Party Polarization Essay

Over the years, the American political system has developed in such a way in which parties have become increasingly polarized. In terms of ideologies as well as identifications, members of government and common voters have become more extreme and loyal to their respective parties, creating an increasingly partisan government. Before understanding why parties have become more polarized, the definition of party polarization must be understood. A specific definition of party polarization can also be understood as partisanship when someone’s stance on a given issue, policy, or person is more likely to be strictly defined by their identification with a particular political party. But what exactly has caused party polarization and what are the consequences

of such a separation between the two parties? Although the cause of party polarization is three-fold: not only built into the original two-party system but also as a result of both voter opinion and politicians’ actions, the consequences are crucial, resulting in more tension and conflict in the Senate and House while slowing down the overall decision-making process. Since parties are continuing to become more polarized, a possible solution to party polarization is to find a middle ground and encourage voters to become more informed about what they are voting for.
However, is it even necessary to find a solution to party polarization when it is so deeply engrained into the American political system? The counterargument to encouraging voters to become more informed and finding a middle ground between the two political parties is that it is not worth it. Polarization occurred for a reason and splitting voters between parties will only continue to grow. Will encouraging voters to learn more about the people they are voting for even help? The answer to this is yes, because voters will be able to formulate their own opinions and use their better judgment to overcome being polarized because of party identification. Additionally, one could also argue that party polarization simply occurred because of one reason instead of three, for example, it is the politicians’ agenda-setting and continued polarization in opinion that has divided voters. Nevertheless, it is a two-way relationship between politicians and voters and voters can become polarized regardless of what their agents promote. In fact, the strong opinions of the people can make parties more polarized, as seen in how the Republican Party is becoming more conservative due to the increasingly conservative viewpoints of Republicans. While tension and conflict may be a necessary and significant part of Congress, it is also important to address ways in which we can resolve conflict and move forward, which polarization impotently prevents.
Before going into the main causes of polarization, let us first look at the American political system and the history of political parties in the United States. While the President oversees the cabinet and bureaucracy and the Supreme Court heads judicial powers, Congress is in charge of legislative powers and it is where polarization first developed. Congress is divided into two main units: the Senate and the House of Representatives, both within which partisanship can occur as the Democratic and Republican parties fight for power in each respective unit. A political party emerges when people agree on certain ideologies and find it beneficial to cooperate with each other. However, the Constitution does not mention parties because there was original fear that they would become pervasive and dangerous. Over the years, parties soon developed when people found incentives to work together in order to achieve collective goals such as building alliances and mobilizing voters. (Kernell 486-487) The obvious usefulness and logic of parties meant that the party system would continue being used in Congress, specifically a two party system that emerged when “national leaders gradually divided into two major camps” (Kernell 489). Today, we know the two dominant parties as the Democratic and Republican Parties, which have continued to hold onto the two opposing sides of American politics.
One main cause of polarization is the gap in ideologies between the Democratic and Republican parties, which is built into the system. The fact that Congress allows for two parties means that these two parties will battle each other to become the majority party since their ideologies differ vastly. This constitutes the first source of threefold cause of polarization, the circumstance of allowing a “winner-take-all” approach in the legislative branch. Looking at DW-Nominate scores, which measure political ideology for members of the House and Senate, it shows consistent polarization of ideologies between the two parties. Since the individual scores for members of the House and Senate are growing continuously apart (), partisanship continues to grow. Generally, the Democratic Party has steadily adhered to increasingly liberal values while the Republican Party has gone the other direction and become more conservative. The ideological gap between the two parties in the Senate and House has widened considerably since the 1970’s, reaching the widest point since Reconstruction in the 113th Congress in 2013-2014. (Kernell 240)
In addition to the ideological gap between parties, parties are also becoming more unified within themselves. In terms of party unity within both divisions of the legislative branch, it is undeniably growing. Congressional parties are becoming more aligned considering their agreement on common values and ideologies. As parties gradually set into stone what they agree on and formulate stronger opinions, they will grow in strength, which in turn, also effectively contributes to widening the ideological gap between them. Consequently, “ideological polarization thus helped to unite the parties internally, separate them from each other, and strengthen party leaders” (Kernell 240). The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are each growing in strength but also traveling ideologically in opposing directions.
Furthermore, another cause of polarization built into the political system is the electoral process, which focuses on parties. The more nationalized, party-centered electoral process adds to the polarization in the House and Senate. While historically, voting for the President of the United States has switched between being candidate-centered and party-centered, now voting depends the most on party identification. Who people vote for depends the most on which party they identify the most closely with which tends to polarize people to vote for a certain President related to their respective political party. Party identification is defined as “an individuals’ enduring affective or instrumental attachment to one of the political parties” and is also “the most accurate single predictor of voting behavior.” (Kernell 684) Hence this relationship between a party and its followers intensifies polarization because people will be pulled to a certain side, with party identification also implying that they support a candidate’s potential and agree with the party’s ideologies.
Accordingly, another key cause of polarization, linked to party identification, is party platforms and the actions of politicians.

In order to appeal to their constituents, politicians act as agents that serve the respective needs of constituents (*lecture). However, politicians also tend to have party agendas that sway voters to one side. One prime example of this is the pro-choice versus pro-life debate on abortion between Republicans and Democrats. It is typical of a Democratic politician to follow a party agenda that promotes pro-life ideologies and will therefore promote pro-life policies such as increasing funding for Planned Parenthood. While not all Democrats will be pro-life, they will still vote for Democratic politicians because of party identification, giving an impression of more polarized views. This logic extends to nearly everything that divides Republicans and Democrats including but not limited to gun control, energy, same-sex marriage, income tax, and global warming. Likewise, people can also be more moderate on certain issues, but when they vote for a certain politician, they can be showing more support than they feel. This gives politicians incredible power in terms of what they can do and most tend to participate in the act of “gerrymandering”, or drawing legislative districts in order to give one political party an advantageously larger share of seats for the share of votes (Kernell 681). Knowing that their constituents will likely still support them, politicians have leeway in terms of what they can do, and what they have done traditionally has contributed to increased

polarization.
Politicians also tend to focus on wedge issues that will strategically divide voters. Wedge issues include the aforementioned topics that divide Republicans and Democrats but also controversial social issues that can attract the attention of polarized voters. In order to earn the votes of voters that feel strongly about certain issues, politicians will try to attract them by focusing their attention on these wedge issues. Since these polarized voters are also ones that are more likely to be more vocal about their opinion and their support for politicians, this will add to a politician’s popularity and give them more incentive to talk about wedge issues in their platforms. Just as wedge issues divide voters, they also contribute to party polarization, as different parties will focus on different wedge issues to appeal to their constituents.
The power of constituents cannot be disregarded and they make up the third cause of parties. The actions and opinions of voters can also severely affect parties and politicians will also act depending on how they think voters want them to. While politicians have power over what they will do if they get nominated, the voters ultimately seal the fate of whether they will succeed or not. Therefore, voters also hold considerable power over what parties will focus their attention on.