
137
members. The fact that these two participants were Democratic leaders may therefore
explain why the Democratic members’ speeches evidenced these two underlying values
to be of importance to them.
Finding that these Congressional Democrats largely operated from all six
dimensions, rather than from three is contrary to what was found in Haidt’s MFT
(2012c). The loyalty-betrayal and authority-subversion dimensions were theorized by
Haidt (2012c) to be of less importance to liberals (along with the sanctity-degradation
foundation) but this data evidenced that instances of these two dimensions were
comparable to those noted for the first three dimensions, potentially as a result of the
leadership roles occupied by two of the participants. This extension to what has
previously been uncovered for liberals may be of importance for understanding the
conflict within our government.
Republicans
For Republicans, the deductive analysis also produced results that were somewhat
different than assumed from Haidt’s (2012c) MFT model for all three participants. The
dimensions with notable instances occurring in the data were the loyalty-betrayal,
authority-subversion, sanctity-degradation and the fairness-cheating dimensions. While
other dimensions were represented in the data, these four dimensions captured the overall
essence of the data from the Republican participants. This discovery is not in alignment
with the existing knowledge regarding the moral foundations from which conservative
individuals tend to function (Haidt, 2012c). While there are instances of these dimensions
for the Republican participants, the care-harm, and liberty-oppression dimensions were
138
only minimally represented. Thus this pattern is different from the existing literature,
wherein Republicans are noted to draw from all six foundations equally.
Upon further assessment of the inductive data (see Appendix F), the loyalty-
betrayal dimension was evident to the greatest extent in the speeches given by these
Republican participants. The authority-subversion, fairness-cheating and sanctity-
degradation dimensions also emerged from the content of the data. The liberty-
oppression dimension was only minimally represented and the care-harm dimension was
not captured from the inductive themes that emerged from the data. These findings were
also unexpected for Republican participants and as such the previous literature was not
supported.
The findings in this research did not suggest that Republicans in Congress tended
to draw on all six of Haidt’s moral foundations as is suggested in the literature. There was
limited evidence for themes suggestive of the care-harm and liberty-oppression
dimensions uncovered in any of the data gleaned from the Republican participants. In the
instances that these dimensions were coded, it was for an extremely minimal amount of
data. Thus, overall it appears that for the Republican participants in this study, core
values tend to center on the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal, fairness-cheating and
sanctity-degradation dimensions – dimensions that are largely theorized (with the
exception of the fairness-cheating dimension) to be of minimal importance to Democrats
in Haidt’s theory. This finding may have relevancy when attempting to understand what
fuels partisan conflict within Congress.
Overall findings for Research Question Two
139
Core values were clearly expressed by the Republican and Democratic members
of Congress studied for this research as shown by the presence of Haidt’s (2012c) moral
foundations in the data. However, regarding which core values they expressed, the
findings did not appear to support Haidt’s model in MFT (2012c). The core values
expressed by Democrats were grounded in all six dimensions (see Appendix E &
Appendix F). The loyalty-betrayal and authority-subversion dimensions featured strongly
in the data for two of the Democratic participants, a finding not indicated by MFT, which
notes minimal reliance on these dimensions for liberals. For Republican participants,
findings also did not support MFT, as the core values extracted from their data were
aligned with the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal, fairness-cheating and sanctity-
degradation dimensions and the care-harm and liberty-oppression dimensions were
largely unrepresented. Thus, Democratic members of Congress appear to express a
greater number of moral dimensions than do Republican members of Congress within the
context of the speeches and press conferences examined for this study and Republicans
seem to rely to a greater extent on the three foundations that feature less in the data for
the Democrats. This is a surprising finding that is the mirror image of what was expected
in this study.
Research Question 3
How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs and fuel partisan conflict in the
U.S. government?
It has been the goal of this research study to search for clues to explain the
partisanship evident in the U.S. central government. The combined findings for the first
140
two research questions in this study potentially offered explanations to pinpoint the roots
and location of this conflict. Research question one found partisan conflict to be different
in Congress than was initially thought. Where it was evident, it appeared to be during
speeches relating to highly morally charged issues and/or originating with particularly
confrontational personalities (see Appendix D, Participant #1, #3 and #4). Such issues
and individuals were found to reside in both parties and both sides of the aisle were found
to be equally responsible for partisan rhetoric and behaviors. Pairing these findings with
the discoveries of the second research question may begin to provide some clarity in
order to answer the third research question.
The discoveries of the second research question included finding that Democratic
and Republican members of Congress did not seem to fit the profiles noted in MFT
(Haidt, 2012c). Where liberals are believed to access the care-harm, fairness-cheating
and liberty-oppression dimensions to a far greater degree than the remaining three
dimensions, this study did not replicate these findings. Instead the majority of the
Democratic members of Congress in this study appeared to access all six dimensions
when functioning in their role as an elected legislator. Additionally, where Haidt’s MFT
(2012c) allocates all six moral dimensions to the functioning of everyday conservatives,
this study found that Republican members of Congress tapped into four dimensions to a
far greater degree than the others, specifically the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal,
fairness-cheating and sanctity-degradation dimensions.
Combining these two discoveries provided potential answers to increase our
understanding of why certain topics and certain personalities were more divisive than
141
others and how these produced difficulties in the functioning of Congress. Thus, the
results from the previous two research questions helped to provide an answer to the third
research question in this study.
Democrats
In order to address the third research question, I looked for potential explanations
regarding the discovery I made in the data examined for this study, in which Democrats
tended to access all six moral foundations. On closer inspection, not all of the three
Democratic members of Congress were found to access all six moral foundations when
communicating in their role as a senator or representative. Two occupied leadership roles
and were indicated to be moderate liberals on the ideology position section of
GovTrack.us (2004) and did tend to access all six. However, the third member who was
newly elected and did not occupy a leadership position actually fit the profile for liberals
noted in MFT. She was indicated to be very liberal (GovTrack.us, 2004) and the bulk of
her speech was grounded squarely in the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-
oppression dimensions.
Upon further reflection, it appeared that for Democrats in Congress, the senator
who was indicated to be very liberal (GovTrack.us, 2004) was more in line with what the
Haidt MFT model (2012c) noted than the two members who were more moderate in their
political beliefs. When viewed through this ideological continuum lens, the results for all
three Democratic members did in fact align with Haidt’s model. Those whose ideology
registered as more liberal relied on fewer moral dimensions than those whose ideological
stance moved toward the center of the liberal-conservative continuum. This alignment for
142
Democrats with MFT (Haidt, 2012c) thus seems to be a function of how close or distant a
member’s ideology score is to the liberal end of the continuum.
From this, the first half of research question three can be answered for Democratic
members of Congress: “How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs?” The
results of this study indicated that Democratic members of Congress who were very
liberal did indeed tend to favor accessing only three moral dimensions, as indicated in
Haidt’s MFT (2012c) for liberals. Those Democratic members of Congress who were
more moderate in their liberal ideology seemed to access all the moral dimensions. This
finding thus supported Haidt’s model, as increased reliance on a greater number of moral
foundations was seen when the individual’s ideological position regardless of party
affiliation moved toward the conservative end of the continuum.
Thus for Democratic members of Congress, the number of moral foundations
accessed appeared to be a function of how liberal or moderate the individual was in their
political beliefs. A greater array of morality dimensions was accessed for those
Democrats whose political beliefs moved toward the conservative end of the ideological
continuum than for those who presented as very liberal.
Republicans
The Republican members of Congress followed a different pattern. I would have
expected to discover further evidence supporting my findings for Democrats, wherein
accessing a greater number of moral foundations appeared to be related to the degree to
which an individual is identified as a conservative on the liberal-conservative continuum.
