Introduction

The nationalization of American politics has received growing attention among scholars studying state and local politics. This process, however, has also restructured the relationship between members of Congress and their constituencies. In the opening chapter, I briefly situate the book's central themes around nationalization by discussing recent controversies over critical race theory in public schools. Teaching about systemic racism, a topic that until recently received fairly little attention, has galvanized voters on the right. This episode exemplifies the manner in which public policy at a local level has become embroiled in the partisan framing of national policy activists. From school curriculum choices to the crime in “our streets,” the public discourse around policy issues often turns on national political frames. This book examines the consequences of nationalization for members of Congress and the voters they represent. Constituents have come to evaluate their elected representatives on the basis of their national policy records. Yet, while the public expects the government to tackle important problems, many of the most engaged voters are also the most uncompromising, a fact that carries important legislative implications. During campaigns, candidates reflect these expectations back to voters by emphasizing broad policy issues that are largely divorced from local conditions. Meanwhile, officeholders carefully navigate the legislative process to avoid provoking national policy activists both in and outside the district. Taken together, the book’s study of mass opinion and elite behavior shows how the nationalization of U.S. politics creates a legislative conundrum for Congress. The impulse to focus on national policy and a refusal to compromise one’s “values” are often incompatible goals, resulting in legislative gridlock with little hope for relief.