Almost all discussions of polarization in political science consider it in the context of political parties and the democratic system of the government. When polarization occurs in a two-party system, moderate voices often lose power and influence. Political polarization confers to cases in which an individual's position on a given issue, policy, or person is more likely to be defined by their identification with a particular political party, such as a Democrat or Republican. Polarization as a state refers to the extent to which opinions on an issue are opposed in relation to some theoretical maximum. As a process, it refers to the increase in opposition over time. Some political scientists argue that polarization requires deviation on a broad range of issues based on a consistent set of beliefs while others argue it occurs when there are blunt opinionated or ideological divides. Political scientists distinguish between two types of political polarization, popular polarization and elite polarization. Popular polarization is when polarization occurs in the electorate and general public and elite polarization occurs in political elites, such as party organizers and elected officials. Both opinions and policy positions are characterized by strict faithfulness to party lines. Popular polarization and elite polarization can occur at the same time or independently. The central issue in the study of political polarization is investigating the relationship between the two. Political scientists have identified a variety of causes of political polarization, including political parties, public political ideology, and the media. Scholars argue that diverging parties have been one of the driving forces of polarization as policy platforms have ... ... middle of paper ... ...make appointees as safe as possible and grab as many seats as it can, ending up with elected officials that represent a consistent electorate, which results in more extreme candidates and fewer moderates. Redistricting plans have been so politically, that most have resulted in lawsuits. States need to move towards non or bipartisan redistricting commissions, like in Iowa or Arizona. Another proposal is that there should be an active review of institutional performance. This proposal comes from the military, which constantly monitors the performance of its institutions and units. The government should adopt a similar approach towards its institutions and programs, evaluating them against standards, then working on fixing them. Our current system emphasizes denial of problems for political purposes, then bursts of argument and finger pointing when anything goes wrong.
Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government, which results in the election of polarized candidates and policies.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
Even though is believed that polarization was a result from the behavior changes of both parties in which the Democrats moved to left and the Republicans to the right, there are evidences that demonstrate that are actually “largely driven by changes in the positioning of the Republican Party.”
Susan Page is an American journalist and the current Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. In her online document “Divided we now Stand,” Page makes a convincing argument that the national government today fails at functioning because of its greatly divided views in its political parties. Because of these strong opposing views, no “common ground,” can be found for anyone to agree upon allowing for nothing to get done (Page). Page successfully explains her argument using plenty of statistics, clear cut diction, and finally Page’s point, that the current government is greatly divided, is easily identified with the use of continuous repetition of the statistics and diction she presents. Using these tricks Page is able to relate to most of her audience, allowing her to sell her position very well.
In recent years, Congress has become increasingly polarized. The definition of partisan polarization is the separation of the two major parties as they move towards more extreme issue positions. Some theories on why this political phenomenon is occurring now claim that this polarization is due to: a return to the “natural” state of government; the increase in polarization of the electorate since the Southern Realignment; the increase of polarization in the media; and gerrymandering. The increase of partisan polarization in Congress has various consequences for American policy and politics, including congressional gridlock and the inability of the legislative and executive branches to get anything substantial done in terms of policy, and increasing
Many go as far to say that the opposing party’s policies endanger the nation. Also, there has been a rise in negative views of the opposing party which does not help unite the country when it comes to politics. The people who are deeply involved with politics are more likely to have a strong negative feeling toward the opposing party. Intense dislike of political opposition is linked to other views and behaviors as well like ideological polarization, which makes the American people hold consistently liberal or conservative views regarding a wide range of views. These situations make people divided and less actions in democracy are made because no decisions are made which creates problems for the American people. For example, when Barack Obama took office in 2008 and in 2012 the levels of antipathy grew because the conservatives were angrier than the liberals. The Republican discontent persisted from the beginning of Obama’s presidency. There has been an increased level of partisan division over the presidential performance over the past 60 years. Partisans have become more uniform in their disapproval of presidents that are from the other party; which also makes them more inclined to negative evaluations of the person holding office. Having negative views of the opposing party and its leaders correlates with political
That can cause the opposing party to see the information and automatically resent it and shut it out thus becoming more polarized. Another article named “Divided We Now Stand” by Susan Page states information that explains social media and how it makes Americans more polarized. Page states” A majority on both sides say politics are more divided because both parties have changed: Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans more conservative.” This statement that Page made is due to social media which she talks about in the article. Social media does have an effect on a person’s political view because people often are
Since the 1970s, Democrats have become more liberal as Republicans have become more conservative (Smith 139), leaving little potential for compromise when both parties are separated by a rift in ideology. The president himself is blocked in Congress, and actions that may benefit the nation with perhaps no relation to party politics are downvoted by “legislative leaders acting as though they were. . .his sworn enemies” (Edwards “How”). Little is able to get by the gridlock supplied by partisanship: midway through its term, “the 112th Congress has approved just 106 bills, versus 906 in the actual ‘Do Nothing Congress’ of 1947-48” (Grant). A bill advanced by the Republicans is opposed by the Democrats, and a bill advanced by the Democrats is opposed by Republicans, for perhaps no other reason than the opposing party supports it. In a nation held together by compromise and cooperation in trying times, “activist control of party primaries and a commitment by party leaders to wage a perpetual struggle for political advantage have created an environment in which intransigence is rewarded and cooperation is punished, making the bipartisan compromises of the past almost impossible” (Edwards “Unraveling”). Negative campaigning against colleagues adds
Political ideology effects political behavior and influences public policy in America. The European and American parties have many differences and only a few things that they have in common. Public opinion has always been big in the United States of America; it has always affected our democratic system. Public opinions can either be very positive towards our democratic system or very negative towards our democratic system. Family has always played a big role in the political socialization of today’s youth. It determines how you think an act against politics. There are many other factors that appear to be associated with having the high or low political participation. Public opinions have always affected every political part of our country.
Although initially forming around the nucleus of two distinct and different ideologies, long years of bloody conflict have served to significantly erode the distinctions between the parties. The Conservatives and the Liberals are more like warring factions or clans than any parties with firmly established and radically different ideologies. Both tend to be repressive, both are corrupt, and bot...
The importance of Political Science is almost immeasurable. Politics is ingrained into every single thing that happens in this world; therefore, without the proper understanding of this field, society would struggle, even more than it already does, to have peaceful existence. No matter what career choice I decide on, I will be glad to have gained basic political science information. Trying to understand politics can be mind boggling; however, The Challenge of Politics: An Introduction to Political Science is a great uncomplicated text that allows students to get a good grasp on the general frame of politics. Although it has many positive aspects, the text also has a few negative aspects to it as well. In addition, the text has the proper amount
Polarization is a tendency to reason only in terms of extremes or opposites. The most common type of polarization is group polarization. Group polarization in general refers to the notion that judgments made by a group tend to be more extreme than judgments made by individual members. The concept of group polarization developed from a notion of the “risky shift.” It was originally thought that after group discussion, individuals would make riskier decisions than before. However, researchers then realized
Group polarization is a key component to social influence. It makes people feel as though they have a group they can be recognized with. “ And it should come as no surprise that the attitudes and beliefs we bring to a group grow stronger when we talk with others who share them. . . and it often translates into a nasty ‘us’ vs ‘ them’ dynamic’’ ( Yale