Decline of Elite-Educated Republican Lawmakers

Many posts have discussed the politics of colleges and universities in the United States.

Volden C, Wai J, Wiseman AE. On the Decline of Elite-Educated Republicans in Congress. Perspectives on Politics. 2026;24(1):256-268. doi:10.1017/S1537592725102260

We identify a rise in educational polarization among members of the US Congress mirroring the educational polarization in the American mass public. Over the past half-century, the percentage of Republican representatives who attended elite educational institutions declined from 40% to 15%, and the percentage of similarly educated Republican senators declined from 55% to 35%, while the ranks of elite-educated Democrats rose in both chambers. These changes across the parties have mapped into observable differences in behavior and approaches toward lawmaking. We find that elite-educated legislators are much more liberal in their voting patterns, suggesting a link between the decline in elite-educated Republicans and ideological polarization in Congress. We also demonstrate that, in the House, elite-educated Democrats are especially effective lawmakers, but not so for elite-educated Republicans. In the Senate, we establish a link between the decline of elite-educated Republicans and the rise of partisan warrior “Gingrich Senators.” Overall, these patterns offer initial glimpses into how political elites are being drawn from different educational cohorts, representing an important transition in American governance.

 

 

The Impact of Local News Decline

Many posts have dealt with media problems such as ghost newspapers and news deserts.

Some national outlets are doing fine, but local newspapers are struggling.

Nancy Gibbs at WP:

The citizens whose votes count the most might have the hardest time learning about the issues and candidates running in their communities — because there’s no longer anyone reporting on them. Since 2005, newspaper employment has fallen 70 percent, [Penelope] Abernathy calculates, and local TV, radio and new digital start-ups don’t begin to make up for that decline. Fewer knowledgeable local reporters means less accountability, leading to higher public spending, lower social cohesion, fewer people voting or running for office, less ticket-splitting and more polarization as people rely on national news sources. In 1992, a third of the states with Senate races picked a senator from one party and the president from the other. In 2016, not a single state did so, and that hadn’t happened in 100 years.

If you’re a Democrat hoping to stand a chance of winning in a red state, or a Republican in a blue one, it helps if voters get to know you personally, see you at ribbon cuttings and town halls, hear where your views depart from party orthodoxy. That’s a lot harder to do without local reporters providing reliable coverage, no matter how many targeted Facebook ads you buy. By the same logic, winning candidates are accountable to the voters who elevate them — unless no one knows what they ran on or what they are doing with their power, beyond whether they have an R or a D on their jersey. If you weaken the connection between voters and their representatives, you empower their donors, lobbyists and conflict entrepreneurs.

Partisan players are well aware of the opportunity presented when a local paper dies. Potemkin sites that mimic authentic newsrooms have popped up across the country, more than 1,300 in all; they have the look and feel of reliable information sources, but their content is often partisan noise, produced by dark-money-funded propaganda factories. A single purveyor, Metric Media, claims to post more than 5 million stories a month. All kinds of disinformation and conspiracy theories find the desiccated news deserts to be fertile ground.

Pennsylvania Polarization

 

Many posts have discussed partisan polarization and aversive or negative partisanship.

According to a Rose Institute survey, 87% of Pennsylvania Democrats see Trump as a threat to democracy, and 80% of Democrats say the same of Biden.

Many voters believe that the very fate of the nation’s system of government is at stake in this year’s midterm elections. To examine these beliefs, we asked voters in Pennsylvania: “Which of the following political figures represents a threat to American democracy?”

As with the poll’s other questions, partisanship emerged as a major factor: Democrats overwhelmingly selected Republicans Trump, Mastriano, and Oz as threats while Republicans selected Democrats Biden and Fetterman. Interestingly, 56% of Republican respondents selected Republican Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), a Trump critic, as a threat to democracy. Overall, Republicans were least likely to select Josh Shapiro among the Democrats on the list. In fact, Republican respondents viewed Shapiro as less of a threat than Liz Cheney. Meanwhile, Cheney was the Republican who drew the least concern among Democrats.

In a negatively polarized environment where 87% of Democrats view Donald Trump—still the top-polling Republican candidate—as a threat to democracy and 80% of Republicans similarly view Joe Biden, many voters clearly believe the other party is unacceptable. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to convince voters to consider voting across party lines and campaigns can make only a limited difference. If Fetterman wins the Pennsylvania Senate race despite his poor debate performance, he likely can thank this feature of contemporary American politics.

