UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Terri Bimes was recently awarded the James A. Thurber Article of the Year Award from the journal Congress & the Presidency for her co-authored piece, “Hyperpartisanship and the First Hundred Days.” The award recognizes exceptional scholarship on Congress, the presidency, their interactions and national policymaking, with a particular focus on pressing issues in current affairs.
Bimes’ research centers around populism, political parties and presidential elections in the United States. “Hyperpartisanship and the First Hundred Days” examines the impact of rising partisanship on 21st-century presidential administrations, focusing on the presidential transition of 2021. The article analyzes legislative output, executive orders and Senate confirmation votes for key government positions to illustrate the decline of bipartisan cooperation over the past several decades.
In a recent interview with Berkeley Social Sciences, Bimes discussed her background,the significance of the article, and why she believes her research findings are relevant to the current political climate. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Tell us more about your background and what led you to UC Berkeley?
Terri Bimes: My fascination with political history and the presidency began early. In eighth grade, my mother was honored as the National Teacher of the Year. Our family had the incredible opportunity to visit the White House, where we watched President Jimmy Carter present her with a crystal apple.
After earning a degree in economics from Franklin & Marshall College and working at an environmental consulting firm, I went on to pursue my Ph.D. at Yale University. My dissertation focused on presidential populism and its tendency to attack state institutions rather than strengthen them. This interest was inspired by a seminar I took with Yale Political Science Professor Stephen Skowronek, who was writing his influential book The Politics Presidents Make at the time.
In 1998, after finishing my Ph.D. at Yale, I first came to Berkeley as a visiting scholar at the Institute of Government Studies. Shortly after arriving, I started teaching the American Presidency course. I am now a Teaching Professor in the Travers Department of Political Science. My first semester teaching happened as former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial unfolded. Since then, the presidency has changed dramatically—from the aftermath of the contested 2000 election and 9/11, to the election of the first Black president, the nomination of two women as presidential candidates for a major political party and the election of a party outsider and television celebrity. I’ve tried to modify my teaching and research to reflect this changing context and its impact on institutional performance and democratic governance.
Tell us more about your article, "Hyperpartisanship and the First Hundred Days”?
Terri Bimes: The idea for this project originated from news coverage of President Biden’s first 100 days in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection. Could this be politics as normal, or had our politics dramatically changed with Jan. 6 and the events leading up to it?
I gave a presentation at UC Berkeley’s Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research comparing President Joe Biden’s first hundred days to those of President Donald Trump in 2017. This sparked the idea for the paper. I recalled the outstanding 2005 paper on the first hundred days by Casey Dominguez, who earned a B.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from UC Berkeley, and invited her to collaborate as a co-author. Later, Dan Grushkevich, who graduated from UC Berkeley with a B.A. in Political Science and who later received a J.D. from UC Berkeley, joined as a third author. Together, we concluded that hyperpartisanship has significantly transformed the politics of the first hundred days.
Hyperpartisanship refers to prioritizing party loyalty over all other interests, creating a zero-sum dynamic: one party’s gain is inherently the other party’s loss. It places partisan advantage above compromise and cooperation. In the context of a president’s first 100 days, hyperpartisanship has changed the opposition party’s incentives, making it less inclined to support the success of a newly elected president. The incoming president, in turn, increasingly relies on unilateral actions to advance their agendas, circumventing the opposition.
The rise of hyperpartisanship can be traced to the mid-1990s, marked by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s combative approach to partisan politics, the growing prominence of cultural issues and the racial realignment of the South that began in the 1960s. Polarization has since deepened, driven by partisan-aligned interest groups, state parties and media, as UC Berkeley Political Science Professors Paul Pierson and Eric Schickler discuss in their book Partisan Nation
Another factor contributing to hyperpartisanship are the narrowing partisan margins in Congress, which Princeton University Political Science Professor Frances Lee refers to as “insecure majorities.” From the 1950s through the 1970s, Democrats maintained a secure majority in Congress, allowing for smoother presidential transitions. However, starting in the 1980s in the Senate and 1994 in the House, congressional majorities became slimmer and partisan control began frequently shifting between the two parties. This heightened partisan warfare and encouraged what Lee calls “partisan team play.” At the same time, the stakes of party control over the presidency and Congress increased with the expansion of the national government–such as Medicaid, Medicare, new agencies and regulations–and the growing influence of federal courts in the 1960s and 70s.
Our argument is that hyperpartisanship contributes to shifts toward less bipartisan cooperation in the legislative honeymoon, more contested and delayed confirmation votes and increased reliance on executive orders and unilateral actions.
What do you hope the article's impact will be?
Terri Bimes: When writing this article in 2022, we hoped that the article would lower expectations surrounding the first hundred days and dispel the myth of a legislative honeymoon. Current research acknowledges that there have been varying levels of inter-party cooperation during transition periods (Kumar 2008, 2015, Kumar et al. 2003, Burke 2003), but scholars, the press and political practitioners still assume that translating an electoral victory into successful governance depends mostly on the actions of the party taking power. Our analysis focuses on the action of the opposition party as well as the party taking power.
Based on our research, I believe today’s climate of hyperpartisanship and narrow congressional majorities, presidents can no longer depend on a legislative honeymoon. Instead, the opposition party frequently unites in resistance to the president’s legislative agenda. While most cabinet nominees eventually secure confirmation, these votes are increasingly contentious and almost always require floor votes along partisan lines. Furthermore, hyperpartisanship has driven a significant rise in presidential reliance on unilateral actions, a trend evident across both Democratic and Republican administrations.
In my opinion, President Donald Trump’s second “first hundred days” seems set to exemplify this trend. The rush to issue the most executive orders and transform government by unilateral action without congressional approval, portends a dangerous accumulation of power in a single branch—a clear departure from the constitutional framers’ intentions.
Can you tell us more about the James A. Thurber Award? What was your reaction to receiving the award?
Terri Bimes: My co-authors and I were thrilled to receive the 2024 James Thurber Award for the best article published in the journal Congress & the Presidency. We know the high quality of articles published in Congress & the Presidency and are honored that our article was selected for this award.