Culture War By Morris Fiorina

The book “The Other America”, written by Michael Harrington, describes poverty in America in the 1950s and 1960s, when America became one of the most affluent and advanced nations in the world. The book was written in 1962, and Harrington states that there were about 50,000,000 (about 25% of the total population) poor in America at that time. The author did extensive research with respect to the family income levels to derive the poverty numbers, and used his own observations and experiences to write this book. This book addresses the reasons for poverty, the nature of poverty, the culture of poverty, the blindness of Middle Class America with respect to poverty, and the responsibility of all Americans in addressing the issue of poverty in America.

"Battleground America," written by Jill Lepore, provides a strong history of guns and the way they have changed in the eyes of the American through the years. She proves her point with strong evidence throughout her article, sprinkling it with opinion and argument that is strongly supported. She presents her argument to convince her audience that the open availability of guns allows citizens to undeservingly purchase them by displaying the credibility in her sources, using negative connotations in her speech, and the strength and objectivity only a strong logos appeal can provide.

Abortion, school prayer, gay rights, gun politics and many more are all a part of the list of controversies that divide our country. A culture war is a conflict between groups with different ideals, beliefs, and issues. James Davison Hunter’s book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, shows that these issues “are not isolated from one another but are part of a fabric of conflict which constitutes nothing short of a struggle over the meaning of America. Unlike the religious and cultural conflict that historically divided the nation, the contemporary culture war is fought along new and, in many ways, unfamiliar lines” (Hunter). Hunter argued that two definable polarities existed in the major issues of the war. The new shift in

Because culture conflicts sells, journalism in our country has taken to publicizing exaggerated culture differences. Extreme voices have come to dominate American political discourse which has only fed into the concept of a divided country, even making it look like one half of our country hates the other half. The culture divide is based on party differences between republicans and democrats. In reality the cultural differences between democrats and republicans are far less dramatic than I would have guessed. Party affiliation is based on factors like age, Youth are generally more likely to vote liberal and the older generation more likely to vote conservative. Religion, protestants usually vote republican and catholics usually vote democrat. Economic status, historically this has meant wealthy individuals vote republican.The fact that about 2/3rd of voters vote for the party of their parent seems to be the most definite determiner of party affiliation . (Hewson, Jacqueline) Real differences in political opinion is very subtle accross party lines. For example in many ways red and blue states have similar opinions. In blue states 36% of voters identify as democrat while in red states 26% are self proclaimed democrats. In blue states 32% of voters believe government is always wasteful and inefficient while in red states 44% hold this opinion. Solid majorities in both red and blue states support protecting the environment whatever it may

The United States has maintained its two party system for some time, but the major parties have not always been so clearly separated. In the early and mid-twentieth century, polarization was actually declining, as there was much ideological overlap between the members of the two parties (Kuo). Many people, such as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, rested in the ideological middle. Additionally, each party represented a coalition of diverse interests. At

You cant steal a culture was written by John McWorter. He is writing this paper to a general audience, or anyone interested about culture appropriation. Jon McWorter is an american studies teacher at Columbia University. McWorter connected with the topic because he sees the problem everyday. His arguments strongly written, and he is trying to explain that everyone thinks culture appropriations wrong, but its just a normal thing. His opinion is clearly stated that culture appropriation is fine. People are jus taking it the wrong way. It should be flattery not offending. McWorter states his thesis statement in the first sentence. He uses logos to explain his essay. He gives a lot of examples of where culture appropriation is used in the wrong way, or taken the wrong way. Like when he references Harlem and Miley Cyrus. The main one was when White gay men imitate black women. I thought the essay was very convincing, not just because I agree that culture appropriation isn 't a bad thing but,because of the great references.

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.

She tells a story of Roger Griswold, a federalist “attacking” Mathew Lyon, a Vermont representative with a “cane”. Page paints a picture of the Democratic-Republican never-ending battle of “chamber fire pit” and “fire tongs” as threatening objects and violence used amongst the opposing political party. Her vivid illustrations through charged and detailed diction creates a violent image. This creates a more in depth understanding of the issue. Page’s strong examples of of imagery conveys the audience of the abuse and destruction that is causing our country to become more and more divided. The contrasting opinions between one another should have nothing to do with the separation of our country. The public is “reflected in everything” from whom “they marry to where they get their news.” In reality we “spend time around those who think differently than we do”, however we seem to shun anyone who may think differently than ourselves. More than half of Republicans are reported to watch “Fox News at least a few times a week” while “Democrats are watching MSNBC [...].” Page uses these examples to show the audience that American citizens watch and pour their time into the things they agree with. This affects the audience by showing they have the tendency to gravitate towards things they agree with and not look at the

White privilege is the societal privileges that specifically benefit white people. White privilege is why white people can get pulled over by the police and escape a ticket with just a smile and apology. White privilege is also why whites are in charge of a company and they see a black person, they bypass the application. Whites carry a certain privilege not available to people of color. Marilyn Frye describes how whiteness is a form social and political power.

Amidst the past eight years of lackluster economic advancement, America’s prowess and respect declining worldwide, increasing government involvement in daily lives, and a President seemingly unwilling to take a solid stance on a the global threat of terrorism, the transfer of power between political parties in the White House is not so stunning. Due to the two-party system, this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. The American people are constantly seeking a political party to garner their attention and adapt to changing times, opinions, demographics, and attitudes (Cohen) and this results in the alternation of power between the two key political parties.

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

The polarization visible throughout the 2016- election was not, however, a new phenomenon. For years, Congressional representatives had been growing steadily more segregated along party lines. And for years, prominent political scientists had been identifying an ever-widening ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans. Recently, a study issued by the independent Pew Research Center exposed in clear terms the extent of political polarization in America, illustrating in hard data the schism that’s opened up between

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.

In “Monster Culture”, Jeffery Cohen develops an idea that “monsters” are essential to society. In fact, they construct what is “normal”, “rational”, and “civilized”. Specifically, “monsters” are foundational to how we view ourselves. “Monsters” contain all the traits deemed unacceptable and odd. It can be concluded that every outlier is a “monster”. In St. Lucy’s Home for Girls Raised by Wolves, Karen Russell tells the story of a pack of wolf girls who are transitioning into young ladies. Russell delves into society’s need for conformity, gender roles, and change. The story is told from the point of view of the middle wolf girl, Claudette, and follows her on her journey from wolf to woman. In relation to Jeffery Cohen’s idea of monster culture, Claudette’s journey applies to Thesis IV “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference” and part of Thesis I “The Monster’s Body is a Cultural Body”. Claudette is torn between two worlds and she has to learn how to successfully “move between the two cultures”. Through Cohen’s theses, Karen Russell uses character development and dialogue to depict the inner and outer battle of societal femininity and individualized femininity and the decision of accepting either side. The presence of “monsters” are essential for this acceptance.