The State of Congress

Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service

The Congressional Management Foundation and the Partnership for Public Service released the first annual assessment of congressional performance by a cohort of more than 100 senior and exceptional congressional staff. The research reveals these staffers have deep concerns about important aspects of congressional civility, functionality, and capacity. State of the Congress 2022 is available at: https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/state-of-the-congress-2022/.

"Legislatures are the glue that holds democratic societies together," the report reads. "The United States Congress should be the bulwark against the forces that seek to tear democracy apart through division, violence, misinformation, and hate. Congress should be a place where people throughout the country are represented through difficult conversations and problem-solving that leads to the greatest good."

State of the Congress 2022 reveals bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to improve to best perform its role in democracy. It provides an assessment of congressional performance by the people who know the institution best: congressional staff. The Exemplary Congressional Staff Cohort – or "Congressional Exemplars" – were recommended by former staff and direct experience of the report's authors. The Congressional Exemplars work in personal, committee, leadership, and institutional support offices throughout the Legislative Branch. Two-thirds have worked in Congress for more than 10 years, most are senior managers, and all have demonstrated a deep commitment to the institution of Congress.b

1. There is a great deal of bipartisan, bicameral agreement on many of the challenges facing Congress. The key findings from the research are:Congress is not functioning as it should. When asked if they agree with the statement, "Congress currently functions as a democratic legislature should," only 24% agreed and 76% disagreed. Party affiliation had some bearing on the response: More than three-quarters (80%) who work for Democrats and more than two-thirds (68%) who work for Republicans disagreed.
2. Polarization and rhetoric are making it more difficult to get things done in Congress. Two-thirds (66%) who work for Democrats and more than half (54%) who work for Republicans "strongly agree" that otherwise non-controversial legislative ideas have failed due to polarization among Members. And an almost equal number of Democrats (66%) and Republicans (70%) "strongly agree" that congressional leadership should enforce the rules and norms of civility and decorum.
3. Members' primary role is solving constituents' problems. About half of the Congressional Exemplars who work for Democrats (47%) and Republicans (52%) identified "solving constituents' problems" as Senators' and Representatives' most important role. They were generally more satisfied with aspects of public engagement and accountability than with most other aspects of congressional functionality and capacity.
4. It is very important for Members and staffers to be civil and to work across party lines. More than three-quarters (77%) said it was "very important" to encourage civility and more than half (59%) said it was "very important" to encourage bipartisanship among Senators and Representatives, but only 1% were "very satisfied" with the current state of either. Importantly, a near-equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans shared this viewpoint.
5. Congressional Exemplars suggest areas where there is clear opportunity for improvement. When asked about the importance of certain reforms recommended by the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, four rose to the top as being "very important" to the Congressional Exemplars: reclaiming Congress' constitutionally-defined duties (74%); improving staff recruitment, diversity, retention, compensation, and benefits (69%); reforming the budget and appropriations process (61%); and ensuring continuity of congressional operations in emergencies (61%).
6. Improvement in Congress will likely require building capacity and infrastructure. More than three-quarters (80%) of the Congressional Exemplars said it was "very important" that Congress have adequate capacity and support to perform its role in American democracy and almost as many (74%) said it was "very important" that Congress' technological infrastructure is adequate to support Members' official duties. Yet only 5% were "very satisfied" with the current state of capacity and support and just 4% with the current technological infrastructure.

During the past two decades, organizations that monitor and support legislatures throughout the world have turned considerable attention to developing benchmarks and frameworks for assessing the democratic performance of these institutions. In 2017, CMF began to use this body of work to produce the report State of the Congress: Staff Perspectives on Institutional Capacity in the House and Senate. Now, CMF and the Partnership have expanded the State of the Congress research to include functionality and civility of the institution.

The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is to build trust and effectiveness in Congress. Since 1977 CMF has worked internally with Member, committee, leadership, and institutional offices in the House and Senate to identify and disseminate best practices for management, workplace environment, communications, and constituent services. CMF also is the leading researcher and trainer on citizen engagement, educating thousands of individuals and facilitating better relationships with Congress.

