I have said this many times before, but the number-one question I am asked when I give talks is: Are we more divided now than ever? My answer is always no. We fought a war in 1861 and have not gotten as bad as the 1960s. The problem now is, I think, we might have caught up to, and possibly surpassed, the 1960s.
While it is hard to measure divisiveness and political turmoil, I heard an intriguing statistic this week: There are more senators not running for reelection this year than in any other year in American history. While investigating the statistic, I found that it is not true, but this year does make the top five.
Even more interesting is the timing of those top five years and the reasons many senators have chosen not to run.
In the upcoming midterm elections, 11 senators have chosen not to run for reelection.
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are retiring after long and distinguished careers.
Alan Armstrong (R-Okla.) was appointed to the Senate by Governor Kevin Stitt when Markwayne Mullin was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security and is ineligible to run. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) decided to run for governor of Alabama instead. All the others— Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)—while giving different reasons, all seem to boil down to frustration with politics and a desire to get out.
In and of itself, senators wanting to leave the Senate seems like a sane choice and should not necessarily demonstrate hostility toward the institution. But when you look at the years with the most departures, the dates are telling.
If we start with number five, it is 2024, with nine senators not running.
Number four is 2010, also with nine. Number three is 2012, with 10. Number two, as of right now, is our current election, with 11, although that number could go up depending on some state governor runoffs. And the election with the most senators not running for reelection is 1996, with 13.
In other words, the elections in which the most senators decided they were through have all happened in the past 16 years. I should remind readers that before 1912, state legislatures chose senators rather than voters, so we are only looking at the past 114 years, but they are all still part of the modern era.
It could be the case that these years simply had older senators who decided to retire. Yet, if we examine the largest year, 1996, it tells a different story.
The large number of departures was not caused by one single event; instead, it reflected a combination of personal decisions, age, political conditions, and growing frustration with the nature of politics. Together, these factors created an environment in which many senators concluded that retirement was preferable to remaining in office.
Age was an important factor. Serving in the Senate can be grueling work, with frequent campaigning and long periods away from home.
By 1996, some senators who had already spent many years in office were approaching an age when retirement was an attractive option.
That seems to have been the case for Paul Simon (D-Ill.), Howell Heflin (D-Ala.), and Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.).
Yet political conditions also contributed to the unusually high number of open Senate seats. The early and mid-1990s were a period of significant political change in the United States. Republicans had gained substantial strength in Congress, particularly after the 1994 elections, when Republicans won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The political environment became more partisan, and rather than entering another expensive and uncertain campaign, some incumbents chose retirement.
Another factor was the growing intensity of Senate campaigns. By the 1990s, congressional elections were becoming increasingly expensive and competitive. Candidates needed substantial financial resources, strong organizations, and the ability to withstand increasingly negative campaign tactics.
Incumbent senators who had already spent years raising money and campaigning could reasonably decide that another election was not worth the effort. The pressure of constant fundraising and campaigning added another incentive to not run.
Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) famously declared that “politics is broken.” He left office out of deep frustration with both political parties and the Senate’s inability to address structural economic and social problems. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), a centrist on national security policy, chose to step down because he felt the Senate’s political middle was rapidly shrinking, making bipartisan legislative work nearly impossible.
David Pryor (D-Ark.), a close ally of President Bill Clinton, decided to prioritize his family and personal health over another term. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) chose not to run due to general fatigue with the changing and increasingly hostile nature of Washington politics. James Exon (D-Neb.) expressed exhaustion with the relentless partisan warfare and vicious attack ads, arguing that the political environment had lost its civility.
William Cohen (R-Maine), a high-profile moderate centrist, dropped out unexpectedly amid immense frustration with federal budget stalemates and government shutdowns, which he blamed on rigid ideological extremes. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.), a respected moderate voice, believed in informal term limits and voluntarily stepped down after three terms to return to private life.
Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), known for his blunt wit, chose not to run after losing his leadership role as Senate Whip. He openly lamented that hatred and nastiness were corroding Washington.
Finally, Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.), a moderate Republican, frequently clashed with his own party’s rising conservative wing, including over his opposition to a balanced-budget amendment. He retired, stating that he would “miss the people but not the process.”
As I said, it is hard to judge how divided we have become compared with past generations. But if we use harsh partisanship in the Senate as a measure, it seems that things are only getting worse.
James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to the Southwest Ledger and the Lawton Constitution for sharing his column.