However, the authority-subversion and loyalty-betrayal dimensions were the main
143
foundations accessed by these participants. The sanctity-degradation and the fairness-
cheating dimensions featured to a lesser extent, with the other two dimensions barely
registering. MFT states that conservative individuals tend to access all six dimensions
equally. Although the two Republican Party leaders in this study accessed five and six
dimensions respectively, they did not access them to an equal degree. That is, the
percentage of their total significant statements was less for two of the dimensions.
When considering all three Republican participants, I did not find evidence that
was in alignment with Haidt’s model (2012c) as I had on closer inspection of the data for
the Democrat participants. However, if I considered the two individuals who were both
leaders, the pattern mirroring Haidt’s model (2012c) again began to partially emerge. The
moderate conservative (GovTrack.us, 2004) accessed five dimensions and the very
conservative member (GovTrack.us, 2004) accessed all six, although not equally. Thus
by considering only two of the three Republican participants, discoveries supporting
Haidt’s model became more evident, and provided an answer to part of research question
three for Republican participants: “How do morality dimensions link to political beliefs?’
These two Republican members showed some evidence of the trend uncovered, in which
participants identified as more conservative seem to access a greater number of moral
dimensions, but it was less clear-cut than for Democratic members of Congress.
The junior Republican participant, who was not considered with these two
Republican leaders, was somewhat of a discrepant case. He spent most of the time in the
video I chose attacking a member of his own party. Interestingly in other videos
considered for this participant he was more partisan. It is possible that the video I chose,
144
while representative of his interaction style in general, may not have accurately depicted
this individual’s overall ideology. An alternative participant or different video for this
participant may have produced results that more accurately replicated the findings for the
other Republican participants of this study.
The findings of the first half of research question three can now provide a
foundation for answering the second half of the question: “[how does this] fuel partisan
conflict in the U.S. government?” If I consider the above findings, there is emerging
support for Haidt’s model. With this the number of moral dimensions accessed for
individuals depending on where they are located on the liberal-conservative continuum
can potentially provide an explanation for what may fuel partisan conflict in the U.S.
government as follows.
For the Democrat who was very liberal, the results of this study indicated that her
speech was strongly grounded in the three moral foundations central to the liberal
mindset as noted by Haidt (2012c). She argued for the liberal policies of the Democratic
Party and had minimal use for the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal and sanctity-
degradation dimensions. The other two Democratic participants accessed all moral
dimensions. For the Republican participants, it was evident that the presence of both the
authority-subversion and the loyalty-betrayal dimensions were a common finding for
these members. Other dimensions were represented for these participants, including those
central for the liberal mindset: the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression
dimensions. However, as mentioned previously, these were only minimally represented
145
(as a percentage of their significant statements) instead of equally, as noted in Haidt’s
model (2012c).
It is not surprising therefore, that members with a liberal ideological stance may
find it problematic communicating successfully with their Republican peers when they do
not access the same moral foundations to the same degree. Effectively they may relate to
only some of what Republican members of Congress believe since there is overlap with
only four of the moral dimensions. Likewise, Republican members of Congress may find
it challenging to elicit agreement from their Democratic colleagues for the same reasons.
If these results are indicative of findings that could be produced in further studies then
they may explain how morality dimensions, political beliefs and partisan conflict are
related.
Thus, MFT may indeed offer an explanation for the conflict evident in Congress.
Little overlap appears to exist in the moral dimensions accessed, between liberal
Democratic members of Congress and Republicans from any point on the liberal-
conservative continuum. It is not surprising therefore that very liberal members of
Congress and Republican members do not seem to be able to understand the other’s point
of view. When they do consider the other party’s position, they pass it through the moral
filter to which they subscribe. As noted in the literature review, Ditto and Koleva (2011)
describe this as possessing a moral empathy gap, wherein members are unable to
comprehend the moral position of their political opponents. The resulting lack of
understanding and subsequent frustration, become the fuel that ignites the partisan
conflict observed with some topics of legislation and some individuals in Congress.
146
Overall findings for Research Question Three
Thus, answering research question three in its entirety, the number of morality
dimensions accessed is related to where the member of Congress falls on the liberal-
conservative continuum. This makes it challenging for members occupying different
positions on this continuum to effectively comprehend the political messages of
opponents who operate from a different set of moral dimensions than they do (Ditto &
Koleva, 2011). Misunderstandings and frustration are very likely to result, especially
between members who occupy the extreme ends of the ideology continuum. The
subsequent behaviors, political maneuverings and procedural abuses then fuel further
partisanship and negatively impact the efficient functioning of the U.S. government.
Summary
The results of this study produced some interesting findings. From my initial
foray into observing several hours of the general operations of Congress for context, it
was apparent to me that partisan conflict did not occur with the frequency or the intensity
suggested in the literature or indicated in the media. Instead, in answering research
question one, this study found that certain individuals and particular legislative topics
acted as an accelerant that caused conflict to occur. Partisanship was also evident from
specific individuals who targeted the current President. Research question two found that
the content of communications from members of Congress indicated their core values.
When the results were grouped for all Democrats or all Republicans, MFT was not
supported. Instead, Democrats were largely found to draw from all six moral foundations
147
and Republicans from mostly three. This is the converse to what was indicated in Haidt’s
model (2012c)
Upon further investigation however, the results to research question two proved to
be somewhat misleading. When using the Democratic/Republican dichotomy to describe
members of Congress, these members’ core values were not accurately represented using
MFT. Instead, as I looked a little closer at the initial deductive analysis for each
participant, some interesting discoveries surfaced. It became apparent that when
participants were described in terms of their position on the liberal-conservative
continuum, MFT once again became applicable. That is, liberals tended to draw from
three moral foundations and conservatives from all six moral foundations. This finding
was stronger for Democrats than for Republicans, who did not demonstrate equal reliance
on all six foundations. Instead, the moral dimensions they seemed to access the most
were the opposing three to the ones accessed by very liberal members.
Using these findings to explain the determinants of partisan conflict in the U.S.
government, it became obvious that ideological extremists from either end of the
continuum would likely have a challenging time effectively communicating with
members from the opposite end of the spectrum. Conflict of a partisan nature would be an
expected outcome for highly morally charged topics, given that it would be challenging
to reconcile the differences in values between these two extremes (Ditto & Koleva,
2011).
Thus, in support of Haidt’s model (2012c), this study found that a participant’s
standing on the ideology continuum was related to the number of moral dimensions they
148
drew from when functioning as a member of Congress in the U.S. government. This
finding was strongly supported by the Democratic participants and to a weaker degree by
the Republicans. It was assumed that further studies with a greater number of participants
would remedy this potential anomaly, thus providing greater validity for this explanation
regarding the origins of partisanship in Congress.
In Chapter 5 I interpret these findings, analyzing their meaning in relation to the
conceptual framework for this study. I discuss the implications of these results for
positive social change and make related recommendations for practice. Limitations of the
current study are discussed and recommendations for future research explored.
149
Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
This study was conducted in order to discover the underlying cause of the partisan
conflict in the U.S. Congress (Dionne, 2012; Pildes, 2011; Quirk, 2011; Ramirez, 2009)
with the goal of developing potential solutions to mitigate this problem.
The study involved analyzing C-Span videos of members of Congress using
qualitative content analysis with both deductive and inductive coding. The purpose for
the study was to answer the three research questions and related questions, including
whether members of Congress are driven by their own belief systems and morality and
whether it may be possible to rebuild bipartisanship and improve the functioning of the
U.S. Congress. The key findings of the study are summarized below.
Key Findings
Research Question One: What is the nature of partisan conflict for
Republican and Democrat members of Congress?
