Can political polarization threaten American democracy?
Partisan hostility in the United States is at a fever pitch and is a dominant theme in the 2024 election cycle. But how much does it matter to everyday life in America? What is really at stake?
James Druckman, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester who is widely considered one of the country's foremost experts on political polarization and its impact on American democracy, is poised to answer those questions and back up his conclusions with data.
His latest book, Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter, outlines the potential consequences of extreme partisan animus by distilling empirical evidence gathered between 2019 and 2021. The upshot? Partisan hostility alone is unlikely to lead to the collapse of American democracy. But it nonetheless has a deleterious effect on democracy and could erode democratic institutions and functioning over time.
In the end, the book concludes, American democracy hinges more on how political leaders respond to the polarization than the polarization itself.
Druckman has been cited by The New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall as among the political scientists in the country "working on getting us to hate one another less."
James Druckman is a professor of political science at the University of Rochester. He is also an honorary professor of political science at Aarhus University in Denmark. Druckman has published approximately 200 articles and book chapters in political science, communication, economics, science, and psychology journals. He has authored, co-authored, or co-edited seven books. His research focuses on political preference formation and communication. His work examines how citizens make political, economic, and social decisions in various contexts (e.g., settings with multiple competing messages, online information, deliberation). He also researches the relationship between citizens' preferences and public policy and the polarization of American society.
He has served as editor of the journals Political Psychology and Public Opinion Quarterly, as well as the University of Chicago Press series in American politics. He currently is the co-principal investigator of Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS), the editor of the Cambridge Elements Series on Experimental Political Science, and a co-principal investigator of the Civic Health and Institutions (CHIP50) Project. He sits on the Board of Trustees for the Russell Sage Foundation and the American National Election Studies Board of Advisors, and is a vice president of the American Political Science Association.
Druckman has received grant support from such entities as the National Science Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and Phi Beta Kappa. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the recipient of a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship.
Education
University of California, San Diego
PhD
Political Science
1999
University of California, San Diego
MA
Political Science
1997
Northwestern University
BA
Political Science; Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences
1993
Selected Media Appearances
Does American Political Hostility Threaten Democracy?
Academic Minute WAMC
2025-02-18
Is democracy under threat in today’s political climate?
James Druckman, the Martin Brewer Anderson professor of political science, explores this.
James Druckman is a professor of political science at the University of Rochester and has published approximately 200 articles and book chapters in political science, communication, economics, science, and psychology journals.
Does American Political Hostility Threaten Democracy? We live in an age of partisan hostility. How much does that matter to the future of American democracy?
Based on research that I and several colleagues from across the country have conducted, partisan hostility alone is unlikely to lead to the collapse of American democracy. But it does have a damaging effect on democracy and could erode democratic institutions and functioning over time.
Interventions that can reduce political polarization and violence
WXXI Connections radio
2024-11-05
Four years ago, the candidates for Utah governor appeared in an ad together, praising each other as good people who simply have different ideas for how to lead the state. The ad went viral.
A new study lists the ad as one of 23 different interventions that can reduce political polarization and decrease the risk of political violence.
What are the others? Our guests discuss their research into this question.
In studio: James Druckman, Ph.D., Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester.
Political scientist Jamie Druckman on the impact of political polarization
WXXI Connections radio
2024-07-16
Political scientist Jamie Druckman writes about why the deep divisions matter. We discuss his research, especially in light of the recent assassination attempt of former President Trump.
Our guest: Jamie Druckman, Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester
The Growing Evidence That Americans Are Less Divided Than You May Think
Time print
2024-07-10
Once in Washington, studies show, the Congress¬person routinely cast votes more ideological than their ¬typical constituents. But, still, in ¬neither party do the ideologues make up the majority, even if it sure can feel that way. In truth, most Americans agree on most things.
“That’s kind of surprising to a lot of people,” says James Druckman, a political scientist at the University of Rochester. “But it’s pretty well documented that the typical voter of each party is not that far from the typical voter of the other party on most issues. If you look at other countries, the distance is a lot greater.”
Editorial: Beware being Joe Biden’s attack dog, Gov. Pritzker. Flatulence can blow back.
Chicago Tribune print
A new book, “Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter,” published last week by the University of Chicago Press, should make its way into the governor’s mansion.
“I think that is something to be fearful of, the normalization of what can devolve into dehumanizing, inciting rhetoric,” one of the authors, the University of Rochester’s James Druckman, told his campus publication recently. “It has consequences for what people think of other groups. It has consequences for what people think of democracy.” In general, the book argues, people find much the same level of satisfaction with their preferred presidential party as they did decades ago, but their hatred of the other side now is off the charts.
