How national political polarization affects communities

Local politics is often seen as a safe haven for nonpartisan issues—potholes and park funding rarely have party affiliation. But as the line between local policymaking and national issues has blurred in recent years, can this remain true?

New research by Justin de Benedictis-Kessner suggests that while political polarization may be on the rise at the local level, not all issues divide communities across party lines. “For local issues that are also nationalized, like climate change or racial injustice, the difference of opinions between those who identify as Republicans and those who identify as Democrats can be quite stark,” says de Benedictis-Kessner. “But on issues close to home, like housing subsidies and parking costs, we saw similar opinions across party lines.”

As the Emma Bloomberg Associate Professor of Public Policy at HKS, de Benedictis-Kessner teaches politics and ethics and leads an experiential field lab that pairs student teams with local governments to address urban policy problems.

His working paper, Partisan Polarization in Local Politics, coauthored with Katherine Levine Einstein, David M. Glick, Maxwell Palmer, and Christopher Warshaw, examines partisan polarization across local policy issues through the perspectives of mayors and the general public, seeking to identify to what extent national political polarization has made its way to the local level.

As polarization increases at the local level, opportunities for alignment

While there has been much talk about the impacts of national political divides on local communities, research on the topic has been limited. de Benedictis-Kessner and his coauthors sought to understand the extent to which national partisan divisions have filtered into local politics.
 

Surveying both mayors and the public in cities and counties nationwide over four years, the researchers examined attitudes toward policies that local governments could implement—from plastic bag bans to questions involving race and identity in local housing programs. The findings reveal some substantial partisan divides. Republicans and Democrats disagree sharply on many local policy issues, particularly those that have appeared on the national stage—such as race, identity, climate change, and education.

But for policy issues more closely linked to technical local government policymaking—such as body-worn cameras for police, street parking, and senior housing subsidies—the partisan gap in opinions was smaller. “We suspected that ‘closer to home’ issues would have smaller partisan divides, and the research bore that out,” says de Benedictis-Kessner.

The researchers also looked at how partisan opinion gaps differed between surveyed mayors and the public. Overall, mayors tended to be more polarized across party lines than the public, taking stronger partisan positions than their constituents—perhaps following national trends. This finding highlighted that Republicans and Democrats serving in office may approach common challenges facing cities differently. Mayors from different parties support different policy options, even when their constituents are less divided along party lines.

City leaders are not necessarily more representative or accountable

The research also provided an opportunity to understand how often mayors’ views align with the public. de Benedictis-Kessner and his coauthors found that mayors of both parties agree with majorities of the public in the cities they lead only 68% of the time. Far from being much more representative of their constituents than officials at higher levels of government, city officials agree with majorities in their cities at rates on par with state politicians and their constituents. People as varied as Thomas Jefferson to scholars of political science have claimed that politicians “closer to home”—like those in city government—can best serve their constituents’ interests. This research shows that claim isn’t warranted.

But does this mean that constituents are less satisfied with local representation than with federal or state leaders? Not necessarily, says de Benedictis-Kessner.

In his upcoming book, The Fog of Accountability [due to be published this year by the University of Chicago Press], de Benedictis-Kessner analyzed data from nearly 25,000 local elections and surveys across over 55 cities. He finds that lack of competition, complex service jurisdictions, and weak local media make it hard for voters to know whom to support or how to hold leaders accountable. “My book shows that voters sometimes pay attention to local conditions in their communities, but not always. Highly visible issues like potholes are easy for voters to connect to their city governments — so pothole politics can pay off for city leaders,” he says. “But many other issues – from crime to education – are harder for voters to learn about and connect to their mayor and city councilors.”

“Pothole politics” as a way forward?

While partisan polarization can strike some people as the unhelpful nationalization of local politics, it also helps hammer home the things that unify people in local politics. People agree across the partisan aisle about many policies that local governments can implement. And these policy areas which local governments are actually responsible for may be the ones that are most likely to lead to electoral rewards for those leaders.

This approach is evident in New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration. He spent his first 100 days focused on highly visible local issues — like potholes — and policies which united many of his constituents. Mamdani’s campaign and election became a national talking point, but when he reflected on his first 100 days in office, Mamdani spoke of these “pothole politics” and solving local headaches for residents, rather than wading into national issues.

This shift by one of the country’s most visible mayors reinforces the idea that, regardless of national trends, all politics can be local. 

—

Banner photo credit: John Greim/Getty Images