My findings indicated that the nature of partisan conflict for Republican and
Democratic members of Congress was as follows. It appeared that certain personalities in
Congress were more likely to exhibit partisan behaviors than others, wherein they were
accusatory, confrontational, critical, and uncooperative. Additionally, certain morally
charged topics being legislated were more likely to elicit partisanship, which seemed to
be directed at the opposing party as a whole and not at specific individuals. Only the
President seemed to be the target of specific criticism from the opposing party. Partisan
behaviors were encountered from both parties and in both chambers of Congress. Other
150
conflict observed between individuals or between chambers did not appear to be partisan
in nature.
Research Question Two: How do Democrats and Republicans indicate their
core values?
Findings for this research question were generally unexpected. Deductive and
inductive analyses results indicated that overall themes for Democrats included the six
MFT dimensions, with a similar reliance on each. This is a surprising finding for liberals
who usually are grounded in the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression
dimensions to a far greater degree than the loyalty-betrayal, authority-subversion and the
sanctity-degradation dimensions.
In addition, findings for the Republican participants were also unanticipated. MFT
states that conservatives tend to access all six dimensions equally, but this was not
supported in by this study. The results of this study showed that, within the context of the
data analyzed conservatives relied on the loyalty-betrayal, authority-subversion, fairness-
cheating and the sanctity-degradation dimensions almost to the exclusion of the other
two dimensions.
Research Question Three: How do morality dimensions link to political
beliefs and fuel partisan conflict in the U.S. government?
This was a complex question to answer but was central to the premise, design, and
choice of conceptual framework for this study. I proposed Haidt’s MFT (2012c) as a
platform from which to construct an understanding of the complicated nature of the
conflict in Congress and how the interrelationship between morality, political beliefs, and
151
partisanship may offer an explanation for this issue. Answers to the first two research
questions provided the beacon that helped to guide development of the answer to the third
question.
For research question three, the initial findings from the second research question
were analyzed more closely and ultimately uncovered evidence in support of Haidt’s
MFT (2012c). When the ideological positions for Democratic participants were
individually assessed (GovTrack.us, 2004) and compared to the findings from their
analyses, it became evident that the participant with the most liberal score tapped into the
fewest moral dimensions, specifically the three that Haidt noted to be the most important
for liberals. The moderate Democrats were found to access all six dimensions in MFT,
but not all to the same degree. Republican participants were found to trend towards
accessing all six foundations but not in the way described by Haidt. Instead of accessing
all six equally, the two Republican participants on whom I focused accessed the opposing
three dimensions to extreme liberals to the greatest degree and only relied on the three
dimensions overlapping with the liberals to a somewhat minimal degree.
These findings, when combined with those of research question one, provided a
direction for answering the third research question. Individuals who may be on the
extreme ends of the liberal-conservative spectrum and who are addressing a highly
morally charged topic are likely to find communication with and comprehension of their
political opposite to be challenging. The moral foundations from which they draw their
political position are unrelated to the dimensions from which their opponent draws theirs.
This is clearly a fertile environment from which to grow frustration, contempt, and
152
conflict. Those who occupy the moderate positions in either party may actually have
common ground from which they can communicate. Although these findings were
demonstrated to a lesser extent for the Republican participants, I am hopeful that future
research may produce results to support this supposition and thus provide an
understanding of the mechanisms at play behind the partisan conflict evident in our
federal government.
Interpretation of Findings
My initial impression concerning the daily operations of and the general ambiance
in Congress, along with the level of mutual respect between legislators, provided me with
a context within which to view my subsequent data collection and analysis. In my
assessment, differences were noteworthy in three spheres.
First, regardless of the chamber in Congress, Democrats and Republicans
appeared to differ with regard to the angle they adopted in the topics they debated or gave
speeches on. As noted in Chapter 4, the topics discussed by Democratic and Republican
members of Congress appeared to relate very well to the moral foundations noted by
Haidt (2012c) to be associated with liberals and conservatives.
Thus, my initial impression was that liberals tended to debate and discuss issues
that fall within the care-harm and fairness-cheating moral foundations, whereas
Republicans tended to discuss issues that related to the loyalty-betrayal, authority-
subversion and sanctity-degradation foundations. Both political parties discussed issues
relating to liberty-oppression. It is noteworthy that in those instances in which
Republican lawmakers discussed legislation that seemed to be grounded in care and
153
concern for citizens, these were often highly morally charged issues. Those instances of
discussion and debate that could be described in this way were issues that would fall
naturally into the sanctity-degradation moral foundation – such as issues relating to
abortion and to child pornography. Thus even though these Republican legislators, when
discussing these subjects, appeared to be operating from the shared care-harm foundation
that is of central importance to liberals it is arguable that moral issues related to purity
and sanctity are woven throughout the topics that were of interest to Republican
lawmakers. One could surmise from this that within the care-harm foundation,
Republicans and Democrats access this foundation through different doors.
Through my preliminary viewings of the daily operations in Congress, it appeared
that I discovered instances of Haidt’s moral foundations and thus introductory evidence
for the applicability of MFT as an important conceptual framework for the focus of this
study. This opening confirmation of the current knowledge in the area of moral
psychology and of the underlying dynamics potentially occurring within the U.S.
Congress acted as evidence for the credibility of this study and its overall trustworthiness.
With these findings being eventually replicated in the main data collection and analysis
phase, came the potential to explain the partisan conflict evident in the U.S. Congress,
which provided a platform upon which to build potential solutions.
The second sphere within which I noted differences in the daily operations of
Congress was in procedural and ambiance differences between the Senate and the House.
As described in Chapter 4, these differences seemed to relate to the formality of
proceedings, speed of operations, and interaction style between members of each
154
chamber. While the Senate appeared to operate in a more formal style, with a less hurried
atmosphere and an apparent lack of direct interaction between its members, the House
seemed less formal, appeared to be on a tighter schedule, and undertook direct debates
between members, adjudicated by the chairperson with formal debate procedures.
Although my initial viewing of these videos may not have captured other instances in
which different procedures may have occurred in either chamber, the above descriptions
appear to be generally applicable.
During the main phase of inquiry in my study I looked for patterns to discover
whether there was more disruption and conflict in the speeches and debates of the
participants who were members of the House, than those who were members of the
Senate. This did not appear to be the case.
An additional reaction from my first viewing of these C-Span videos of debates
and speeches was that there appeared to be certain personalities that were more
argumentative in their manner, their delivery, and in the content of their speech. As noted
in the previous chapter, two of these individuals had already been selected as participants
in this study, due to them being well known for their tendency to be confrontational, thus
increasing the trustworthiness and credibility of my selection of participants. Discovering
whether specific members of Congress tend to fuel the greatest amount of the partisan
conflict within Congress was of particular importance, expanding the understanding of
the mechanics of partisan conflict and all the factors that tend to fan the flames of dispute
between the two political parties.
155
The third sphere in which I noticed a difference related to the content of a Bill
under discussion. I assessed whether certain speeches/debates were more conflict ridden
in relation to specific topics than others. Naturally, it was found that certain topics in
Congress inflame more emotion than others. My impression was that bipartisanship
occurred easily with issues that were less emotionally charged. Legislators from both
parties seemed to be willing to join together regarding issues such as designating land to
be a national park, general funding for veterans, and laws regarding aviation workers.
However, issues that seemed to be extremely partisan appeared to be rooted in deeply
moral topics, such as funding for Planned Parenthood, healthcare, and immigration. This
added further support for choosing MFT as the conceptual framework for this study.
Issues that connect the Congressional member to any of the six moral foundations are
clearly going to cause a different reaction than issues with little to no moral foundation.