During the past 20 years, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Partnership for Public Service has been dedicated to building a better government and a stronger democracy. We work across administrations to help transform the way government works by providing agencies with the data insights they need to succeed, developing effective leaders, inspiring the next generation to public service, facilitating smooth presidential transitions and recognizing exceptional federal employees. Visit ourpublicservice.org, follow us @PublicService and subscribe today to get the latest federal news, information on upcoming Partnership programs and events, and more.

•  
•  
•  

• 

CIVILITY, COMMITTEE, CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS, CONSTITUENTS, DEMOCRATS, HOUSE, LEADERSHIP, REPUBLICANS, SENATE, TRANSPARENCY

Congress and Constitutional Reform

From AEI:

In Federalist 51, James Madison argued that as “the legislative authority necessarily predominates,” Congress needs to be divided into two branches to constrain its immense power. Two centuries later, it seems Madison’s fears were unfounded, with both the House and Senate increasingly delegating authority to the president, judiciary, or mushrooming administrative bodies. This dilution of Article I has not only destabilized our constitutional system but also catalyzed political polarization through the increasingly fraught battles consequently being waged over judicial appointments and presidential elections.

Please join AEI for a panel discussion cohosted with Claremont McKenna College’s Salvatori Center on how Congress can work to restore its legislative authority and the healthy functioning of our government.

Friday, October 16, 2020 | 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM ET

LIVE Q&A: Submit questions to Nicole.Penn@aei.org or on Twitter with #AEICongress.

Agenda

11:00 AM
Welcome and introduction:
Yuval Levin, Director, Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies, AEI

11:05 AM
Panel discussion

Panelists:
Kevin R. Kosar, Resident Scholar, AEI
Molly E. Reynolds, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Jeffrey Tulis, Professor, University of Texas at Austin
Philip Wallach, Resident Scholar, AEI

Moderator:
Zachary Courser, Codirector, Claremont McKenna College Policy Lab

12:15 PM
Q&A

12:30 PM
Adjournment

Contact Information

Event: Nicole Penn | Nicole.Penn@aei.org | 202.862.5845
Media: MediaServices@aei.org | 202.862.5829

Congress and Foreign Policy

Many posts have discussed declines in congressional capacity.

At Foreign Policy, James Goldgeier and Elizabeth N. Saunders explain that legislators have become less and less interested and conversant in the details of foreign policy and national security.

Why this decrease? The rise of partisanship is one important reason. Although foreign policy has never been fully isolated from politics, political polarization began to rise in the 1970s, and it increased sharply in the 1990s. Today, members of Congress reflexively support their own party. In periods of unified government, this means extreme deference to the president. In periods of divided government, it means congressional gridlock. Neither scenario yields much in terms of congressional oversight.

Polarization also gives presidents reason to simply ignore Congress when making foreign policy. As the political scientist Kenneth Schultz has argued, with members less willing to cross the aisle, it is “more difficult to get bipartisan support for ambitious or risky undertakings, particularly the use of military force and the conclusion of treaties.” And so presidents opt for alternatives such as executive agreements over formal mechanisms such as ratified treaties. Consider the Iran nuclear deal. In 2015, President Barack Obama, concerned that he could not get a treaty with Iran past the Republican-controlled Congress, chose to make an executive agreement (which made it all too easy for Trump to tear up the deal later).

Another trend that has sapped Congress’ influence is the decline of congressional expertise on foreign policy and national security. Simply put, legislators used to know more about foreign policy than they do now. Greater expertise strengthened Congress’ formal and visible role, since committees could engage in greater oversight of the executive branch. Expertise also reinforced Congress’ invisible means of constraining presidential power. Presidents had to think about how a seasoned committee chair or member would assess a policy. During his initial escalation of the Vietnam War, for example, President Lyndon Johnson was careful to maintain the support of powerful committee chairs, such as Senator J. William Fulbright, who led the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 to 1974. Fulbright shepherded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution through the Senate in 1964, but two years later, his probative hearings helped shift public opinion against the war.

