Political polarization is a prominent issue in elected officials today, according to a study done by Pew Research Center in 1973-74 there was substantial overlap between the most liberal and the most conservative Senators and House Representatives in the way they voted. In 1993-94 there was less overlap then there was in the 70’s, but it was still there, unfortunately in 2011-12 there was almost no overlap remaining. This shows that polarization is in fact getting worse in Congress and causing significant problems. There are many consequences of the political polarization in Congress such as (1) inability to get much done, (2) elected officials not representing the majority of American’s, and (3) further economic inequality. There are many …show more content…
The shift to the left and the right can be explained by the social changes and recent government actions that have caused disagreement about what the government should be accomplishing (“Hopkins 72”). Polarization has made the fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives believe they should handle different issues more obvious to the general public. Two of the most controversial issues today are abortion and gay marriage, these two issues alone can be seen as creating polarization. The reason people use these two issues to point out the problem with polarization is because consistent liberals agree with each other on both issues and consistent conservatives agree with each other, but the majority of American’s do not align with one party on both issues. According to an article “Turned Off or Turned On? How Polarization Affects Political Engagement” elected official and party activists are more polarized, making it easier for people to sort themselves into the “correct” party. Although, it is also suggested by Elites that many voters might be turned off by the choice of picking a party, leading to many individuals not voting. There are many theories as to why political polarization is increasing in elected officials including gerrymandering, economic inequality, and voter …show more content…
It has become common for people to blame the polarization of politics on gerrymandering. According to a study “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization,” redistricting increasingly produces districts that are homogenous with respect to ideology; this is because ideologically homogenous districts make it more difficult for moderates to win, since moderates are divided so they no longer hold the majority in any given district even if they are the majority of the population. Due to redistricting (gerrymandering) polarization is possibly greater than it would be if the districting process were more politically neutral, but the fact that the U.S. Senate has experienced an increase in polarization at the same time the House has, suggests that gerrymandering plays a modest role at best in polarization (“McCarty, 3”). This leads us to our next theory that economic inequality is a possible cause for the increase in
8.In order for political success, both sides of the political spectrum must be critically examined in order to omit mistakes and for cultural advancement. Over two hundred years of United States politics have seen many changes. The names of parties may have changed, but the bi-partisan feature of the party-system has not. Republicans and Democrats are our two major partisan groups in present day America. Sometimes there are disagreement amongst party members that lead to dispute and a less concentrated effort. That is the beauty of a democracy, everyone is allowed to put their two cents worth in.
Mann and Norman J. Ornstein argue that the Legislative branch is the most broken branch of government. Congress was designed by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States to be an independent and powerful party. The Framers wanted the Legislative branch to represent the vast diversity of people of the United States, to deliberate on important issues and policies, and to check and balance the other branches. However, Congress’s role in the American Constitutional System differs from the part it was meant to play. The authors argue that Congress has failed to fill its responsibilities to the people of the United States because of the division of the Democratic and Republican parties, which leaves little room for compromise and negotiation. Members of Congress focus on their own needs and interests, and will travel to far lengths to prove that their political party is the most powerful. Congress has turned a blind eye to the needs of the American people. Congress cannot succeed in getting the United States back on track unless they start to follow the rules dictated by the Framers of the Constitution. A vast series of decisions made by Congress, driven by Congress’s disregard for institutional procedures, its tendency to focus on personal ethics, and the overpowering culture of corruption, led to Congress failing to implement important changes in the United States