From these primary impressions and reactions, a context for the rest of the study
was thus developed. Debates and/or speeches viewed for each of the six participants were
analyzed and the findings reported at length in Chapter 4. During the analysis phase of
these C-Span videos, this overall context for the study was kept in mind, as were the
previously noted specific items I wished to examine further. These included noting
obvious differences in the content of speeches/debates between Republicans and
Democrats, exploring whether some personalities are more prone to instigate partisan
conflict than others, studying whether procedural differences between House members
and Senators could contribute to conflict in Congress and lastly, whether highly morally
charged speeches/debates tended to be conflict-ridden and partisan while other topics
156
tended to be conflict-free and bipartisan. My description and interpretation of the results
from the analysis of the six participants now follows.
Findings for Research Question One
Description
The purpose for pursuing this area of research was to attempt to discover what
may be underlying the partisan conflict evident in the U.S. government (Dionne, 2012c).
Plenty of evidence exists that demonstrates the ways in which the operation of the federal
government in recent years has been less than satisfactory (Blendon & Benson, 2011;
Dean, 2007; Dinan & Klimas, 2013; Pelosi, 2013; Pew Research Center, 2015;
Rasmussen Reports, 2015; Ricci & Seymour, 2012; Taibbi, 2012; Weiner & O’Keefe,
2013). My general impression regarding the daily operations in the U.S. Congress prior to
conducting my research was that partisan conflict was commonplace and that civil
interactions were a rare commodity. Certainly the national media portrayed Congress in
this light (Herald Review, 2014). My findings however, conflicted somewhat with this
initial notion.
Rather than finding partisan conflict to be endemic in the chambers of Congress, I
found it to be less evident than initially expected. Certainly there were debates, speeches
and press conferences in which partisanship was very evident, but I found this to be much
less common and generally occurred with much less intensity than I had previously
anticipated. Thus, this finding disconfirmed the initial impression I held, as well as that
which was stated in some of the literature. Partisan conflict does not appear generally to
157
hamper the operations of Congress on a daily basis, at least in terms of what is observable
on C-Span. Instead, much of the daily operations run smoothly (Herald Review, 2014).
What I did discover was that certain individuals seemed to be more antagonistic
and adversarial than others. While some individuals could discuss a divisive topic quite
politely and yet still demonstrate that they held different beliefs than members from the
opposing party, others were either unwilling or unable to contain their confrontational
style and were arguably somewhat unprofessional at times. I did find that when
partisanship did occur, it was generally directed at the opposing party as a whole or
towards the President in particular. I did not discover any conflict that was partisan
between the individual members of Congress in this study or between its two chambers.
Any conflict I did note that occurred between two members of Congress or between the
two chambers appeared to be nonpartisan in nature. While it is very probable that partisan
interactions between individual members do occur in Congress, this was not evident in
the data that I examined. These findings yielded a greater understanding of the ways in
which conflict occurs within Congress.
Additionally my findings revealed that when an individual expressed a strong
party position on legislation, it was usually with regard to a highly morally charged topic.
I believe that this was an important finding to uncover and separate out from the general
notion of Congress being in daily conflict. From my research, I witnessed interactions
that contradicted the perception of continuous conflict and instead, showed a smooth
running organization when the topic being legislated was less morally charged. The
Highway Bill and the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act were two such pieces of
158
legislation that enjoyed wide bipartisan support. However, when the subject of legislation
moved into highly charged arenas such as defunding Planned Parenthood and reviewing
the actual agreement on Iran, the intensity changed and members became more partisan
and less willing to cooperate. Thus, the content of the legislation under review was a
factor evident in instances of increased partisan conflict. This finding also seemed to
discount the notion that partisan conflict flavored the everyday interactions between
members of Congress.
Lastly, a further finding disconfirming my preconceived impressions related to
my initial impression that one party instigated the partisanship in the U.S. Government
more than the other and that one chamber was more partisan than the other. My findings
demonstrated that neither party nor either chamber appeared to exhibit a greater degree of
partisan behaviors than the other. This was also an unexpected finding for this study and
as such, extends the knowledge of the daily operations within Congress.
Interpretation
Through my interpretation of these findings for the first research question, I am
led to question the accuracy of the media’s accounts regarding the functionality of
Congressional operations (Herald Review, 2014). Of course it generally behooves
reporters to embellish their accounts of any news story, including their accounts of the
daily operations of Congress. I suspect that, at least to a degree, this is what has happened
in the media and their reporting regarding Congress. It is commonly known that certain
channels on TV support one political party over another and, as such, undoubtedly offer a
somewhat biased viewpoint. Such biased reporting from supporters of both sides of the
159
aisle has likely colored the American public’s general opinion of the everyday
performance of the U.S. government (Harbridge & Malhotra, 2011; Levendusky &
Malhotra, 2015). Media outlets supporting either party have arguably placed blame on the
opposing party for their unwillingness to compromise and have exaggerated the
impression of a hostile climate in Congress. This has potentially added to the partisanship
that occurs within the general populace who then go on to vote their feelings and beliefs
in the next election (Levendusky & Malhotra, 2015). Biased reporting in the national
media may have a lot to answer for (Harbridge & Malhotra, 2011; Herald Review, 2014)!
C-Span is a wonderful tool offered to the American public, wherein any citizen
can be privy to the everyday actions occurring in the U.S. Congress by virtue of simply
tuning into this television station or by watching the associated website. By watching the
footage, members of the public can accurately form their own opinion of how our
government is functioning, without it being run through the filter of a partisan media
outlet. It is obvious that this channel simply records the workings of the two chambers of
Congress without input or editing. What is distressing is that each of the daily videos that
I analyzed had barely been watched. Numbers of views ranged from 50+ to over 2,000.
Considering the population of the United States, this is an extremely troubling discovery
and may be indicative of how disconnected the public truly is from the actual operations
of the federal government. It also lends support to the interpretation that the media is
indeed where the general public gathers their information regarding the government,
given the microscopic numbers who are forming their own opinion directly from the
source on C-Span.
160
Looking at the finding that only a few strong personalities are particularly vocal,
opinionated and confrontational was an interesting exercise for me. It appeared to me
before conducting this study that not only were the majority of Congressional members
partisan, but that members from the opposing party to mine instigated this style of
interaction. After completing my analysis however, it was apparent that only a very few
individuals operated in an adversarial partisan fashion and that they harkened from both
parties. This finding supported a similar finding by Pildes (2011). On further analysis of
the data and results, there did not seem to be a common MFT thread that connected these
individuals except for the presence of the liberty-oppression and sanctity-degradation
dimensions in the content of their speeches or press conferences.
Interpreting this further, the expressions of these dimensions were different for the
members of each party. While Democrats tended to address liberty in terms of those who
are oppressed, Republicans usually addressed liberty with regards to the nation as a
whole. Additionally, sanctity for the Republicans frequently related to the sanctity of life
in regards to the abortion controversy, whereas for the Democrats sanctity related much
more to nature, the environment and global warming. Perhaps these high intensity
individuals tap more readily into dimensions that are arguably connected to highly
contentious issues. These interpretations however, warrant further study with a greater
number of participants in order to improve their trustworthiness.
Analyzing the different ways in which the liberty-oppression and the sanctity-
degradation dimensions are expressed for members of each party also provides potential
insight into why certain issues are more contentious than others. If topics steeped in
161
liberty and sanctity themes – both highly charged topics – are viewed differently for
members from opposing parties, then they are arguably not even discussing the same
thing or viewing it through the same lens when they debate a given topic. This fractured
representation of certain MFT dimensions between the two parties may indeed pose a
problem when members are trying to gain support (and thus votes) for their viewpoint.