Congressional expertise also led to serious, bipartisan policies that could force the president’s hand. A good example is the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, an initiative for safely securing and dismantling weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, and Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana—two defense stalwarts who had been deeply involved in arms control agreements during the Cold War—proposed it in 1991 as an amendment to the annual defense bill. The George H. W. Bush administration initially opposed the legislation because it diverted $500 million previously authorized for other purposes, but Nunn and Lugar prevailed, backed up by 86 votes in the Senate. They were able to pass their bill because the existing polarization was still manageable and because both senators were respected experts on defense and foreign policy.

The program was a high-water mark of expertise-informed legislation. In the years since, legislators have become less and less interested in the details of foreign policy. In 1994, a small group of newly elected congressional Republicans even proudly declared that they did not own passports.

Several factors explain the decline in expertise. Changes in the way senators now divide up committee roles, by increasing the number of committees they sit on, have led to greater breadth at the expense of depth. The media, facing fragmentation and declining budgets, have paid less attention to the crucial committees, especially the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, thus diminishing their value as reputation burnishers on Capitol Hill. Increased turnover has led to less seniority, particularly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reducing the number of specialists to whom other senators can look for leadership on complex issues. Add in polarization and gridlock, which, by reducing overall congressional activity, also reduces the incentives to develop specialties, and the result is a Congress with decidedly less expertise.

Interest Group Tactics: Scorecards and Legislative Language

h/t Matt Grossmann:

Emily J. Charnock has an article at Studies in American Political Development titled "More Than a Score: Interest Group Ratings and Polarized Politics."  The abstract:

This article examines the origins and influence of ideological index scores—where liberal and conservative interest groups rate legislator performance on selected roll call votes. Two such groups founded in the mid-twentieth century—the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA)—were crucial to the development of this type of metric, transforming roll call analysis from detailed tabular scorecards into streamlined percentage scores showing how often a lawmaker voted “right.” ADA and ACA scores have been heavily utilized in political science as proxies for liberalism and conservatism and used to demonstrate the growing polarization of the congressional parties. Archival evidence suggests, however, that those scores were intended to create the very phenomenon they have been used to measure. They were deeply political rather than objective metrics, which the ADA and ACA used to guide their electoral activities in accordance with an increasingly partisan strategic plan. Each group directed campaign resources toward incumbent lawmakers they rated highly, but they did so unevenly—with the ADA favoring liberal Democrats over Republicans and the ACA showing a preference for conservative Republicans over time. By rewarding favored lawmakers in their preferred party, and using scores to highlight and discourage ideological outliers, they hoped to reshape the parties along more distinct and divided ideological lines—to create more “responsible” parties, as prominent political scientists then desired.

Amy Melissa McKay has an article at Political Research Quarterly titled "Fundraising for Favors? Linking Lobbyist-Hosted Fundraisers to Legislative Benefits."  The abstract:

 Do legislators and lobbyists trade favors? This study uses uncommon data sources and plagiarism software to detect a rarely observed relationship between interest group lobbyists and sitting Members of Congress. Comparison of letters to a Senate committee written by lobby groups to legislative amendments introduced by committee members reveals similar and even identical language, providing compelling evidence that groups persuaded legislators to introduce amendments valued by the group. Moreover, the analysis suggests that these language matches are more likely when the requesting lobby group hosts a fundraising event for the senator. The results hold while controlling for ideological agreement between the senator and the group, the group’s campaign contributions to the senator, and the group’s lobbying expenditures, annual revenue, and home-state connections

From the article:

There are other plausible explanations of fundraising behavior that do not imply a suspect link to legislative effort. Hosting fundraisers may help interest groups achieve solidary goals of group maintenance (Gray and Lowery 2000; Olson 1965; Salisbury 1969). Fundraisers also give attending lobbyists opportunities to keep abreast of what other lobbyists are doing and working on, as well as to get face time with the politician and the politician’s staff—a benefit that may increase the lobbyist’s subsequent access to legislative offices. For these reasons and others, I stop short of arguing that fundraising lobbyists are buying legislation. Still, the analysis suggests that fundraising activity by lobbyists does seem to encourage legislators to perform narrow legislative favors for the lobbyists that are helpful to them.

Senate Polarization

At The Washington Post, Philip Bump illustrates polarization in the Senate by looking at National Journal scores:

Compare the 103rd Congress, in 1993, with today's. That purple zone in the 103rd Congress was where Republican and Democratic ideologies mixed, the left edge marked the most conservative Democrat and the right edge the most liberal Republican. There's no purple zone anymore.

