All Politics Is National

In this chapter, I develop a theoretical framework for understanding why nationalization distorts the perceptions and expectations of officeholders. Early work on electoral incentives contends that a record of local distributive accomplishments is essential to winning reelection. Attention to broader national issues, however, was believed to be either too difficult to take credit for, or of little import to the member's constituency. This chapter challenges the notion that member strategies and voter attitudes continue to operate along these lines. First, as the government has taken on a more activist charge, there has been a “broadening” of the range of policy issues that Congress regulates on. This expansion has encouraged the public to increasingly view their elected officials, from governor to U.S. Representative, through a national policy lens. Second, actors in the contemporary political environment are better sorted along policy lines at every level. These camps are organized around clear national brands that offer distinct choices to voters. In addition to these ideological differences, partisan voters are conditioned to see members of the other party as the enemy and are intolerant to compromise. Third, technological advancements have radically altered the media landscape and effectively nationalized the political discourse. Rather than relying on local newspapers or a shared but limited set of channels, consumers have wide access to news programming, from cable television and digital sources to the personalized “news” feed in their social media. In addition to the unprecedented volume and diversity of news sources, these technological advances have empowered citizens to become policy watchdogs in their own right. From “death panels” to expanded federal oversight of schools, vigilant policy activists are capable of mobilizing their broader network against concerning legislation and their sponsors.