Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Polarization in US politics
The evolution of the american political system
Polarization in US politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is much debate in the United States regarding whether there is polarization between our two dominant 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. 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. In 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 into a driving force of polarization, the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper, I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis that contribute to polarization in the United States and consider what factors Fiorina may agree with. James Wilson’s article, “How Divided are We?”, attempts to convince the reader that there is polarization (a culture war) in the United States. Wilson does not define polarization by partisan disagreements solely, rather as “an intense commitment to a candidate, a culture, or an ideology that sets people in one group definitively apart from people in another, rival group” (Canon 205). This polarization stretches to the extent that one group’s set of beliefs is totally correct, and the rival is wholly wrong (Canon 206). Wilson provides three chief factors for the growth of polarization. With Fiorina’s strong stance that polarization is not very extensive, I do not think that he would agree with Wilson’s argument of polarization. The two arguments directly conflict with one another. However, Fiorina may agree with Judis’ article. He may agree that many of the Tea Party members are very disconnected from the moderate view of the general public. In conclusion, I believe that polarization exists in the United States. 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.
...has a good chance of being probably true. Fiorina has argued that while people are closely divided they are not deeply so, and that the current divide is do to errors in information collection, media over exaggeration, and a polarized political class. There is no single issue right now for Americans to polarize around and our apparent polarization is because our vote is affected by church attendance and our lack of choices beyond standard red and blue. Fiorina believes that this state of affairs has allowed our political class to gain previously not enjoyed levels of control in the government and that the moderate majority needs to involve itself again to take back our democratic rights to govern ourselves.
Fiorina would claim that this is confusing positions with choices in that individuals are voting for candidates that are closest to them on an ideological spectrum (2005). Therefore, when an individual votes, they are not necessarily voting for a perfect representation of their views rather they are voting for the candidate that is most like them. This is a great rationalization as to how moderates would vote, however again the most partisan individuals are also the most engaged (Abromowitz and Saunders, 2008). 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
Partisanship is a natural phenomenon for Human beings; we seek out, long for, and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through these people, we polish our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our viewpoint. Factions give breadth, depth, and volume to our individual voice. James Madison, the author of the Federalist #10 underlined the causes of factions, the dangers factions can pose, and solutions to the problem.
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 from the other side as possible and also as they get more involved in politics they are driven further to one side by their fellow elites and the party leaders. By better understanding this aspect of gridlock, we could also be able to see how much influence the leaders of the parties outside of Congress have on everything that goes on in D.C., and see how much of an influence the majority and minority leaders have on legislation.
But, it also speaks to the wider systematic polarization within the American political system. Political polarization in the United States is a result of cultural and geographical polarization. South V. North, Republican V. Democrat and is firmly rooted in regional history. The cowboy persona which some of these Presidents and politicians choose to adopt, is inherently linked to the physical geographical place from which they hail and the role that place has played in the unfolding of American history. It shapes the character of, (as of yet at least) “the man”, his administration and ultimately the policy of the country for at least four years. The image and persona adopted by these men is nurtured by the regional culture and history of the place that they reside and represent. It can be seen in every president from Kennedy to Reagan and Bush to Obama.
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.
We must guard against partisanship and promote comprise in our government by changing its structure; one of the ways this can be done is by preventing factions that influence the judgment of our representatives from forming. This is a very important issue to solve because the power that factions have on our politicians personally and politically makes them less likely to vote on important legislation. The two ways to do this are as follows: (1) remove its causes to keep them from forming and (2) Control its effects (Kernell, 2013, p. 77). In order to prevent future factions, such as the tea party movement, from forming, politicians from the party which it originated have to start working on developing their own position that will help curtail factions from forming and hurting its own pa...
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.
Fiorina gives three reasons for this myth being spread: “misinterpretation of election results, lack of comprehensive examination of public opinion data, and systematic and self-serving misrepresentation by issue activists and selective coverage by an uncritical media” (Fiorina 8). I really liked how he ended chapter one by outlining his argument so that in chapter two, it will continue to cover what he has gone over in chapter one and focus on certain points. Throughout chapter two, Fiorina discusses the question: if his hypothesis is correct, then why does everyone else think differently? Fiorina recognizes four factors that can shed
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
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
Certainly, there is less coordination between political parties as well as between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. This political trend in Congress and many bills are still passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. In addition, political polarization “can refer to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes” (“Polarization (politics)).” It means that polarization is the similar meaning of divergence on a broad range of issues or set of beliefs. This may occur at the same time or independently of each other on the same issues within the party-in-government, party-as-organization, media, or public. Therefore, as long as judicial system is not affected by the implications of political polarization, the U.S. policy may not be big differences if Congress were less
One negative consequence (that is, bad for American politics and policy) of polarization in Congress is Congressional gridlock. The legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government are dependent on one another – if the President wants to get something done, they must send it through Congress (with the rare exception of giving an executive order). In Jacobson’s research, he states that he, “expect[ed] a decline [of] support for the president among opposition party members of [C]ongress to be associated with a decline in the overlap between the electoral constituencies of the president and the opposition party members” (Jacobson 2002, 6). In other words, Jacobson hypothesized that as Congress becomes more polarized, House members and Senators will be less sympathetic towards the president because they won’t have the same, or even similar, views on issues. His research supported this hypothesis. (Jacobson 2002).
Everyone in America can identify as being a part of one of two groups. These two groups are at the core of our nation and have an effect on all of our lives. On November 6, 2012 voters from these two groups to went to the poles and made their decisions. After all the votes were counted one thing became very clear, our nation was divided. Barak Obama won reelections by only a slim margin on an almost perfect 50/50 split. The split in our nation’s political views has been caused by the polarization of the political views of liberals and conservatives.