Members may indeed virtually be speaking a foreign language to each other when they
discuss issues grounded in these two foundations. Further research into this interpretation
would be beneficial in the future.
From the findings and their subsequent interpretations it was evident what the
nature of partisan conflict was for members of Congress. It was found to be markedly
different than the general impression of an organization paralyzed by conflict put forth by
the media and the literature. Partisan conflict certainly was found during this research,
but in a much more muted amount than I understood to be the case at the outset of this
study. It was found to lie with some members more than others and in some areas of
legislation to a greater extent than others. It did not seem to emanate from one party more
than the other or from one chamber of Congress more than another. Conflict was evident
in other forms including between members of the same party and between the two
chambers of Congress. In addition, the opposing political party directed partisanship in
particular at the current sitting president.
To a large extent therefore, the findings for the first research question
disconfirmed what was expected from the literature. However, the difference in how
Republicans and Democrats appear to tap into the liberty-oppression and the sanctity-
162
degradation dimensions may well be a finding that extends what is known in the
literature, regarding how members of Congress debate their party platform. That is, when
a contentious issue such as abortion or the environment is discussed, understanding that
members of Congress are broaching the same issue from an entirely different vantage
point may help to explain why Congressional members’ debates seem to fall on deaf ears.
Investigating this further was beyond the scope of this study and should be considered as
a possible area of interest for future research.
Findings for Research Question Two
Democrats
From the deductive and inductive analyses for Democratic members of Congress
data fit well into categories representing all six of Haidt’s (2012c) moral dimensions. As
noted in Chapter 4, three dimensions are usually minimally evident for liberals –
authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal and sanctity-degradation. These findings can be
interpreted as evidence that perhaps MFT may be less applicable to Democrats who
occupy roles in Congress. As such, this potentially extends knowledge in the discipline
since MFT indicates that liberal individuals tend to access only three dimensions to a
large degree.
Republicans
The deductive and inductive analyses for the Republican participants yielded
different discoveries than from the analyses of the Democratic participants. While Haidt’s
MFT (2012c) indicates that conservatives tend to tap into all six moral dimensions, this
was not supported for the Republicans in this study. Republican members of Congress
163
tended to operate from the authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal, fairness-cheating and
sanctity-degradation foundations with the other two dimensions barely registering for
these participants. As previously noted by Rhodes (2014) Republican organizational
culture can be described as hierarchical, orderly and efficient, thus making this finding
explicable. As was suggested in the findings just discussed for the Democrats, perhaps
this gives further merit to the interpretation that MFT also may be less applicable to
Republican politicians in the federal government. This additionally extends the
knowledge presented in the literature since MFT indicates that conservative individuals
tend to access all six dimensions to the same degree – a finding not replicated in this
study.
Interpretation
It is possible that the extraordinary array of demands placed on the loyalty and
support of members of Congress make expressions of party loyalty important to their
political survival. These individuals have to delicately toe the line between the
expectations of the party base, the party leadership, the members of the chamber in which
they work and their own values and beliefs. Any missteps can be met with chastisement
from a variety of quarters, ranging from being ostracized by members of their own party
to being voted out of office (Pildes, 2011). It therefore makes sense that the speeches
given by Democratic participants were flavored by liberal themes and that the underlying
themes evidenced in the data were steeped in loyalty and authority themes.
The Republican platform tends to be imbued with issues relating to the three
foundations of authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal and sanctity-degradation to a much
164
greater extent than the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression dimensions.
As such, it undoubtedly behooves these politicians to clearly espouse these values during
their time on the floor of the House or Senate or when being interviewed by the Press.
Their political survival may make it impossible to do otherwise (Pildes, 2011).
Thus remaining in lockstep with the party platform for members of both parties
and demonstrating party loyalty and obedience may be what it takes for members of
Congress to endure in the office they hold (Pildes, 2011). For example, Democrats need
to strongly espouse ideals related to the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-
oppression dimensions, while Republicans should vocalize their commitment to the
authority-subversion, loyalty-betrayal and sanctity-degradation dimensions. However,
this interpretation does not account for why it may be that the data for the Republican
participants in this study did not show instances of all six moral foundations as is
suggested for conservatives by Haidt’s (2012c) MFT. Further research is recommended
in order to validate these interpretations.
Findings for Research Question Three
Description
This question necessitated a more in depth analysis of the raw data and the
findings from the first two research questions. Initially the data suggested that Haidt’s
MFT (2012c) was not supported for Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
However, when the data was studied a little closer and was compared to where the
member fell on the ideological continuum, Haidt’s model was once again applicable. This
relationship was clearer for the Democratic participants in this study than for the
165
Republicans. That is, the more liberal the individual on the ideology continuum, the less
dimensions they were found to draw from. Haidt (2012c) noted that conservatives tended
to access all six moral foundations. However, I found that Republicans tended to tap three
foundations to a greater extent than the other three, which is a contrary finding to his
model. I also found that the three dimensions they drew from were the opposite three to
those employed by Democratic members of Congress. This is discussed in the following
interpretation section.
A discrepant Republican case was not considered when answering this question,
thereby reducing the number of participants from which to demonstrate a trend for the
conservative members. This individual spent his entire speech attacking a member of his
own party, thus evidencing an instance where partisanship was not demonstrated but
infighting was. This may well have impacted the findings for the Republican participants
as it reduced the participants to only two. Future research with a greater number of
participants may be able to capture more accurately this trend for Republican members of
Congress. This may then serve to definitively support the findings of MFT (Haidt,
2012c).
Interpretation
Partisanship in Congress negatively impacts aspects of daily operations, which
can be detrimental to the efficient running of this organization. With the finding that the
number of moral dimensions tapped by Democratic members of Congress tends to relate
to how liberal or conservative they are on an ideology scale, MFT was supported (Haidt,
2012c). Republicans members of Congress appeared to access three dimensions to a far
166
greater degree than the other dimensions and these are the opposing dimensions to those
accessed by liberal Democrats. In this finding there may lay an explanation for the
partisan conflict evident in the chambers of Congress. That is, Republican and
Democratic members of Congress tap into different moral foundations, with potentially
very little overlap for those who occupy the extreme end of the liberal-conservative
continuum. When these members attempt to garner support for their beliefs from those
who are on the polar opposite end of the ideological continuum, they are likely discussing
issues in a style that is contrary to the moral thinking of these individuals.
Reliance on three moral foundations for liberal Democrats – the care-harm,
fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression dimensions – meant that a narrow field of
morality concerns flavored their speeches, debates and other communications. This was
in contrast to moderate Democrats and to Republicans in general in this study that were
found to access between five and six moral dimensions. Although these findings for
Republicans need to be researched further, the trend towards support for Haidt’s model
was noted, when Republican and Democratic members of Congress were considered in
terms of their position on the liberal-conservative continuum rather than as a member of
one party or another.
Given these findings, an explanation can be developed for the struggles
experienced in Congress. As noted in Chapter 4, if Republicans and Democrats in
Congress are not operating from the same moral foundations, they may be unable to
comprehend the importance of policy to members of the opposing party (Ditto & Koleva,
2011). Indeed members may be functioning from a completely different set of three
167
foundations to those who occupy a more liberal or conservative position than they do on
the ideology continuum. This lack of crossover may make cooperation, understanding
and bipartisanship challenging to achieve. Conflict and frustration are likely outcomes,
particularly regarding highly morally charged issues and specifically for more reactive
individuals or when individuals make the wrong inference regarding the motivation for
the lack of compromise from their opponents (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006; Ditto &
Koleva, 2011).