Hamilton provides an inside look at how congress really works and clears up popular misconception that make members of congress look like wasteful bickering crooks that support gridlock and are only concerned with the needs of interest groups and lobbyists. Hamilton argues that Congress has changed for the better throughout the years and that they are held at higher standards than they were before. Hamilton states that Congress is not only working at keeping the public happy but that have recently become faced with a lot more issues than before, they are not only more issues but more complicated and technical that are very high risk policies that take a long time to produce a decision (Hamilton, 1988, 65). Hamilton states that Congress is a system in which the viewpoints of everyone are taken into account and make sure there is a consensus when it comes to defining decisions. Even though many of us acknowledge that lobbyist and special interest groups play an essential role in the law making party, Congress is making an effort to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard. Congress is making sure that the balance of power is distributed properly. In recent years, there has been a decline in mega-lobbies and interest groups so that not only the wealthy powerful get their voice heard, but the everyday american people get an opinion in things that affect them as well. In Gary Lee’s article, The NRA Has Lost some Firepower, we can see that interest groups are beginning to have less of an influence on larger political decisions (Hamilton, 1988, 65). For example, the National Rifle Association’s defeat in the battle over the “Brady bill” and their war towards trying to revamp Medicaid was a great loss for lobbyists and
Buckler, Justin. "Population Equality And The Imposition Of Risk On Partisan Gerrymandering." Case Western Reserve Law Review 62.4 (2012): 1037-1055. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
In Sinclair’s analysis, voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant roles in creating and enforcing the ideological gap between the two major parties in Congress. This trend of polarization is rooted in the electorate
Americans have become so engrossed with the rhetoric of political parties that many are unable have real discussions about “freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, security, accountability.” (Lakoff p.177) The election of 1828 gave birth to the “professional politician” it demonstrated how “ambivalence” on issues, how image and the right language or narrative can influence voters. Partisanship did increase competition and empower voters to a greater degree, but it has also divided Americans and obstructed communication. As one historian declared the “old hickory” killed the ideal of nonpartisan leadership. (Parsons p.184) For better or for worse American politics were forever be changed in 1828.
In the United States of America, there are a number of national issues that go unresolved and become more of a major issue subsequently. The lack of resolution in some of our nation’s most critical issues is due to the lack of a common ground between opposing political parties. Issues such as healthcare, climate change, abortion, same-sex marriage, taxes and welfare are reoccurring problems in the United States due to congressional gridlock. The cause of congressional gridlock can be attributed to the difference in liberal and conservative views, which can be further examined through some of the nation’s most prominent reoccurring issues such as immigration and gun control.
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.
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.
This past summer, when I lived and worked in Washington, DC—first as a U.S. Senate Page and then as a Congressional Intern—I gained invaluable experience and insight to the American political system. It is amazing how much one can learn from simply overhearing the conversations of Members of Congress on a daily basis. Working on the floor of the Senate and then in the back rooms of a Congressional office were two entirely different experiences, each teaching me in a distinctive way about how our political system functions. While I most definitely became aware of how bureaucratic and slow our democratic system can be, I also discovered that with a commitment to unity and prosperity for the common good, great feats are attainable through government.
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.
Political Divide in the United States The political divide in the United States is very bad. The two main political parties are the democrats and the republicans. The two parties dislike each other and each other's views. Abortion is something that has been talked about a lot, some people find it good and others find it as a bad thing. Health care is another issue that is controversial. Another big issue is illegal immigration. The death penalty and euthanasia are also reasons the government is divided. The topic of the right to bear arms is also very controversial, especially with all the murders and riots going on. Global warming, even though it does not seem very political, is a topic that comes up a lot in political speeches and events. And lastly, the separation of church and state is another topic that gets in heated discussions in politics. Not all of these seem like they are political, but they have been made into be, even though they should not have, the United States is divided over them. The political parties have caused the country to be divided. Democrats and Republicans, also known as liberals and conservatives, most people do
What is leadership? Leadership is defined as a process by which a individual will influence others to obtain goals. Leaders will guide, direct motivate, or inspire others. Leadership is defined by not only traits but actions as well. Leaders are inspirational, trustworthy and charismatic. Many people may think a manger is leader. Although leadership and management go hand in hand, they are not the same. Everyone has their own beliefs about what characteristics an effective leader should have. To me, communication skills, critical thinking skills, and having a vision are few characteristics of becoming an effective leader. A leader is not only born, but made. Some are born as leaders or some are made to be leaders.