 

President Obama and Polarization

Josh Kraushaar writes at National Journal:

Pew Research Center Founding Director Andrew Kohut wrote an important Washington Post column last month highlighting the Democratic drift leftward during the Obama administration. Backed by decades of Pew data, Kohut concluded that Democrats have grown just as liberal as Republicans have become more conservative in recent years. "They are much more socially liberal than they were even a decade ago, more supportive of an activist government, more in favor of increased regulation of business," Kohut writes.

It's a useful corrective to the notion, fueled by the White House, that the Republican Party alone is responsible for gridlock in Washington. But Kohut downplays one significant factor that has expedited the Democratic polarization: President Obama himself.

In the piece, Kohut instinctively labels the Obama administration as centrist. But on all five major issues that divide the Democratic Party's liberals and moderates—the budget deficit, income inequality, the environment, social issues, and America's role in the world—Obama is on the leftward side.

...

Kohut's analysis avoids the biggest factor expediting Democratic polarization: the president's health care law. Obama entered office with a near-filibuster-proof Democratic supermajority in the Senate and his party holding 59 percent of seats in the House. Despite widespread opposition, he spent immense political capital to pass health care reform, which depleted his party's moderate Congressional wing. The Democrats who retired or lost reelection in the 2010 cycle disproportionately hailed from the party's middle. In just four years, the number of moderate Blue Dogs shrank from 54 to 19 members—with three more retiring this year, and at least five others facing tough reelection campaigns.

The Red and Blue Senate

Many posts have discussed polarization in Congress. Ronald Brownstein writes at National Journal:

The tightening correlation between presidential and Senate voting represents a back-to-the-future trend in national politics. Through the first half of the 20th century, party-line voting was common. After Franklin Roosevelt's first two victories in 1932 and 1936, for instance, Democrats held 89 percent of the Senate seats in the 40 states that supported him both times.

This relationship frayed later in the century, as more voters split their ticket between presidential and Senate races. That was especially true in the South (and to some extent in the Mountain West), where many voters who had shifted toward GOP presidential candidates still supported Democrats in Senate and House races. The result was that the GOP controlled only about half the Senate seats in the states that twice voted for Richard Nixon (in 1968 and 1972) and Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984).

The large number of senators elected from states that leaned toward the other party in presidential elections encouraged the Senate's culture of compromise and negotiation from roughly the 1950s through the 1980s. Senators who'd been elected, in effect, from behind enemy lines were natural dealmakers: Representing voters with mixed loyalties, they had a clear self-interest in suppressing partisan conflict.

But those instinctive bridge-builders are vanishing. Since the 1980s, party-line voting between presidential and congressional races has steadily increased. The share of Senate seats controlled by the president's party in the states he carried twice rose to two-thirds after Bill Clinton's reelection and to three-fourths under George W. Bush. Following Obama's two victories, Democrats now hold 83 percent (43 of the 52 seats) in the 26 states he carried twice.

Polarization, Parties, and Groups

A slideshow from the Pew Research Center's report on partisan polarization:



In an interview with Jennifer Rubin, Jay Cost talks about polarization and the role of clientele groups:

It’s certainly exacerbated things. The two sides are always going to disagree on big, ideological legislation. But when those proposals also include payoffs to some group that is aligned with one party, the other party is going to go ballistic.

Consider, for instance, that paycheck fairness bill the Senate recently voted down. There are big ideological disagreements there, but political considerations were just as salient, if not more so. There was literally no way the GOP was going to get on board with that — as it was a pretty obvious payoff to the trial lawyers lobby. Why should Republicans vote to change the laws in ways that help Democrats raise more money? This was also a big part of the problem the Democrats had with the stimulus. Why should the GOP vote to borrow money to deliver patronage to Democratic groups?

That’s the trouble with client groups in a two-party system: The other side does not want anything to do with them. Why should they? And so that injects a partisan element into the ideological conflict. It’s not simply about liberalism versus conservatism, but also about favoring one set of groups or not. That makes matters worse.

Immigration and Tuition

Although the Constitution empowers Congress to make a uniform rule of naturalization, the states have played a role in immigration policy. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Anngie Gutierrez was a child when she arrived in the United States as an illegal immigrant 10 years ago. There's still no path to legal status for her, but in Maryland and a handful of other states, there is a more affordable road to college.