While individuals from either party hold their ideals to be as sacred as their
opponents (Haidt, 2012c), the differences between the moral foundations, values and
beliefs that are of importance to liberals verses conservatives, would effectively prevent
reconciliation of the subject matter (Ditto & Koleva, 2011), thus providing a breeding
ground for conflict of a partisan nature. Using the abortion debate as an example,
participant #4 (see Appendix D) spent her entire speech defending abortion rights for
women, but using verbiage that was indicative of her support for a woman’s right to
choose what happens to her body and to avoid oppression. Conversely, Republican
participants discussed the abortion debate (participant #2 and #5) in terms of how it
related to the sanctity of human life. Thus, in this example, the same highly morally
charged issue was addressed from two completely different moral stances – the liberty-
oppression dimension and the sanctity-degradation dimension. It is reasonable to assume
that a moral empathy gap is likely to occur (Ditto & Koleva, 2011), making openness to
the arguments proposed by the opposing members of Congress difficult to hear.
168
Limitations of the Study
Limitations to the trustworthiness of this study were listed in Chapter 1 of this
research document. Two of these limitations included concerns regarding the smaller
sample size as well as my personal political beliefs. With regards to the sample size, this
did produce a limitation to the trustworthiness during the execution of this study –
particularly with regards to the findings for the Republican participants. With three
participants representing each of the two political parties, the findings for an individual
participant heavily influenced the results. One of the Republican participants was found
to be somewhat of a discrepant case and thus was excluded from the analysis for the third
research question. With only two Republican participants remaining, this reduced the
dependability of the findings for Republican members of Congress. The in-depth nature
of this study rectified this somewhat. However, future research could rectify this further
by ensuring that a greater number of participants are considered when replicating this
study.
Regarding limitations to objectivity based on my personal political beliefs, I
believe that this was sufficiently addressed and prevented. I remained aware of my
political beliefs and preconceived viewpoints regarding the subject matter of this study. I
employed analytic memo writing and reflexivity in order to remain fully aware of any
biases I may have possessed and how these could have potentially colored my analysis of
the data. In so doing, the findings of this study demonstrated that I was open to the raw
data and let patterns and themes emerge, simply reporting these findings. From this, it is
my assessment that the trustworthiness of the findings for this study was sufficiently
169
grounded in adequate reliability, validity, generalizability and objectivity. Apart from the
aforementioned benefit to securing a larger participant pool for Republicans, the findings
in this study appear to be grounded in sufficiently trustworthy methodology.
Recommendations
Recommendations for further research in this section are made based on the
findings for each research question and are thus discussed separately as follows.
Research Question One
Upon reflection, it is possible that national and local media outlets are partly
responsible for fueling this nation’s impression that conflict is the only modus operandi
within the chambers of our federal government. Through watching C-Span I was struck
by how many hours of footage showed little evidence of conflict. In fact, many
interactions between less well-known members of Congress appeared to be very
congenial and respectful. The overriding professionalism, courtesy and adherence to
protocol were unexpected. C-Span provides a completely unbiased record of the
proceedings within Congress and simply records on video and on transcripts exactly what
happens when it happens. There are no filters or interpretations, biases or hidden agendas
in this data. It is simply raw, untainted data that is open to an individual’s personal
interpretation.
Thus, it would be of interest to determine whether members of the public may
experience a similar reaction to the reaction I experienced, finding less conflict evident
than expected in the everyday operations of Congress. Discovering any potential
influence from the media on our perception of conflict in Congress is beyond the scope of
170
this research inquiry. Possible suggestions for future research could therefore include a
study in which participants’ impressions of the amount of conflict in Congress could be
measured before and after viewing several hours of C-Span, as well as before and after
viewing print articles from the national and local media regarding operations in Congress.
It would be interesting to see whether there is a tendency for members of the media to
over-report instances of conflict between parties in Congress, thus tainting the overall
opinion of the American public regarding the operations of the federal government.
Media outlets may also fuel the conflict that does actually occur in Congress
(Herald Review, 2014; Levendusky & Malhotra, 2015). Those members who adopt a
more confrontational approach certainly appear to gain more media coverage on TV as
well as in print (Herald Review, 2014). This may be deemed useful during campaign
seasons and reelection bids. Confrontational speeches and behaviors become the subject
of talk shows, wherein the member of Congress is supported by the hosts who share their
views and is vilified by the hosts from the opposition. It is all exposure however, no
matter who is discussing their noteworthy speech. Perhaps these personalities relish this
type of exposure, whether it is to assist a campaign or otherwise. If this is the case then
they may adopt this as their style with the intention of continuing to gain exposure in the
media and to increase national recognition (Herald Review, 2014). However, assessing
whether this may be the case is also beyond the scope of this dissertation. An additional
direction for future research would thus be to ascertain whether the most vocal and
disruptive personalities in Congress tend to be those who are more likely to run for higher
offices, including president of the United States.
171
From my findings and interpretations for my first research question, I suggest that
the media is responsible for fueling the image of the government locked in daily partisan
battles and thus may actually incite a greater degree of partisanship within the general
population than may naturally occur. Given that this population then goes on to vote, it is
apparent that future research should be directed at discovering the impact the media has
on provoking partisanship and on the accuracy of its reports on the workings of Congress.
Research Question Two
As the results of the second research question did not support the model proposed
by Haidt (2012c) for the Democrat/Republican dichotomy, further research to replicate
the findings of this study are recommended. Haidt’s MFT is based on extensive cross
cultural research with very large pools of participants and as such is suggestive of the
need for replication of the discoveries of the current research study. Applying Haidt’s
model based on whether an individual is identified as a Republican or a Democrat did not
seem to capture the essence of his findings. Thus, it is recommended that additional
research into the Democrat/Republican dichotomy and its relationship to MFT, would
benefit from a larger sample size in order to test the reliability and potentially increase
the trustworthiness of these findings.
Research Question Three
The findings uncovered from further exploration of the data for this research
question offered an explanation for the inconsistencies uncovered in research question
two. When I looked further into the ideological position of participants on the liberal-
conservative continuum regardless of their party affiliation, Haidt’s MFT (2012c) was
172
once again supported. However, due to the less definitive support of this finding with the
conservative (moderate to very conservative Republican) participants, these results need
to be replicated in further research. It is therefore recommended that this study should be
repeated with a greater number of participants in order to validate these findings and that
participant ideological positions on the liberal-conservative continuum are considered at
the outset of the study.
Implications
Positive Social Change
Understanding the nature of partisan conflict in Congress can provide a platform
from which to render assistance to the public image of Congress. By unraveling the
misconception of Congress as a highly dysfunctional organization, the public can begin
to develop more trust in the democratic process, the workings of Congress and in their
elected officials. As the exact location of and catalyst for conflict within Congress is
pinpointed, the voting public can make better-informed decisions regarding how to cast
their vote. Understanding that one party is not more adversarial than the other, but rather
that particular individuals and specific topics seem to spark greater conflict can help
voters make decisions at the ballot box. Those politicians who may overstep and those
Bills and Propositions that are not likely to draw some form of bipartisan support may be
selected out of the running by a more accurately informed voting public.
The discovery that Democratic members of Congress access up to six moral
dimensions when undertaking their duties in Congress, while Republicans access three to
a greater extent, has the promise for creating positive social change. If this finding is
173
replicated in future research, it can be combined with what is already known in Haidt’s
MFT (2012c) and as such, provide a framework upon which to build solutions to the
defensive partisanship that accompanies certain legislative topics and inhabits the
interaction style of certain Congressional members.
