Bipartisanship In America

For many years since 1879 citizens of the United States wait in line to vote for the next great president who will help the country stand tall for another four years. But the mistake doesn’t lie in who you vote for, but what you are voting for and supporting. We sometimes ask ourselves, “what does each party do?” or “what are their beliefs for our country?”

There are two main political parties that dominate politics in the in the United States: The Democratic and Republic Parties. It turns out that these two political parties are opposed to each other on a wide range of issues that affect American public life. Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of these differences between the two parties and tend to vote their officials into office in an uneducated manner. This often results in the political gridlock that often characterize government business in Washington. The Republican and Democratic Party don 't have much in common but they do have a a lot of things that they oppose from each other. Some issues that both parties have in common support the death penalty. But on issues like abortion Democrats think that should be made legal while Republicans think that it should be illegal. In this essay, I shall examine the ideological positions of either party on a number of these issues in order to define my own allegiance towards either of them.

The English Civil War in the 1600’s was fought between two parties in the government, the Tories and the Whigs, that either supported the king or disapproved of him. This violent show of political partisanship may have warned the Founding Fathers that political parties had the power to divide governments and lead to tyranny. Aside from the possibility of leading to a violent power struggle, political parties have the potential to draw away politicians’ loyalty from the American population as a whole to the benefit of their political group. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he never wanted to adhere to a group when he was capable of thinking on his own. He called submitting a whole opinion to a party, “the last degradation for a free and moral agent.” (Hatzenbuehler 32) Arduous bipartisanship also leads to a stalemate in Congress. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, in Congress seventy-five percent of salient issues in 2014 were in gridlock. (Binder 2016) Attitudes become increasingly sharp in politics as the political sides compete, each trying to prove the other a radical. If there were no political parties every member would most likely treat their fellow members with civility in the hopes that they would choose to support mutual

Today, there exists the rift in the American political system marked by the ongoing clash between our political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. These parties’ dissenting ideas seem to create non-stop conflict as each party relentlessly competes for the support and votes of the American people. However, over two hundred years ago in the early days of our country’s government, political parties did not even exist. Early leaders, such as the revered George Washington, feared that political parties would split our country into warring factions that would not only subvert our delicate notion of patriotism, but also weaken public support for the new Constitution. Nonetheless, despite opposition by Washington and others, political parties began to form, and over the years have developed into the familiar political system we have today. The chief factors that led to the rise of political parties were the disagreements between influential politicians over the structure of the government, the proper interpretation of the Constitution, and foreign policy regarding European nations.

Thomas Mann of Brookings Institutions writes that, “in addition to the decline in competition, American politics today is characterized by a growing ideological polarization between the two major parties”. In addition to his opinion, political data has shown that political polarization is increasing and is more readily seen in the way the American government functions in the political sphere. In an article by the University of Rochester’s Campus Times they wrote “In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties wrote a report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report said that party leadership in Congress was far too lenient when it came to dissent within the party ranks, allowing members’ difference in positions to not be as important as they should. They said that in order for there to be a healthier democracy in the US, the country needed cohesive, top-down parties with clear agendas that can be carried out when in the majority. It also needed a cohesive minority party to criticize the majority party and act as an alternative.” While both the Campus Times and Thomas Mann suggest that polarization is somewhat necessary and is increasing, whether or not the necessity or increase is beneficial to American politics and government is debatable. In this paper, I argue that while polarization can be both unbeneficial and beneficial, for the most part is has proven to be unbeneficial for American politics and government.

America has always had a distinct political system, at times it could be calm and peaceful, but in others it can be the complete opposite; such as the events that occurred in this past election. Similar to controversial events, in politics there is always going to be an opposing viewpoint; therefore there is always going to be an opposing group of people. For that reason, that is how the party system began between the Democrats and the opposing party known as the Whigs. Both parties had opposing views and ideas, but some were stronger than others. Both parties had their flaws and advantages which helped them hold the the upper hand in certain time periods. In this essay I will name and explain the points each party supported, the reasons why both parties opposed each other's points, and the reasons why the Democratic party had the upper hand from the year 1828 to 1852.

POLARIZATION OVERVIEW: Polarization occurs when members of both political parties consistently vote along ideological lines. Ideological differences in Congress today are quite staggering. Congressmen have increasingly been moving away from moderate stances and adhering more to party ideologies. The issue with polarization arises when there are two incredibly differing ideologies where both sides feel so strongly about their view that compromise is unfeasible. Some Congressmen able to adhere to a coherent personal ideological beliefs, but there is a growing number of Congressmen that vote based on the party issue positions or on how their

For many of us who would like the be called political moderates, these are troubling times. Despite the repeated calls for bipartisanship and civility, the reality is that the two parties in Congress are very far apart from each other. Not only is this the case, but it is even getting worse. Far to common are the party wars and voting along party lines even when it is their represented constituents who suffer. The days of bipartisan problem-solving seam to be nothing more than a campaign slogan tossed out by hopeful candidates and a phrase that has lost almost all meaning to a numb American public. Just how did things get to be this way? And what about the supposedly moderate public: how and why do they stand for this? To understand these questions, a good place to start is Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, by Morris P. Fiorina, a professor of Political Science at Stanford University.

In Chapter 8 of his book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, Gelman discusses the polarization of America’s political parties. It is often stated that America is becoming more polarized, but the only evidence thus far is that politicians are the ones who are actually further apart. People complain that polarization is breaking the country apart and impeding government action. On the other hand, polarization does have certain benefits in that it makes it easier for uniformed voters to easily select candidates. The author develops ways to measure political divisions and arguments to determine if division in America is a real phenomenon. Gelman does this because he wants to determine if it is the voters, the politicians, or both who are polarized in contemporary society and if it is actually increasing.

In a democracy citizens are to hold elected officials accountable for their actions in order to ensure delegates are doing what is expected of them. American citizens seem to be living well off enough that they are callous when considering the large problems that other citizens face. A lack in sympathy between citizens conjoined with contradicting social and religious views has created a retrenchment of followership in America. In order for political leaders to gather a large following, their followers must unite over some type of idea imperative in their lives. Unfortunately, Americans report a growing rancor between Democrats and Republicans according to the pew research center, with more than twice as many party members reporting members of the opposite party as unfavorable in 2014 than in 1994. The bipartisan divide has led political leaders to only be able to amass small followings amongst members of their

At times, rising polarization gives the impression that the American nation has disintegrated, but many political scientists argue that although our nation has its flaws, polarization is not the problem. Political scientist, Alan I. Abramowitz, is especially adamant about the manners in which polarization profits American democracy. He admits that polarization can lead to immature mudslinging, but presents this as a small downside to the important and essential benefits it provides. In his opinion, polarization can be a solution to legislative gridlock in congress. Polarization between different parties leads to “party discipline” within a party because it moves the moderates in a party further left or further right. Abramowitz claims that this can overcome procedures, such as the filibuster, that actually inhibit the law-making processes. Additionally he believes that polarization manifests party lines, making it less complicated for American citizens to associate with a specific side, which as a consequence, encourages them to vote and discuss their political views with others. Shaun Theriault adopts a similar view. He decries the name-calling and

In this paper I will discuss the matter of the two-party system and the issue of polarization of thought in America. With the system under which we live, political and moral thought is limited by political identity in that individual’s ideas must conform entirely to their thought of their political party otherwise they would be discredited. Non-conformist thought is seen as immoral because to lean too far onto the side of the opposing political party is extremely frowned upon as the other side is seen as immoral. Additionally, each political party is polarized in that the ideals of the party that are presente a the governmental level are extreme, whereas the political ideas of individuals may not be. Because of this, we are only shown the polarized

For many Americans today, a feeling of dismay and despair is present whenever a conservation turns towards the political races happening this year. To the average American, this election has become a mockery of the electoral system. Philosophy is being replaced with stupidity and knee-jerk reactions, and it seems as though the political parties’ cater to the lowest denomination of intelligence. When one hears Democrats versus Republicans, demagoguery and division are usually among the first things that come to mind. This Center for Constructive Alternatives series explained the history behind the two parties, how situations like today came into fruition, and clearly alluded to an idea that the parties of old are crumbling.

It would be a falsity to claim that the United States was ruled primarily through the independent minds of its people. Rather, we can see the absolute appropriation of authority split between two parties; those ruled by the tiresome elephants or those who follow the jackasses. This system of division has been heavily disfavored by our Founding Fathers, especially by John Adams who had stated in his letter to Jonathan Jackson that, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties…” (Adams, John). The evidence for this issue in todays culture is everywhere; from legislative wars between the executive and legislative branches, strong discourse among the people, and of course those campaigning against one another based on how they interpret marriage. This undeniable rise of partisan antipathy can be seen in Carroll Doherty’s article 7 things to know about polarization in America where recent PEW studies showcase that strong resentment within the Democratic and Republican parties towards each other has just about doubled within the last two decades alone (Doherty, Carroll). A situation that has caused much strife as it slows down the march of progress and implementation of proper legislation due to the lack of compromise this particular way of thinking promotes. Uprooting this tired system will require a solid understanding of its early development, an examination of its advantages and disadvantages in modern politics, and the

Many Americans know of the dominant Democratic and Republican parties when talking about politics. Few may know of the many diverse parties that have and still do grace American soil. The diversity of political parties may seem confusing to some, but when examined closely, is a prime example of what America stands for, the right to choose. Some may argue that the American political system does not exemplify the Constitutional right to choose despite its many choices in political practices. However, others may argue that the diversity in political choice and practice-despite not used it its full extent- is what America stands for. The diversity in political parties that the United States has allows those who believe they’re not represented,