Wedge issues are also referred to as “cross-cutting issues,” because they tend to divide voters within political parties, rather than cutting across traditional party cleavages. Because American political parties are “big tents” that must incorporate a host of differing groups, invariably there will be some issues on which members of the same party hold differing beliefs. In the 1950s and early 1960s, civil rights was one of those cross-cutting issues. Northern Republicans had a long history of support for the rights of nonwhite Americans, making them far more liberal on this issue than other members of their party. At the same time, southern Democrats voiced strong opposition to federal efforts to promote civil rights, while the remainder of the Democratic Party was more supportive of such efforts.
Political parties use wedge issues as a means of splintering some voters away from their support for the opposition. In areas such as civil rights, where voters from both parties are divided, this tended to be a risky strategy because each party also has something to lose from taking up this issue. In other areas, supporters of only one of the parties may be divided, which provides the other party with a unique opportunity to exploit this division. One such example is Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy,” which he used to great effect in the Campaign of 1968 (and again in the Campaign of 1972). Knowing that many southern Democrats were concerned about the expansion of civil rights, Nixon ran a law-and-order campaign promising to crack down on civil unrest. For many voters, “law and order” was a not-so-oblique reference to the race riots that had plagued numerous American cities in 1967 and 1968; concerns about the law-and-order issue were strongly linked with feelings about African Americans and Latinos, making the issue one of symbolic racism (as opposed to overt racism). Nixon did not have to come out and state that he was promising to keep African Americans in line; many voters received the message anyway. As a consequence, Nixon received very little of the African American vote but increased his popularity among white Southern voters, who were already trending Republican after the passage of several major civil rights laws a few years earlier.
In the Campaign of 1980, Republican nominee Ronald Reagan used his opposition to abortion to persuade some Catholic Democrats to support his bid for the White House. Prior to 1980, no presidential candidate had appealed to voters on the basis of abortion (in part, because there were still internal divisions in both parties on this issue). In the Campaign of 2004, Republican incumbent George W. Bush attempted to use support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, patriotism, and support for antiterrorist policies to appeal to elements of the Democratic base (although there is little evidence that it was effective). In the Campaign of 2008, Democratic nominee Barack Obama used the economic recession as a wedge to attract fearful Republicans to his corner (although, again, there is little evidence of partisan defection in this election).
The Campaign of 2012 was marked by the recurrence of the wedge issue. In this election, Democratic incumbent Barack Obama attempted to make the nation’s growing economic inequality a campaign issue, suggesting that Republican nominee Mitt Romney was seeking to continue the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. While taxing the middle class tends to face strong public opposition, the public has historically had few objections to taxing the affluent. Moreover, Romney himself was affluent, enabling Obama to suggest that Romney’s tax policies might be self-interested, while programs that the poor and middle class relied on would fall victim to the budget ax. In essence, Obama was attempting to divide Romney from a portion of his base. Romney was put in the difficult position of having to defend tax cuts for the well-to-do during a time when the economy was still struggling and many were out of work. His response was to rename the affluent “job creators” and suggest that if they were taxed at a higher rate, they would not spend the money needed to restart the economy and, ultimately, re-employ those who were currently out of work. While the GOP focused on “job creators” and their contributions to the economy in 2012, Obama may have struck a blow. In the Campaign of 2016, most of the GOP contenders for the party nomination are lamenting the level of economic inequality in American society and suggesting that it is a problem that needs to be resolved. This suggests that the GOP has real concerns that class is a viable, long-term wedge that the party may be susceptible to.
Also appearing in the Campaign of 2012 was the topic of women’s access to contraception, as well as abortion, as part of the Affordable Care Act. Political scientists do not consider abortion access to be much of a wedge issue anymore, because, as a result of partisan sorting, most people with strong pro-life beliefs are now identified as Republicans and most people with strong pro-choice beliefs are now identified as Democrats. Moreover, abortion attitudes have been remarkably stable over time, suggesting that they are not amenable to persuasion. Contraception access, however, has not been seriously debated in over half a century (and the last time it was, evangelical Christians were far more supportive of it). By 2012, however, Republicans were arguing that the contraceptive coverage mandate in the ACA interfered with the religious rights of employers, particularly Catholic institutions, and they sought to pass a series of exemptions to permit employers the ability to deny coverage when they had moral objections. At the same time, several Republican-controlled state legislatures sought to pass sweeping new limits on abortion access, from invasive ultrasound requirements to personhood amendments that would potentially limit many forms of contraception as well (as well as in-vitro fertilization). For the first time, the parties appeared to be staking out opposite positions on contraceptive access, with the Democratic Party arguing that contraception should be both legal and free, and the Republican Party arguing that states, and even employers, should be able to limit a woman’s access to contraception. This debate has continued into the Campaign of 2016, with the elimination of federal funding for Planned Parenthood (which only receives federal funds for non-abortion services such as contraceptives and cancer screening) a stated priority of almost every one of the GOP nominees. Some GOP candidates have suggested that they would support congressional legislation to make birth control pills available over the counter; however, this most likely would mean that women whose insurance coverage now pays for contraception would need to fund it on their own (although Congress cannot order the FDA to make sales over the counter, something that drug companies would likely resist). Contraception access is an issue that is unlikely to divide Democratic supporters, who are more likely to favor abortion access to begin with, who are less likely to be religious, and who tend to support the ACA. However, it is a topic that may be a wedge for Republican voters (male and female alike). It is unclear how voters will respond to a serious debate about contraceptive access.
LGBTQ rights promises to be another cross-cutting issue over the long term, as long as the two parties maintain separate positions on this topic. Historically, the Republican Party has used its opposition to gay rights to drive a wedge between more socially conservative Democrats and their party. However, in recent years, support for gay rights in general, and same-sex marriage in particular, has increased dramatically, and it is now the GOP that is divided on this issue (while the Democrats are united). Most opposition to same-sex marriage, and to gay people serving openly in the military, resides in the GOP and tends to increase with age (as it does among Democrats and independents). Thus, the issue has become a wedge for Democrats to exploit, emphasizing their support for LGBTQ rights as a means of garnering support from those Republicans who share their views and don’t feel well represented by their party’s platform or candidates. In the Campaign of 2012, Obama used this newfound support for same-sex marriage in this manner, and in the Campaign of 2016, the Democratic contenders are similarly expressing their support for federal civil rights protection for LGBTQ rights. The GOP candidates have been more reluctant to address this topic, suggesting its riskiness for their coalition and confirming its status as a wedge issue.
See also LGBTQ Issues; Women’s Equality Issue
Edsall, Thomas B. “Bush Abandons ‘Southern Strategy’; Campaign Avoids Use of Polarizing Issues Employed by GOP Since Nixon’s Time.” Washington Post, August 6, 2000, p. A19.
Edsall, Thomas B. “GOP Honing Wedges for Next Campaign: Party Aims for Partisan Advantages by Making Corruption, Drugs and Crime Divisive Issues.” Washington Post, February 26, 1989, p. A6.
Hillygus, Sunshine D., and Todd G. Shields. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.