Political Polarization, Governor Scott Walker, and the Rhetoric of Health Policy

• In Event: Poster Session: Advances in the Study of Religion and Politics & Health Politics and Policy
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Health Politics and Policy

Abstract

Political polarization, defined as the division between Democrats and Republicans in their ideology and other political beliefs, among the American public rose significantly during the past two decades, and political figures seized upon and exacerbated this polarization in pursuit of their ambitions. The widening gap between political preferences is particularly concerning with regard to elected officials’ rhetoric and action surrounding and health policy-related issues, which remain among the most important to American voters. Political determinants thus affect health outcomes, which can lead to policy decisions that negatively influence public health.
This project examined the relationship between polarization and health policy decisions through the lens of highly polarized Wisconsin, focusing on the rhetoric used by Governor Scott Walker and the decisions he made regarding health policy while in office from 2011 to 2019.
The goal of this project was to develop an understanding of the relationship between political polarization and Governor Scott Walker’s rhetoric and health policy decisions, particularly his decision not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This project assessed how he defended, promoted, and explained these decisions to Wisconsin voters and other audiences, and how he wove the debate over Medicaid expansion into his political platforms.
This project used an open coding, grounded theory approach to analyze a convenience sample of forty-two appearances by Walker between 2008 and 2018. This sample included speeches, addresses, interviews, and debate appearances. Using this sample, I identified three major themes within Walker’s rhetoric relating to his health policy decisions and described how he used these themes to promote these decisions.
This project identified and analyzed three major themes of polarization: (1) Welfare and Work, (2) Outgroup Failure / Ingroup Wisdom, and (3) Taxpayer Choice in a Free Market. This work concludes with a detailed analysis of these central themes and how Walker used them in his rhetorical approach amid the polarized atmosphere that carried his career. The conclusions of this analysis are intended to better understand how elected officials use polarization to discuss health policy issues and further their political objectives. These conclusions can be used to help advocates operating amid increasingly polarized political conditions and encourage further study into the relationship between polarization and health policy.

Author

• Robert Brehm, University of Virginia