Abramowitz's Argument Of Polarization In Washington

Over the past three decades, parties and partisan organizations have evolved to become key features of today’s House of Representatives; the two are now essential to congressional policy and the member’s careers. In the article “Presentation of Partisanship: Constituency Connections and Partisan Congressional Activity,” published in the Social Science Quarterly (2009), Scott R. Meinke investigates how House members explain and frame their participation in partisan activity to constituency representation. In simpler terms, Meinke examines the role of partisanship in strategic home-style choices. The author uses data from the 107th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, with a focus on the member’s public websites and how they present leadership activity to conclude that Congressional parties have an impact beyond electoral outcomes and the policy process. Meinke discovers that there exists a significant difference in the extent to which members of the House publicize their activity.

Or a remortgage of the past? Looking at the Power of Political Parties might present a contrasting view. This article could argue that the polarization in American politics is not solely due to weak political parties, but rather the opposite: parties that are too strong. Strong party control over candidate selection, fundraising, and policy agendas might limit ideological diversity within parties, leading to a narrowing of perspectives and increased polarization. Additionally, powerful parties may prioritize winning elections over compromise, exacerbating partisan divides.

Partisanship is defined in The American Voter “as both a set of beliefs and feelings that culminate in a sense of “psychological attachment” to a political party. It is one of the most important factors affecting the American political system. It explains, to some extent, vote choice, political engagement, partisan reasoning, and the influence of partisan elites. This definition generates two competing views of partisanship, the instrumental and expressive perspectives. This debate is what

In the book, Culture War?, by Morris Fiorina, the myth of a polarized America is exposed. Fiorina covers issues such as why Americans believe that America is polarized, that Red and Blue State people aren’t as different as they are made out to be, and that the United States is not polarized along traditional cleavage lines. This book even covers perspectives on abortion, homosexuality, and whether or not electoral cleavages have shifted. A large point of Fiorina’s is his take on the 2004 election. He ends the book with, how did our great nation get to this position of proclaimed polarization, and how do we improve from here?

Many Americans are aware of the polarization that exists within them and within the government. However, people do not realize the extent of the polarization and the effect that it has on government functions. Susan Page, author of “Divided We Now Stand” explains that many Americans are aware of the increasing polarization, when a political party influences the stance of a person, and that citizens believe that polarization influence politicians more than it influence them. However, Page argues that voters are to blame as well. She uses a survey to illustrate the choices that Americans make on a certain policy. The results of the survey show that Democrats and Republicans choose the stance of their political party, regardless of their own personal opinions on the actual policy (Page). Page’s point proves that politicians are not the only ones that contribute to the government’s dysfunction, and that voters might want to re-evaluate how they process their information and their choices if they wish to see a change.

This creates a paradox for the reader. In a book designed to remove the impression of polarity, why single out specific subjects in this polarizing way? The logical conclusion is that these topics do have a specific effect on refuting the polarization claim. In the opening chapters, Fiorina et al. illustrate the perceived polarization of partisans, the war in Iraq, and a myriad of other factors like gun control (p. 1-75). With partisanship they found the issue to be a problem of “confusing positions with choice” (2011, p. 25) and thus dismissing the polarization of Americans. Analyzing he war in Iraq yielded similar results (p. 51-55). The authors found that when asked to judge broad statements, like Bush’s handling of Iraq, respondents answered in the partisan way, with more republicans supporting and democrats disapproving (p. 54). However, when the same people were asked to rate Bush’s handling of Iraq in terms of individual acts, the polarization faded (p. 52-53). While there were still dissidents and supporters, the divide was not along partisan lines but rather individual lines, evidenced by the near equal support of republicans and democrats for the use of military force overseas. All of this supports the argument that Fiorina et al. make throughout but provides no insight into why some topics are grouped

