While the causes are infinite, the consequences of polarization are just as far reaching. Robinson and Mullinix (2016) Studying the media content from polarized elites show that there is decreased trust in government, by moderates and median-voter when they are exposed to polarized, partisan messages. However, parties communicate their values and rely less on strategic communication to promote their message. There is also a consequence from the media messaging by elites of a growing distrust of members of the opposite party. Division occurs between the out-party (minority party in the positions of power) and in-party (party in a majority position) due to increasing distrust and divergent stances that promote opposing party positions as …show more content…
illegitimate and a dangerous (Abramowitz and Webster 2016). It is not the media, but the content communicated through media that is consequential for polarization and de-legitimization of the opposing partisan values that intensifies polarization and greater identification of party. While Key (1966) criticizes other for simplifying voters’ identification of parties, because voters also have other considerations for evaluating candidates such as fulfilling campaign promises. However, today's polarized party policy positions have created an in-group and out-group mentality among voters that deem candidates and positions of the other party as illegitimate for they live in two different worlds (Nicholson 2012; Abramowitz and Webster 2016), which again cures and turns voters toward the simpler heuristic of the party-policy link. Polarization also intensifies partisan differences when it comes time for elections since the opposing party “attacks” the policy positions as a means to increase voter and donor support (Abramowitz 2013; Merrill, Grofman and Brunell, 2014; La Raja and Schaffner 2015).
Yet, this is relevant to individuals in the mass public who tune into campaign rhetoric and messaging, for those who selectively “tune-out” do not receive these messages (Prior 2013; Levendusky and Malhortra 2016). Miller and Shanks (1996) growing identification of non-aligned party voters, helps to exacerbate ideological purists as party identifiers. Partisan conflict “turns off” voters in the center of the ideological spectrum since candidates are not near the center (Campbell 2001: …show more content…
28-29). Levendusky (2010) notes one positive to increasing polarization of parties is that there is greater identification of political parties and party cues for the mass public. The downside of greater partisan identification is that government processes are less efficient because of party competition. This competition and unwillingness to compromise on party positions lead to gridlock in Congress (Lee 2015). This does not allow for policy to be passed, therefore, policy becomes states and national issues that need solutions are not addressed due to polarized-partisan “warfare”. This only furthers distrust in government institutions and a belief that politicians are “out of touch” with the average American (Krehbiel 1998; Jones 2001). Conclusion: While the consequences of polarization diminish the capacity of government to act, the politically aware, partisans, and elites further the continuation of political polarization.
The less politically interested and non-partisan withdraw from political participation and electoral turnout, this too, furthers the continuation of polarization. The mass public is largely perceived as polarized, because of limited options for their vote in a two-party system for they only have polarized party alternatives to choose from and advocate for policies in government. Yet, as parties in government become more polarized, the median-voter and partisans are less represented in policy outcomes because government activity becomes gridlocked, promoting an even further entrenchment of polarization and need for unified-party government to “get things done.” The focus on electioneering becomes all the more important, which only perpetuates the continual movement of the partisan elite and electorate to the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. This produces discontent and distrust by non-partisan voters in the mass public who are more in tune with the preferences of the median voter. All the while, the party that is minority position in government institutions distrust government institutions in the hands of the non-preferred
party. The next step is to understand how well the mass publics hold to their presences or ideological leanings, for perhaps it is issue cues, party cues, and media cues that direct their thought process to a particular party, policy, or issue stance and not the deeply held conviction. This would follow along Converses (1964) finding that beliefs are fairly stable, yet is this stability constant or can there be times when there is a rapid change in beliefs such as when the South began its realignment and sorting to the Republican Party. Given the current polarized political climate, bringing back in attitudes regarding race and ethnic politics might help to identify core elements of partisan polarization.
For instance, Menand writes, “The fraction of the electorates that responds to substantive political argument is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation...random personal association.” Mass voters mostly pursue the wrong or irrelevant information that are irrelevant to the election; thus lead them to vote for the candidates which they do not really want. Their choices mostly lack rationalities. Many voters who are slightly informative think that they are participating in a certain issue and considering the value of the candidates; yet most of them do not have adequate information and knowledge in understanding the meaning of political terms. Voters lack judgment on their government and candidates, their minds are easily being brainwashed by a small amount of people who has informative approaches in participating governmental issue, and affect their
Furthermore, he introduces the idea that popular polarization is different from partisan polarization and that sorting has occurred within the parties. Meaning that “those who affiliate with a party… are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically ‘correct’ party than they were [before]” (Fiorina et al. 61). To illustrate the concept of polarization he uses a figure with marble filled urns. These urns depict red blue and gray marbles with r for republican d for democrat and i for independent. When polarization, all gray independent marbles disappear becoming either red or blue.