Gutierrez, a high school junior in Hyattsville, Md., will benefit from a new state law that allows illegal immigrants who reside there to pay in-state tuition rates at Maryland's public colleges. If she lived in Virginia, about 15 miles to the west, she would find that many public colleges require undocumented students to pay out-of-state tuition.Some Virginia legislators want to go further: In February, the House of Delegates passed legislation that would prohibit the state's public universities from admitting illegal immigrants. The proposal has not passed the state Senate.

The states' radically different approaches illustrate the polarization of Americans over what to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., and the heated nature of a debate that extends far from border states such as Arizona and California.

The tuition battle has grown, in part, because of a lack of action by Congress. The federal government holds jurisdiction over immigration law, and a 1982 Supreme Court ruling mandated that states provide illegal immigrants with access to K-12 education in public schools. But the absence of a comprehensive federal immigration plan has given states relatively free rein to impose their own rules on issues such as who can attend public colleges, and at what rates

See a summary from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Two Parties, Two Chambers, Two Branches

Our chapter on political parties discusses partisan polarization. Our chapter on Congress analyzes the significance of bicameralism. Both themes are evident in this McClatchy News Service item by David Lightman:

One of the 2010 lame duck session's few major lapses was an inability to agree on a comprehensive federal budget for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. Instead, lawmakers approved a stopgap funding measure that runs through March 4.

That date looms as a key date for a spending showdown, since the new House majority will be eager to show it's serious about spending cuts.

"Look at the people who are coming to the House. These aren't New England moderates," said Steven Greene, associate professor of political science at North Carolina State University.

That group is also eager to effect significant changes in the health care law.

"We will immediately take action to repeal this law," the Pledge promises.

But few expect any radical budget or health care changes to survive intact in the Senate, where Democrats will have a 53 to 47 majority, enough to block what Democrats might see as Republican overreaching. Even if a pet GOP program passes, Obama is hardly expected to sign legislation overturning the health care law or decimating social programs.

"The House is going to pass a lot of bills that will die in the Senate," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md.

Polarizing Endorsements

In our chapters on parties and campaigns, we talk about the role of polarization in American electoral politics. Themes and endorsements that may help a candidate in a primary may be problematic in a general election campaign. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

While the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee has flexed her political muscle by endorsing some conservative candidates who have won Republican primaries from Delaware to Alaska this year, the jury is still out on what Palin's blessing can deliver in a general election, when voters are not uniformly conservative. In California, Palin's endorsement of Fiorina in the spring helped reshape the Senate primary, giving the first-time candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO credibility with conservative voters who didn't know much about her.

"In a low-turnout election, which it looks like this one will be, that could help," said Richard Fox, a professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and author of "It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office."

"But I think nobody in a close race would want to appear with her," Fox said. "She is still very polarizing."

Party Polarization and Health Care

In our chapters on political parties and Congress, we discuss party polarization on Capitol Hill. In The New York Post, Professor Daniel DiSalvo points out that a party-line vote on health care reform would be a departure from congressional norms. Since the Second World War, most landmark laws have passed with significant bipartisan support:

For example, the 1991 Civil Rights Act passed the House 381-38 and the Senate 93-5. Other important laws passed by similar margins, including the Landrum-Griffin labor law of 1959, the Clean Air Act of 1969 and the American with Disabilities Act of 1989. Indeed, 88 percent of the 352 standard legislative enactments from 1947 to 2006 passed with near-unanimity or some broad bipartisan coalition.

...

Since World War II, only three highly polarized final-passage votes have occurred on such high-profile and historically consequential laws: the Clinton budget package (1993), the Bush tax cuts (2001) and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors (2003). Yet even on those close votes, 12 Senate Democrats and 28 House Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts and 11 Senate Democrats and 16 House Democrats voted for Medicare reform. Without those votes from the opposition, neither measure would've passed.

Only Clinton's first budget package passed without a single GOP vote.

The Clinton example suggests political danger for the administration. The vote proved very unpopular and contributed to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/partisan_peril_ZpLZi2fcO5idBSsWRxicRN#ixzz0ZTyjMXgP