Political Scientists Want to Know Why We Hate One Another This Much
New York Times print
2024-06-19
Five scholars have capitalized on new measurement techniques to identify partisan sectarian voters, a category that they said “does indeed predict antidemocratic tendencies.”
In their recent paper “Partisan Antipathy and the Erosion of Democratic Norms” Eli Finkel and James Druckman of the University of Rochester, Alexander Landry of Stanford, Jay Van Bavel of N.Y.U. and Rick H. Hoyle of Duke made the case that earlier studies of partisan hostility used ratings of the two parties on a scale of 0 (cold) to 100 (very warm) but that that measure failed to show a linkage between such hostility and antidemocratic views.
Does it matter how much Democrats and Republicans hate each other? Yes, it does.
University of Rochester online
2024-06-13
It is obvious to almost everyone living in America that partisan hostility has reached a fever pitch.
But how much does that matter to everyday life in the United States? After all, partisanship is as old as the country itself.
A new book by some of the foremost scholars on polarization, including University of Rochester political scientist James Druckman, offers an answer to that question by distilling empirical evidence as to the consequences of partisan animus.
UCLA-hosted talk discusses link between distrust of science, partisan divide
UCLA Daily Bruin online
2024-04-11
The event, hosted by the UCLA Library and the Jacob Marschak Interdisciplinary Colloquium on Mathematics in the Behavioral Sciences, focused on partisan realignment, which has resulted in two political parties organizing and functioning on knowledge stemming from different beliefs. Druckman began with a speech and then moved directly into a Q&A.
Faced with rising crime and social upheaval, more Black Chicagoans are seeking out firearms for their own protection
Chicago Tribune print
Given the timing of the second surge, James Druckman, a Northwestern political science professor who worked on the study, said many purchases were likely driven by concern over police violence.
The Political Consequences of Depression: How Conspiracy Beliefs, Participatory Inclinations, and Depression Affect Support for Political Violence
American Journal of Political Science
James N. Druckman, Matthew A. Baum, Matthew D. Simonson, Jennifer Lin, and Roy H. Perlis
2023-09-11
Depression can affect individuals’ attitudes by enhancing cognitive biases and altering perceptions of control. The authors investigated the relationship between depressive symptoms and Americans’ attitudes regarding domestic extremist violence. They developed a theory that suggests the association between depression and support for political violence depends on conspiracy beliefs, participatory inclinations, and their combination.
Social Disruption, Gun Buying, and Anti-System Beliefs
Perspectives on Politics
James N. Druckman, Matthew J. Lacombe, Matthew D. Simonson, and Jon Green
2022-12-06
Gun ownership is a highly consequential political behavior. It often signifies a belief about the inadequacy of state-provided security and leads to membership in a powerful political constituency. As a result, it is important to understand why people buy guns and how shifting purchasing patterns affect the composition of the broader gun-owning community. The authors addressed these topics by exploring the dynamics of the gun-buying spike that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was one of the largest in American history. We find that feelings of diffuse threat prompted many individuals to buy guns. Moreover, they showed that new gun owners, even more than buyers who already owned guns, exhibit strong conspiracy and anti-system beliefs.
Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
James N. Druckman, Joseph S. Mernyk, Sophia L.Pink, and Robb Willer
2022-04-11
Prominent events, such as the 2021 US Capitol attack, have brought politically motivated violence to the forefront of Americans’ minds. Yet, the causes of support for partisan violence remain poorly understood. Across four studies, the authors found evidence that exaggerated perceptions of rival partisans’ support for violence are a major cause of partisans’ own support for partisan violence.
Using General Messages to Persuade on a Politicized Scientific Issue
British Journal of Political Science
James N. Druckman, Jon Green, Matthew A. Baum, David Lazer, Katherine Ognyanova, Matthew Simonson, Jennifer Lin, Mauricio Santillana, and Roy H. Perl
2022-10-24
Politics and science have become increasingly intertwined. Salient scientific issues, such as climate change, evolution, and stem-cell research, become politicized, pitting partisans against one another. This creates a challenge of how to effectively communicate on such issues. Recent work emphasizes the need for tailored messages to specific groups. Here, the authors focused on whether generalized messages also can matter. They did so in the context of a highly polarized issue: extreme COVID-19 vaccine resistance. The results show that science-based, moral frame, and social norm messages move behavioral intentions, and do so by the same amount across the population (that is, homogeneous effects).
