Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political polarization throughout the years
The role of American media in politics
What impact does the mass media have on citizens and the election process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political polarization throughout the years
American democracy was built on the foundation of compromises. For example, the Constitution would have never been ratified if the Bills of Rights was not part of the compromise. In a system that is built on making compromises, it is dangerous to have high levels of political polarization. The Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate are constantly at a gridlock and are on the path to becoming the most unproductive Congress since World War II. Despite the “growth” of self-proclaimed Independent, a quick look at their voting history would show that they are usually weak Democrats or weak Republicans. In American politics, party identification is still the single best indicator of how a person will vote. In recent years, both parties have become smaller and more ideologically homogeneous; Republicans are dominated by conservatives, while a growing number of Democrats call themselves liberals. Most Americans claim that they see important differences between the parties and many feel that they must stay loyal to their party especially during presidential elections.
There is no question that the 21st century is experiencing increasingly high levels of political polarization but how did American politics become so polarized? Have Americans’ values and beliefs changed and therefore, they are taking more extreme positions? No. Rather, the answer lays on the emergence of a more partisan news media that has contributed greatly to political polarization and has caused Americans to support more partisan policies and candidates. Partisan news media revolves around careful selection of news and it utilizes “shrinking Presidential sound bites” and news leaks to fuel the political polarization in American politics today.
...
... middle of paper ...
...of the “shrinking presidential sound bite”. Sound bites, catchy phrases and slogans, are taken from larger speeches for the purpose of conveying the speech’s overall message in much less time. This mode of communication contributes to the polarized political atmosphere because the nature of this technique inherently creates the attitude that if you can’t make a memorable statement in less than ten seconds, then your political aspirations are over. Because of the strict time limit, candidates are no longer able to present their arguments or stance; instead they develop sound bites that will appeal to the viewers. The use of sound bites enforces extremist positions; before sound bites, news from major outlets were generally moderate but now, there are channels like FOX news who are notorious for taking speeches out of context and putting a conservative spin on them.
A Not So 50:50 Nation Culture Wars? The Myth of a Polarized America: Book Review The book Culture Wars? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina, Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope is a persuasive text regarding America and its division on political topics. In chapter one, Fiorina begins with a powerful quote from Pat Buchanan’s 1992 speech at the Republican National Convention, “There is a religious war…a cultural war as critical to the…nation…as the cold war…for this war is for the soul of America” (Fiorina et al. 1).
Renowned author Charles Dickens once wrote, “it was the best of times and the worst of times” (Tale of Two Cities). An all to true statement when one looks at the current American political situation, but author and journalist Jonathan Rauch endeavors to analyze the current political climate and explain how it became what it is today. In his article ‘How American Politics went Insane’, Rauch dissects the 2016 election and events leading up to the final vote to understand how politics went sideways. Rauch begins by offering a hypothetical scenario that depicts an extreme disintegration of American politics and its political institutions and parties.
Campbell et al., use survey data. In terms of methods, the model uses longitudinal data from the years 1948, 1952, 1956, while analyzing numerous interviews with the voters themselves (which constitute the American National Election Study, otherwise known as ANES). Based on how respondents answer, the Michigan Model groups individuals based on party identification and partisan preferences. The Michigan Model puts an emphasis on party identification as a psychological attachment, in that it’s created through the socialization of one’s parents. For those with a sense of attachment the strength, and direction of their party identification are crucial in accounting for attitude and behavior (Campbell et al., 1960). “The political party serves as the group, or base, for which the individual develops either a positive or negative identification with some degree of intensity (Campbell et al., 1960, pg. 122)”. This study’s main concern focused not on which way one tends to vote, but rather the influence of party identification on the vote. Party identification leads to one’s partisan feelings and attitudes, not the other way around, and tends to cause individuals to focus, see, and listen to information that is favorable to their party identification (also known as selective perception). Overtime, the Michigan Model claims that although party identification can fluctuate, it remains stable over time, and that issues and policies only play a small role in the voters’ decision (Campbell et al., 1960). The American Voter emphasizes that for a policy decision to affect the vote, the voter must at least have some knowledge in the issue or perceive a difference in the candidates. This study, however, was met with heavy resistance over the next few years, and still today, scholars nit-pick at specific areas of the study by crafting their own
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.
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.
The Myth of a Polarized America, political scientist Morris P. Fiorina explored the truth behind the myth that America is so divided and polarized when it comes to political issues. Polarization is the disagreement of political attitudes towards ideological extremes. In the book there are many theories and reasons offered for this effect on political ideologies. Fiorina's gave a compelling theory called the, “sorting" theory of voter behavior. It explains simply the potential cause of believed variation among American voters: it states that voters dislike both parties equally. Moreover, since the extensive disappointment of the Nixon Watergate scandal, and other political catastrophes the American people do not trust either party with boundless political power. Consequently, in elections most voters face only two rather unpopular choices, their votes ultimately are forced to go to either political party since neither one truly matches their values.
On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all "non-essential" services due to what was, for all intents and purposes, a game of national "chicken" between the House Speaker and the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seem to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible given the current adversarial relationship between our two main political parties?
Prominent among the many controversial issues and themes that significantly appeal to the United States political culture is the concept of polarization. With careful scrutiny into the US political history, one may come to determine that this notion of political polarization does not have its inceptions from todays mainstream media, but this traces back to the very sentiments of our founding fathers and their careful deliberations in constructing a harmonious stable government. This goes back to Madison’s admonitions regarding the inevitability of partisanship, articulated in his famous federalist papers. Political polarization can refer to circumstances in which an individuals stance of a given issue or policy is more likely to be strictly
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
Party polarization is commonly viewed as a dividing factor in the United States government and is the root cause of many Congressional issues, such as the inability to pass legislation quickly. This social phenomenon arises
Another rival hypothesis is that party identification is constructed solely by ideological affinity. Voters do tend to side with a political party that shares their same views and interests. However, in reality, there aren’t many voters who are actually willing to research the public policies candidates pursue. It takes too much time and effort to investigate such matters. Not many people will readily dig through information about a party’s platform, especially if it is lengthy or hard to understand. Consequently, this lack of inaction is one reason for the lack of political knowledge in Americans
“Political polarization”, the seemingly growing gap between liberals (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans), has become something many people use to define American politics today. Political Polarization is significant because it shows why the parties the American public knows today are so opposite of each other and why voters seem to have such a deep hatred for members of the opposing party. It has become such a defining factor that many people may wonder, how did political polarization even come about? Political polarization is caused by a mix of internal factors, including rule changes and teamsmanship, as well as external factors such as gerrymandering and the media.