However, the results of further inquiry into the data uncovered evidence that
Haidt’s MFT (2012c) was still largely supported when the position of the participants on
the liberal-conservative continuum was located. Uncovering this aspect of the data
provided the findings of this study with the powerful framework of MFT from which to
assess the roots of partisan conflict in Congress. As a result of understanding that liberals
and conservatives in Congress who occupy the opposing ends of the ideological
continuum access the opposing three MFT dimension to each other, some of the potential
causes of partisan conflict begin to surface. With this theoretical validation, the
challenges with communication and the resulting lack of cooperation and understanding
between members of Congress can be addressed and ameliorated. Suggestions are made
in the recommendations for practice section below.
The potential for positive social change in this instance should be self-evident.
With less conflict along with greater cooperation and understanding resulting from the
suggestions discussed shortly, the overall functioning of the federal government should
be improved. This should have a direct impact on the efficiency with which even thorny
legislation flows through Congress. With the smoother movement of legislation in our
federal government, the lives of everyday citizens could be impacted in a multitude of
ways.
174
Methodological/Theoretical Implications
I found qualitative content analysis to be an extremely interesting and useful
analysis tool. Looking at the data both deductively and inductively allowed me access to
a far greater variety of meanings and themes than otherwise. Firstly, studying the data
deductively and extracting instances of the coding frame from the data helped to ground
this study in the conceptual framework that was chosen. The six moral foundations from
Haidt’s MFT (2012c) featured in the coding frame along with several other applicable
categories. As the data was analyzed deductively using this coding frame, instances of
these categories were noted. This reduced the data, selecting only aspects that were
related to the research questions (Schreier, 2012). This style of analysis helped to paint an
overall picture of the data and bring its relationship to MFT into focus. A study by
Winkelhage, Schreier and Diederich (2013) captured the usefulness of this technique for
accessing the broader meaning in data and for finding evidence for the conceptual
framework and research questions in the data.
Analyzing the data inductively produced far greater detail and allowed for more
subtle meanings and themes to emerge from the data that may have been overlooked with
only deductive analysis. This allowed for a deeper understanding and more detailed
reflection on the data, thus increasing the trustworthiness of the results of this study. A
study by McDonald, Wearing and Ponting (2009) employed qualitative content analysis
to produce data driven (inductive) categories and themes regarding peak experiences in
wilderness settings. This allowed for central themes and meanings to emerge from the
data and thus provide the detail necessary to comprehend the nature of these experiences.
175
In the same manner, inductive analysis in this study increased my understanding of the
nature of partisan conflict in the U.S. Congress.
From this, it is my belief that qualitative content analysis and coding are excellent
qualitative analysis tools in this situation, especially due to the inaccessibility of this
population for other forms of qualitative inquiry. By performing a comprehensive
analysis of the data, these methods have the potential to provide answers to a variety of
research questions. In future research of a similar vein, I would use this research
methodology again, as I believe it successfully unravels the meanings and themes evident
in complex data.
Recommendations for Practice
From my initial exposure to the general workings of Congress after my first
viewing of the C-Span videos, I developed several preliminary recommendations for
actions that could positively impact the workings of Congress. Firstly, since it appeared
that bipartisan support for a Bill occurred more frequently with less morally charged
issues than with those steeped in morality, it would seem beneficial to the productivity of
this organization to refrain from attaching highly charged issues to Bills that do not
provoke a large emotional response. In this way, passage of these latter Bills would be
expedited and the productivity in Congress would be increased. Secondly, Congress
should consider limiting the practice of attaching any two Bills together within a ruling.
This practice requires Congressional members to be willing to vote the same way on each
Bill, thus slowing the progress of both Bills through the chambers of Congress. If each
176
Bill were presented separately, voting would likely be more expeditious and therefore the
federal government would accomplish more.
From listening to the complaints discussed by some members of Congress during
their speeches, it appears that certain members use these techniques as a way of stalling
the legal process, sometimes to reach an unnecessary end such as delaying voting so that
the Bill is not addressed until after the recess. Some members described such actions as
procedural abuse and accused the member in question of wasting the American public’s
time. It did seem that more of these complaints originated with Senators who were
complaining about House members negatively influencing the legislative process.
Recommendations to address these attempts at disruption by certain members
would need to fall within what is acceptable in the legislative branch of the federal
government. While some of these stalling techniques are used as tools of American style
democracy, clearly some of these tools have either been abused or have been modified in
a way in which they should not be used. Thus, within the confines of the rules for
operation within Congress, it is recommended that these apparent rogue members should
be confronted on their flagrant abuse of a system that was meant to act as a check and
balance to runaway power and not as a convenient way to go on vacation sooner or to
avoid addressing contentious issues or to prevent the passage of a Bill with which they
disagree.
Further recommendations are based on the additional findings of this study. For
example, this study’s findings revealed that the position occupied by the member of
Congress on the liberal-conservative continuum and the number of moral dimensions
177
accessed appeared to be linked. Liberal Democrats largely accessed only three: the care-
harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression dimensions, while more moderate
Democrats accessed all six dimensions. The latter three dimensions: authority-
subversion, loyalty-betrayal and sanctity-degradation were drawn on to a lesser extent. In
contrast, provisional findings for the Republican members indicated that they operated
from the latter three dimensions to the greatest degree and barely tapped the initial three
dimensions. Due to the necessity of excluding one Republican participant from this
finding (as a result of a discrepancy), these findings for Republicans need to be further
replicated with a greater number of participants and are therefore provisional at this
juncture.
Assuming that these findings indicated a possible trend, it was apparent that the
further to the political right a member was located on the ideological continuum, the
greater the reliance on all six of Haidt’s (2012c) moral foundations they exhibited.
However, the reliance on the care-harm, fairness-cheating and liberty-oppression
foundations was not found to be equal as was suggested in MFT. If this result is
replicated, it certainly gives credence to the explanation of partisan conflict resulting
from the lack of reliance on common moral foundations between opposing party
members. When these members discuss a highly charged issue, they are essentially
talking about completely different aspects of the issue and very likely find it difficult and
frustrating to comprehend the message of the opposition (Ditto & Koleva, 2011).
If we take a contentious issue such as abortion and consider it through the lens of
this finding, it is evident that this is the case. While Democrats/liberals support the rights
178
and liberty of the woman in an abortion debate, the Republicans are discussing the
sanctity of life. On a conceptual level they are not discussing the same thing. Perhaps, as
a recommendation, issues need to be broken down further to represent the subtle
differences being discussed. Maybe Democrats should discuss the concept of a woman
having the right to decide what she does with her body in terms of liberty and oppression
and as a separate idea from the pro life/pro choice argument. Additionally, perhaps
Republicans should talk about the sanctity of human life in general terms and unravel this
concept from the abortion issue. It is possible that there would be bipartisan agreement
about these concepts if they were separated as such.
With this, politicians may have a starting place from which to discover potential
new territory for the development of bipartisan solutions to these currently unsolvable
issues. It does otherwise seem almost pointless for politicians to hammer away on an
opponent who has an entirely different conception of an issue than they do. There is
probably nothing about their argument that is likely to sway an individual who occupies
the opposing end of the ideology continuum and therefore communicates from an entirely
different set of moral dimensions (Ditto & Koleva, 2011). The templates for solutions
discussed in Chapter 2 may also prove useful. As Chambers and Melnyk (2006) noted,
when partisans learn what motivates their opponents, they have a greater likelihood of
cooperating with each other. This lends validity to the recommendation noted above, that
is breaking out separate concepts that reside in contentious issues may provide a pathway
for greater understanding between opposing party members. With the accompanying
increase in understanding of the other’s point of view, bipartisan solutions may become
179
possible. Additionally, increasing exposure to individuals from the opposition in social
situations may prove beneficial, as was evident during the Reagan years when members
and their families frequently socialized with others from across the aisle.