While Fiorina’s claims that Americans polarization is a complete myth, counter to Fiorina’s belief, Abramowitz with his book The Disappearing Center argues that Americans are in fact polarized. Abramowitz brings much evidence to refute Fiorina, but does it really counter Fiorina’s argument, or merely talk past him while adding some studies and fancy statistical data? The first argument that Abramowitz uses to refute Fiorina is the Engaged Citizen Argument that can be found on page 4. Abramowitz argues that citizens who care about government and politics, pay attention to what political leaders are saying and doing, and participate actively in the political process. Specifically, on page 4 and 5 Abramowitz describes how partisan-ideological

Political partisanship is the support of one political group or another, usually on the basis of one’s personal political culture, ideologies, and concerns. There are two major groups, the Republican party and the Democratic party, that dominate American and state politics; however, in Texas, the Republican party is the major political group with influence in state politics. In spite of the historically persevering one-party state status of Texas, gradual shifts demographics and human settlement throughout the state over time are diversifying the political ideologies present in Texas politics. By analyzing the rural, urban, and suburban influences on Texas partisanship, one can see that the increase in partisan polarization between these areas

As society rapidly changes with an influx of new ideas and issues, studying the college educated and those who are not will help evaluate behaviors and attitudes towards the government, ultimately, clearing the way to adaption into a modern society that perhaps offer remedies of educational and voting discrepancies or even close the gaps between political ideology or identification. Hence, this paper proposes the research question: How does education level influence political party identification.

The Core lecture was titled “Me, Myself, and I, D or R: Politics through Red and Blue Colored Glass” and lectured by Alex Theodoridis, who is a doctor of political science. The main argument of the lecture was that polarization will continue to increase between the parties until they are no longer able to close the gap of polarization. The main 3 groups of the lecture focus on were psychology, aggregate, and 2016 election. Psychology is basically how all individuals group themselves with it each of the parties. The way many identify themselves in each parties are our attachment to the parties, influence from parents, and new perspective change. Under these condition we identify ourselves to the parties. This explains that much of identification are influence by many factors and much polarization does come to play. From the article “Polarization in the Age of Obama” explains that polarization can affect us in deciding whether or

The gaps have grown larger between Republicans and Democrats based on fundamental political beliefs. America’s two political parties have become so divided that it has come to be known as polarization. Divided government has been extremely common after World War II. Political polarization has increased intensely since the New Deal in the 1930s. The New Deal coalition emerged during the 1932 presidential election and had launched a partisan realignment in American politics, allowing the Democrats to become the majority party in US Politics.

According to the Gulati “prominent theories of American political parties imply that higher levels of competition cause lawmakers to be more responsive to the center of public opinion. However, there are multiple problems of the moderation theory. First, the data from the article suggests that the opposite occurs. Moreover, the studies conducted in the article suggest that highly competitive districts influence candidates to appeal more to their partisan base rather than the center, and this is even more apparent in marginal states that lack political clout. Gulati states that “parties and candidates pursue a mobilization rather than the moderation strategy”. Competitive districts foster diverse constituencies and the politician takes a more

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Polarization is defined as the “division into two opposites”. (Merriam-Webster) Political Polarization refers to the perceived division of ideologies espoused between the two major political parties in the United States. The topic of political polarization is one frequently referenced in the media and in political discussions. Does political polarization actually exist or is it a myth? In this paper, this question will be analyzed and examined and a conclusion will be reached.

At a basic level, since the 1970s, Republican and Democrat voters have taken a progressively adverse view of the other party’s members. To further measure polarization, the author defines three types of polarization: partisan polarization, opinion radicalization, and issue alignment. Partisan polarization is the sorting of people into the two major parties in the US, which now has all liberals and all conservatives in separate parties. This is unlike the southern Democrats and liberal Republicans in the past. Opinion radicalization is the process in which people gravitate away from the political center to more extreme positions. The author states that this effect

There are many theories as to how or why political polarization was formed, and the impact it has on government in modern day. Polarization has varied significantly over the years ever since the 1970’s. However, what is the true cause and can it be explained? This paper will discuss some theories on how political polarization came about, and analyzes some accounts of polarization overall. Defining political polarization is vital into developing an understanding of how or why it was initially formed.