Our founding fathers opposed the idea of the creation of political parties as they viewed them as factions that would endanger the interests of the public. Today, our political system has developed into a two-party system that is supposed to be representative of the American people. One party favors a conservative ideology which is more fond of tradition, while the other favors a liberal ideology and wants social and political change. As time has passed, we have witnessed an increase of Congress members that have polarized ideologies and a decrease of moderate ones. This has incited a stiffer competition between the Republicans and Democrats as they view themselves as opposites and dangers to each others’ lifestyles. Although some argue that …show more content…
the competition between the polarized candidates creates the drive to politicize America (Hetherington), there is too much importance in differentiating themselves from the other party that they keep a lot of moderate citizens from being politically active. The polarization of ideologies of members of both parties have given people who share the same views to identify with a party, while alienating those who have mixed views which explains their lack of participation. Ultimately, the polarization in Congress has led to a too competitive election in which party loyalty-or partisanship- comes before the interests or well-being of the nation and is a main factor in why compromises are not being made to pass legislature. Political polarization is the increasing division of ideologies to the further extremes of the conservative and liberal spectrum (McCarthy, Pool, Rosenthal, 2006) and the increase in the loyalty of members to their party (Dodd, 2013).
The Democrats have a liberal ideology and “tend to represent urban areas where most voters favor social welfare spending and environmental and other business regulations…also tend to take a more tolerant view of the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sexual identities”(Davidson, p.98). The Republicans tend to be traditionalists and are, “…economic and cultural conservatives who promote business large and small, advocate certain religious causes and generally support military expenditures” (Davidson, p.98). These opposing views are the bases for candidates’ with polarized ideologies within both …show more content…
parties. In recent years, we have experienced an increase in the polarization of ideologies of the members of Congress and decreasing in the number of moderates. “Moderates comprised 62% of the US House from 1935-1982, about 40% from 1983-2004 and only about 20% since 2005.” (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 2006). The decrease of moderate Republicans and Democrats show how there has been an increase of members whose ideologies fall in either extremes of the liberal-conservative spectrum. As Levendunsky states, “there is no longer any overlap between parties...There has been movement away from the center and toward the extremes, and the distribution of ideology is now fully bimodal-opinion is quite literally polarized” (Levendusky, p. 6). There are a multitude of theories that try to explain the reason for this increase in polarization of ideologies within the Congressional candidates (Levendusky) (Ladewig, 2010). These theories explore the internal and external causes that could be the reason for this increase(Barber &McCarty, 2013). Some even believe that Congress has became polarized due to the people becoming more polarized. “If voters are polarized, reelection-motivated legislators would be induced to represent the political ideologies of their constituents, resulting in a polarized Congress”(Barber&McCarty, 1999). This argument would be plausible if they could prove that there is a polarization of the ideologies of the American people, instead there are many studies that show that most of the people hold moderate or mixed ideologies(Fiorina, 2010). Paul DiMaggio led a study in 1996 to test whether the American’s social attitudes have become more polarized. They found that “the social opinions of conservative and liberal identifiers moved in tandem, actually becoming more similar on feelings”(DiMaggio, Evans, & Bryson, p.733). This study shows how the opinions of the nation is multidimensional and is being affected by many characteristics. It also highlights how a higher percentage of the nation hold moderate or mixed views and are not actually polarized. Fiorina also makes a similar observation stating that the voters are "closely but not deeply divided"(Fiorina, 2010) meaning the median voter is the most common voter and their preferences are not moving toward the ideological poles. The problem with the nation mostly holding moderate views and Congress being overrepresented by extreme liberals and conservatives is that they are not accurately representing the people. Instead, their desire to be elected makes them focus on motivating those people who affiliate with their party in order to win the seat. In centrist areas where voters have predominantly moderate views, we see the most polarized candidates running in these areas (Levendusky, 2009).
The main benefit for taking a polarized stance in a race is to gain support from those voters who hold strong loyalty or favoritism to their party. “Party identification is the single most powerful factor in determining voters’ choices”(Davidson, p.85). Candidates who equate their ideologies to the extremes in their party want to show a clear indication of the party that they are in and they are hoping to reach out to those who affiliate with their party to go out and vote for them (Ladewig, 2010). The effect that the polarization of candidates in elections is having is that these races appeal to those voters that share or strongly oppose the polarized view, while lowering the interest of the moderate voter. The Pew Research Center reported that, “many of those in the center remain on the edges of the political playing field, while the most ideologically oriented and politically rancorous Americans make their voices heard through greater participation in every stage of the political process” (2003). This is supported in Hetherington’s article as he describes “...that ideologues, whipped into a frenzy by polarized elites, increased their participation levels by so much that it offset demobilization among moderates”(2010). Those that share the extreme views of one party can easily identify with which candidate to vote for purely
based on their party, but the moderate or median voter cannot. While the competition intensifies between candidates with extreme ideologies, the median voter begins to feel that the views represented by both political party candidates are too extreme or that due to their personal mixed views it does not matter who wins (Hirano, 2010). Along with the decrease in the voter turnout of those with less extreme views, growing polarization of Congress and of political parties there is also a growing contempt that many Democrats and Republicans feel for the opposing party. As the polarization of Congress continues to increase, there is also an increase in the sentiment that the opposite party presents a direct threat to their lifestyle. As the divide between where Congress members stand in policies widens, the idea that the Republican party pushes for policies that only favor the rich and Democrats push for policies that help the poor is increasing the view of us versus them (McCarty,Pool,&Rosenthal, 2006). Disliking the other party is nothing new in our political system, but with the increasing polarization people feel that if the opposing party is in control, they are in trouble (PRC, 2003). Polarization could be interpreted as a political stunt in order to get more of their party affiliates to go out and vote, but it also ends up affecting the productivity of Congress. As members are conscious that every vote they make in Congress will be accounted for, they are thinking about re-election, and they know that in order to keep the loyalty of their party they must vote according to their party’s ideology (Nolan&McCarty, 2013). Instead of being focused on their own beliefs and issues of what a bill may bring about, they vote according to their affiliation with a party(Nolan&McCarty,2013). They are not thinking about what policies are needed for the people anymore, instead they are too preoccupied with being re-elected. The increase of a polarized Congress has caused elections to turn into a competition between the extreme Republicans and extreme Democrats. This competition does work in reaching out to the voters who affiliate with one of those parties, but at the cost of losing the attention of the moderate voters. This is a problem because the majority of the people in the United States are moderates of the respective parties, or hold mixed views, but become unmotivated to go out and vote. There is already a problem in our country in voter turnout (Davidson, 2013) and the polarized congressional races are adding to this problem. There is nothing wrong with the competition between the parties, but being too competitive has led to members not voting one way due to their party affiliations, or thinking about their re-election. This explains why it is that Congress members sometimes purposely cause gridlock, especially if it will make the opposing party look bad. All in all, It seems as though our founding fathers might have been right in fearing the creation of political parties.
