Book Review: The Apartisan American

 Russell Dalton's The Apartisan American

     In high school, I was heavily involved with the Young Republicans during the very intense Bush-Kerry election. The Young Democrats and the Young Republicans had been hanging posters and running self-made commercials on the closed-circuit cable channel during morning announcements. For a zero-stakes high school campaign, things were heating up. I was at lunch, preparing for another meeting, when an announcement came over the intercom "The first meeting of the Young Independents will be held in Mr. McClanahan's room in ten minutes." I smiled to myself because I knew what this meant. It was a few boys who were tired of the commotion and were making fun of us. Indeed, when I peaked into the classroom, it was empty save for the three suspects and the appeasing teacher, chomping on pizza and talking about everything except politics.

      Four years later, I was interning in Washington for my Senator, and attending as many Hill Intern events as possible. Barney Frank was one of the speakers in the series. He spoke on partisanship. He was dismissive of the issue of polarization. I will never forget what he said, "There are usually only a few answers to problems, so parties stand for these answers. In my experience, people who call themselves Independents are just uninformed and apathetic to politics."

     He wasn't wrong. For a long time, the general understanding was that partisanship indicated political involvement and likelihood to vote. Independents were considered uninformed, disengaged, and unreliable. Indeed, to this day, independents don't turn out to vote and they are uninformed about the parties and the political realities surrounding them. Despite this, Russell Dalton demonstrates that independents are taking on a new form, one of rising significance--apartisans. In The Apartisan American, Dalton delves into the common understanding of the electoral spread, pulling apart the label “independent” and providing us with a workable, increasingly relevant image of the new American voter.

     An apartisan independent is a voter who holds ideology and policy goals as the most important variables in his or her vote choice, wherein the majority of Americans considered

party affiliation to be paramount. Dalton disaggregates American voters into two sets of four groups. First, we have ritual partisans and apolitical independents, generally, the status quo understanding of the electorate in which people depend on inherited party ties and apathetic independents. Secondly, there are cognitive partisans and apartisans, who are more highly educated and are able to process complex political information in order to reach individual conclusions that either consistently match to a party platform or do not.

      Today, fewer Americans express party identification that any other time in modern electoral history, but this doesn't mean that the electorate is less informed or more apathetic. In fact, apartisans represent a highly educated demographic, one that does not require the short-hand of party platforms to conceptualize policy goals. Dalton attributes this to improved cognitive mobilization, wherein people are better equipped to synthesize information to reach conclusions about politics. As Dalton repeatedly states, we are becoming better citizens.

      Dalton also mentions that this trend is concurring with changes in our actions. Ritual partisans tend to care about their side winning, much like a bandwagon RedSox fan during this World Series, so they vote to keep their party on top. Dalton likens the cognitively mobilized to fans that know the stats about the entire starting lineup, these groups vote because they are engaged in the process. As the public strengthens its understanding of the political process, access points for intervention open up. The cognitively mobilized have the skills, and they are being utilized. Political action, both direct and indirect, is increasing significantly, and apartisans are at the fore of this trend.

     Better education is the pertinent variable in Dalton's argument. He takes an international perspective to demonstrate that this trend is not simply an American phenomenon. Indeed, it is prevalent in many developed nations. Its impact, though, is deeper in nations that have parliamentary systems, since they allow for more access to third-parties.

      The implications for this could be serious and are hard to predict. Dalton is generally optimistic, stating that this will likely lead to campaigns that focus on pragmatic, not ideological solutions. Subsequently, issues and candidates will become more important than party affiliation. Elections will depend more heavily on independents, so the ramifications will depend on how the parties react to this trend. He cautiously states that this could mean that voters will become more susceptible to charisma or appeals to self-interested policy proposals.

       One issue that Dalton didn't address in predicting the implications was the increase in single-issue voting. I believe that as this trend deepens, people will depend increasingly heavily on their passions for singular issues. This plays out now in regards to abortion. The pro-life movement does a great job of staying relevant to national elections, as many people consider it the initial litmus test for a candidate, despite the fact that abortion hasn't been a federal issue in decades. Single-issue voting can have the same ramifications that partisan voting has, but the scope is much more limited in terms of what is required of candidates.

      Finally, I took issue with Dalton's lack of credence to the media as an influential actor. The media landscape we currently see is highly divisive, and I think that it has the potential to slow apartisan growth. Conversely, this movement may impact the media by ending the demand for myopic, deeply slanted coverage and commentary. I wonder, if we controlled for increasing polarization in the media, would the trend of apartisans be amplified or remain unchanged?

      This book presents a new angle on the common conceptualization we have used to examine the electorate. It disaggregates the title “independent” in a meaningful way. It also provides a mostly optimistic outlook on the trajectory of the American political scene. It calls on us to continue the trend of increasing understanding of the political process, increased efficacy of the electorate, and more pragmatic approach to voter choice.