These findings may be invaluable for those strategists who are employed to
address ways in which to get the political message of their party or Congressional
member across to others. As noted in Chapter 2, the affective state of an individual can
influence their political judgments (Haidt, 2012c; Lai et al., 2014; Sauer, 2012). Through
fostering opportunities for civil social interaction between members of opposing parties,
it may be possible for members to increase their empathy for individuals from across the
aisle and develop an understanding of the deeply held beliefs of their opponent’s version
of society. With the grasp strategists have on the issues at hand and the workings of
Congress, they could make use of the results of this study to create arguments that appeal
to the moral foundations of importance to the opposition. By strengthening relationships
between opposing party members, the likelihood of these arguments being considered
and alternative viewpoints respected is likely to increase.
Conclusion
This qualitative study was an exploratory foray into the workings of Congress,
with the goal of attempting to uncover and understand what might fuel the partisan
conflict evident in this organization. This goal has been achieved. Preliminary findings
indicated that Congressional members’ position on the ideological continuum and the
number of moral foundations from which they draw offered a viable explanation for
partisan conflict.
180
Those who occupied the liberal end of the continuum were found to access three
dimensions to the greatest degree, confirming Haidt’s MFT (2012c) which acted as the
conceptual foundation for this study. Moderate liberals appeared to access a higher
number of foundations. Moderate conservatives accessed greater numbers also, but not in
the way described by MFT. They relied mostly on only three dimensions and these were
the opposing three dimensions to those upon which liberals relied. This lack of common
moral ground was proposed to be a key factor in the difficulties occurring in Congress.
Members occupying different positions on the liberal-conservative continuum arguably
do not even comprehend each other’s policy positions, making compromise and
cooperation challenging to achieve.
With this finding informing everyday practice in Congress, change may be
possible. Political strategists may be able to use this information proactively and help
members to structure speeches and debates in ways that appeal more to the moral
foundations of their opponents. Understanding that certain personalities were found to be
more confrontational than others and that particular legislative topics evoked greater
conflict than others, these interventions could be surgically placed to pinpoint the exact
location of the problem.
The United States was founded on principles that act as the backbone for how all
Americans live their daily lives. Whether an individual identifies as liberal or
conservative, Democrat or Republican, the same foundational principles inform our
national persona. If we all harbor the same life code, then finding a path into the mindset
of our political opponents should logically be feasible. This may be possible through
181
learning their moral language and creating ways to understand and successfully
communicate with them. Although to some this may seem like an impossible task, the C-
Span videos viewed for this study evidenced a more functional organization than was
originally assumed.
It is my belief that members of Congress sincerely wish to execute their daily
duties to the best of their abilities and that underneath the rhetoric they and their
constituents all essentially want the same things. Taking this as a starting place, the
findings of this study can offer a blueprint from which to build a bridge to the moral
mindset of their opponents. In so doing, the organizational difficulties spurred by
contentious legislative issues and adversarial personalities may be ameliorated and the
functioning of our federal government altered in a positive and productive direction.
182
References
Albert, L. & Moskowitz, D. (2014). Quarrelsomeness in the workplace: An exploration
of the interpersonal construct within the organizational context. Organizational
Psychology Review, 4(1), 27-48. doi: 10.1177/2041386613492786.
Altman, A. (2013). The tea party under fire. Time, November 11, 34-37.
American Psychological Association, (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. Retrieved from: www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=11.
Andersson, L. & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.
Antaki, C., Billing, M., Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing
analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1(1).
Retrieved from: extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/previous/v1_n1.html.
Ball, R. (n.d.). Restoring financial stability to Social Security. Retrieved from:
www.ssa.gov/history/50rb.html.
Ballhaus, R. (2014). A short history of the Tea Party movement [Blog post]. Retrieved
from: blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/27/a-short-history-of-the-tea-party-
movement.
Bell, S. & Akabas, S. (2013, May 7). The road to tax reform – It may be long, but it’s
been done before [Blog post]. Retrieved from:
bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/05/road-tax-reform---it-may-be-long-its-been-
done.
Benen, S. (2013). Obama blasts ‘least productive Congress in modern history.’ Retrieved
183
from: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-blasts-least-
productive-congress.
Berlet, C. (2013,) The Christian Right, Dominionism and Theocracy. Retrieved from:
www.publiceye.org/feeds/public/christian-right-dominionsim-and.html.
Berlet, C. (2011a). Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement That’s
Undermining Democracy. Retrieved from:
www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm.
Berlet, C. (2011b). The roots of dominionism. Retrieved from:
www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dom_roots.html.
Berlet, C. & Quigley, M. (1995). Theocracy and white supremacy: Behind the culture
war to restore traditional values. Retrieved from:
www.publiceye.org/magazine/v06n1/culwar.html.
Biden, J. (2008). Promises to keep. New York, NY: Random House.
Bill of Rights Institute, (2010). Americapedia. Article 1, Section 9: Habeas Corpus.
Retrieved from: billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-
resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution-text/habeas-corpus/.
Blendon, R., & Benson, J. (2011). Partisan conflicts among the public on the economy
and budget deficit in 2011. Challenge, 54(5), 5-17. doi: 10.2753/0677-
5132540501.
Blum, L. (2013). Political identity and moral education: A response to Jonathan Haidt’s
The Righteous Mind. Journal of Moral Education, 42(3), 298-315. doi:
10.1080/03057240.2013.817331.
184
Blumenthal, M. (2009). Republican Gomorrah: Inside the movement that shattered the
party. New York, NY: Nation Books.
Brewer, M. (2005). The rise of partisanship and the expansion of partisan conflict within
the American electorate. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 219-229. doi:
10.1177/106591290505800203.
Bouchard, T. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits: A survey. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148-151. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.00295.x.
Burwell, S. (2013, November 7). Impacts and costs of the government shutdown [Blog
post]. Retrieved from: www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/07/impacts-and-costs-
government-shutdown.
Cato Institute, (2002). The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States of America. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Center for Constitutional Rights, (n.d.). FAQs: What Is Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from:
ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs%3A-what-habeas-corpus.
Chambers, J. & Melnyk, D. (2006). Why do I hate thee? Conflict misperceptions and
intergroup mistrust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1295-
1311. doi: 10.1177/0146167206289979.
Charles River Editiors (2014). The history of the Democratic Party: A political primer.
San Bernadino, CA: Charles River Editiors.
Clarkson, F. (1994). Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism gains
influence. The Public Eye Magazine, 8(1). Retrieved from:
185
www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html.
Combs, R. (2014). About us. Retrieved from: www.cc.org/about_us.
Condon, S. (2013). Despite Obamacare fix, fight rages on in Congress. Retrieved from
www.cbsnews.com/news/despite-obamacare-fix-fight-rages-on-in-congress/.
Congress.gov (n.d.). Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the U.S.
Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record.
Cottle, M. (2014). The new Rick Perry. Retrieved from:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-new-rick-perry-20140801.
Crawford, N. (2004). Understanding discourse: A method of ethical argument analysis.
Qualitative Methods, Spring, 22-25.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
C-Span.org (2015). Videos. Retrieved from: http://www.c-
span.org/search/?searchtype=Videos&sort=Most+Recent+Airing.
Dean J.W. (2007). Broken government: How Republican rule destroyed the legislative,
executive and judicial branches. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Dean, J.W. (2006). Conservatives without conscience. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Democrats.org. (2014a). Democrats: Our party. Retrieved from:
www.democrats.org/about/our-party.
Democrats.org. (2014b). Our History. Retrieved from:
www.democrats.org/about/our_history.
Diamond, S. (1995). On the road to political power and theocracy. Retrieved from:
