Causes Of Political Polarization

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

Increased shifts to the political extremes causes voters to vote in lockstep with party leaders. Polarized voters are less informed on energy, healthcare, education, and other key issues4. Polarized voters also ignore fundamental arguments in favor of partisanship. When told that their party endorsed a certain stance, the polarized voters became more supportive, regardless of facts. Because the election process requires

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?

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.

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

While there is agreement the two-party majority system provides a government with differing ideologies which often causes gridlock during decision making process, not everyone sees a problem with the polarization of the ideologies and the gridlock it causes. In the article by R. S. Melnick, titled “The Conventional Misdiagnosis: Why “Gridlock” is Not Our Central Problem and Constitutional Revision is not the Solution,” he compiles an argument refuting polarization and gridlock to be a problem under the current constitutional

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.

In making the polarization bigger and beyond the legislative politics; the beginning of a highly ideological

In this paper I argue that the US electorate is not polarized or deeply divided, instead, the electorate is forced to choose between two extremes making it appear as if they are divided when in reality they have many similar views on many issues. I base my argument on Table 1 and 2 in Alan Abramowitz’s essay that shows how the US electorate have to choose between two parties although they may not feel as strong about the topic like the candidate. Tables 5 and 7 in Morris Fiorina’s essay convince me that the US electorate is not polarized, in fact there are many idealogical similarities, however, parties push agenda’s that are highly divided and polarized therefore people have to choose between the two, that is closest to their views, either religious or cultural, although they may not completely agree with them.

In making the polarization bigger and beyond the legislative politics; the beginning of a high ideological

When viewed comparatively, the partisanship problem is just as present, if not even more distinct in countries ruled by parliamentary system. It can thus be evaluated that more partisanship is what is actually needed to save the fate of the American government.

Overall, polarization has become one of the defining characteristics of American politics in the 21st century. While much attention is paid to the bipolar makeup of Congress, the congressional divide is a reflection of the ideological, and now political, divide amongst the American public. What is the explanation for this widening gap between the two political parties? Essentially, there is not a sole cause leading to a polarized public, rather a myriad of actors on all levels, and in various ways, that have aided in fostering and maintaining a polarized environment in the United States. Thus, in order to get along with this study in a timely manner, I will only address the three trends explaining polarization that are most significant to the conclusion I aim to

Modern day political scientists have noted that America’s current Congress, the 114th is the most polarized ideologically in history meaning the Democrat make up is more liberal and the Republican make up is more conservative than ever before. This ultimately leave very little room in between for agreement thus essentially slowly fading away the congressional center where moderate outlook exists to tie the two sides of the aisle together. It is commonly acknowledged that the system has become extensively polarized and is often referred to as broken as a result. Given this fact, it is imperative to examine just how America’s political system has so rapidly evolved and what those who came before us had to say about the concept of a two party

Political scientists Wilson and Fiorina both tackle the concepts of party polarization and culture war through the lens of the 2004 U.S presidential election. In 2016, their musings are, for the most part, still highly applicable. Neither denies the existence of either a culture war or political polarization. Rather, their theses differ in the extent to which they apply these terms to the general electorate rather than to the political elites. Wilson argues that both elites and voters are polarized, a phenomenon driven by the media, homogenization of political parties, and interest groups.1 However, Fiorina maintains that the polarization in the voting patterns of the electorate is merely a reflection of elite partisan stances rather than the polarization of the voters themselves.2 In examining their arguments, it is evident that Fiorina had the more tenable thesis in regard to the polarization of the electorate in 2004. Yet this does not preclude the existence of a culture war that has led polarization in 2016. Today, Wilson’s theories are more applicable to the political and cultural context. Looking towards the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic party in particular should focus on cultivating moderate stances that can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans with the aim of gaining seats in the Senate and House of Representatives.

These books point out that there is an ongoing debate among political scientist, in regards to whether the voters, elites (not the elected officials), or government elites are more polarized. Unquestionably, it is clear from the evidence in these four books that the parties are more polarized. Which is unfortunate because polarization is bad for getting things done because there is no compromise, no moderation, which consequently leads to nothing getting done.