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.
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 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
Political Polarization is one of the most widely accepted causes of political gridlock, as the two sides continue to drift further and further apart. But why does the chasm keep growing? A few different theories call out the masses and the elites as being the principal actors in driving polarization. Fiorina says that the masses, or just average people, are not the ones that are polarizing. In fact she thinks that it is the elites who are driving polarization as they attempt to stay as far away
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.
Cleavages existing in society are divisions such as religion, gender, race, and most importantly socioeconomic status. Political parties form around these divisions in society and in America’s society; money has proven to be the major factor. The major parties in American politics are Democrat and Republican, and the political preference of each member of these parties’ deals greatly with the amount of income they receive.
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.
Since nearly the beginning of our nation, the idea of higher voter turnout to elections has been a pet cause of one politician or another; each assuming such an increase would be to their benefit. This idea cannot be claimed by any one party either, as it shifts with the very political tides that guide much of politics. Usually it is the party out of power that perceives the greatest potential benefit in increasing turnout, and thus, changing the structure of the electorate. This pattern, however, has seemed to break apart in the latest elections.
There are less people voting now than prior generations. Putnam states, “[T]he decline in voting turnout... is due to the replacement of an older generation that was relatively interested in public affairs by a younger generation that is relatively uninterested” (2000, p. 36). This is reflective of intercohort change as the younger generations’ disinterest in public affairs continues to worsen. Technology has also played a role in the decline of political participation. Parties have the tools for mass marketing, so there is no longer a need for door to door campaigning. Why campaign door to door when one can reach millions with a single robocall? Lastly, individual and group political participation has declined since the 1960s. Putnam notes that individual participation such as voting is declining at a much slower rate than group participation such as joining political organizations, many of which deserve the name “tertiary associations” (2000, p. 52). This tertiary organizational structure aims to strengthen numbers but leads to a lack of social capital for its members as there is no requirement to socialize with one
Rhetoric is often used by the media to sway or influence the opinion of the reader. This influence is not always deliberately used, but it is used nonetheless. This influence can affect a number of things, including politics. This influence on politics makes the rhetoric a useful yet possibly dangerous tool. The connotations in the words used by the media in regards to politics can greatly influence potential voters. This rhetoric influences the way that ordinary citizens see the candidates and the election system as a whole. Studying the way that the rhetoric influences these citizens may help future candidates use this language to their advantage. Also, citizens may be abIe to better equipped to determine whether or not they have formed their own opinions without bias from the media or outside sources. Knowing how the media influences citizens can help one to remain logical. Also,
One pattern that does appear to emerge is that of group polarization and the seeming predilection of U.S. voters for risk-seeking behavior manifest in the instrument of change. To be precise, it seems voters display a consistent tendency to pick the riskiest choice of the two candidates presented by major political parties and this choice may reflect an underlying risk-preference in the electorate.
Uninformed voters may turn to the media to learn more and to compose their political decisions. People can acquire different information from different news sources. For instance, research suggests that "people who get their political news from mostly cable television and the internet receive different information than those who get their political news mostly from network television" (Kollman, 2012: 495). This disparity of information from the news sources provides the voter multiple political viewpoints on issues. From this, voters are better able to understand how they feel about the problems that the government is facing and construct accurate, good political decisions. However, people need to be aware of media bias as a result of priming and framing. Priming occurs when the media affect the standards people use to evaluate political figures and severity of problems, and framing occurs when the media induce people to think about an issue from a certain standpoint (McDaniel, 2015: Lecture 19). When media sources take on a biased point of view, it is harder for voters to come to a decision on what they want to do because they can become confused on how they should feel on certain issues because of priming and framing. While studying media sources, voters should be cautious of
Polarization can have several meanings. In general, polarization is the division of political ideologies within a group of people. When talking about politics, polarization can be broken down into two different types of polarization. One is concerning the political elites and the politically engaged. Abramowitz (2010) would say that this is correct because he argues that polarization is the inability of the two parties (Republican and Democratic) to work together because they have opposing views on ideologies (p. 2).