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.
A political party is a group of people who seek to win elections and hold public office in order to shape government policy and programs. George Washington warned the nation against creating political parties in his famous “Farewell Address”. He feared political parties would divide the country and weaken support of the Constitution (Doc 4). The first major political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, were created during the term of President George Washington. Despite President Washington’s warning, the rise of the two political parties, in the years after his term was inevitable. The Federalists were in favor of a strong central government, while the anti-federalists opposed most their ideas. Over time, the gradual development of political parties resulted in the Democrat and Republican parties we have today. The Whiskey Rebellion and different views between the Federalists and Antifederalists were a couple of the main causes that led to the rise of political parties in the 1790’s.
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.
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
In the 1790s, soon after the ratification of the Constitution, political parties were nonexistent in the USA because President Washington feared they would drive the country apart. However, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, with their rivalling mental models, could not help but spark the division of the United States into the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties. These parties, the Democratic-Republican wanting a small, local government system and the Federalist wanting a strong, powerful government system, turned citizens against one another and eventually led to the inimical Democratic and Republican parties of today. Hence, the formation of the original political parties in the United States is very significant. Political
Whether political polarization is good or bad for the nation is still up for debate, but the general consensus is it exists due to a variety of reasons. From the construction of our Constitution, it is clear that the intent of our founding fathers was to create opposition in order to prevent tyranny from prevailing. Polarization is a result of the dividing of a nation into political parties. Though polarization has fluctuated throughout the years, it has caused a great deal of trouble in regards to passing legislation and has resulted in a gridlocked Congress. Even though some fear congressional polarization is destined to get worse, “it is mathematically impossible for congress to get much more polarized” than it is now.
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
With the increase of middle school drama among the nation's men and women in Congress, there must be something done in order to strengthen the country as a whole. Political parties are the main factor that contributes to the ineffectiveness of the U.S. Government. Political parties contribute to the lack of compromise that takes place in congress, they take the focus away from the main issues concerning the nation, and they divide the nation rather than unite the nation. Political parties must be banned in order to fix the nation and the issues that the country constantly
I agree with many of the points that Wilson brings up in his article, as stated previously. The gap between liberals and conservatives is getting wider and wider, leaving nowhere for those with moderate views to be in the mix. Polarization is detrimental to our two-party dominated republic, and it is difficult to determine what may fix our political system.
From their earliest formation, political parties have been a controversial aspect that have both strengthened and weakened the United States. It has a massive effect on voters, congress, and policymaking in the government. Party polarization is the prominent division that exists between parties, most noticeably Democrats and Republicans, because of the extreme differences of the ideological beliefs of the opposing parties. In the past, many individuals considered themselves “mixed” and did not associate themselves with just one side. According to www.pewresearch.org, “the share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades”. Every year less and less people consider
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.
As of 2017, it seems that our beloved nation is more divided than ever. Near-opposite political parties have turned our country against each other while developing more idealistic, extreme views on how to run this country. These opposing political parties dates back to our founding fathers, who created these political parties in benefit of our country. However, the parties only created division and competition, resulting in worse than good.
According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp, which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But, Hill and Tausanovitch note that while tracking Congressional polarization may be easy, public polarization is more difficult. So, accounting for the 'swing vote' becomes difficult because accounting for public polarization at all is a daunting task (1068). The claim that diversity in moderates has been decreasing (Hill and Tausanovitch 1073) disagrees with recent polls; many moderates disagree with the extremist views of the right and left, rather they often fall somewhere in the middle on many key issues (Ball). Moderates in the public do not follow polarization or sorting as some scholars explain; they do not belong any party, but vote depending on the issues and can often decide the winner of major
Democratic politicians earn reputations as liberals and Republicans earn reputations as conservatives. These stereotypes then provide useful cues regarding what Democrats and Rep...
blue” talking heads appears, as two people representing their respected party are put together to discuss a central issue. This continued televised discussion of right vs left slowly began polarizing the parties away from each other. Although the past held many heated and caustic fights between parties, the distaste towards another politician tended to derive from their character, not ideology. This is seen through the opinions of the two-party system held by the founding fathers, as they “associated [political parties] with division and strife. (Brooks 243)” Yet now, with the phasing out of the moderate, both sides of the political spectrum have evolved substantially more away from each other, lacking any form of common ground for bipartisanship. Along with the upwelling of ideological-leaning media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC, as well as contradictory biased coverage over one issue, the continual divide present between political parties considerably is considerably detrimental towards public