Examples Of Political Polarization

Polarization in the United States today exists on two levels: polarization in the electorate and polarization in the elite. While separate, these two groups are perpetually intertwined. Polarization in the electorate refers to the movement of voters toward ideological extremes, and the ideological gap between voters on either side has been increasing in recent decades (Kuo). A study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2014 confirms the proliferation of polarization in the electorate: it found that since 1994, voters agree more intensely with their party’s policies and view the policies of the opposing party as a “threat to the nation’s well being” (“Political Polarization”). One factor that has led to this increase is the utilization of new technologies by the media, which allow voters to access more information than ever before. This broad scope of available information allows the public to be selective in what they consume (Kuo). As a result, many people participate in confirmation bias, meaning they seek out sources that share their beliefs; this strengthens their preexisting opinions and their level of partisanship. Another factor that increases political polarization in the electorate is geography. Republican voters tend to live in suburbs or rural areas, while Democrat voters are more likely to live in urban areas (Kuo). These geographic boundaries impact polarization because

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.

Political polarization becomes apparent. Support among republicans drops 14% since 2014, while democratic opinion drops only 1%. The conservative wing of the Republican party sees the highest opposition at 57% (Henderson 9)

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.

However, there is a competing explanation of the Party Polarization phenomena. These political scientists believe that the reason there is Party Polarization in our culture is not because of the way the districts are drawn, but is due to the way people organize themselves. Individuals are “segregating themselves by choosing to live in liberal or conservative geographical areas” without very much influence (372). This behavior is called self-

Abramowitz’s argument that the American electorate have become more polarized and that the moderate center is disappearing is more of a quantitative argument than a qualitative one. Based on election studies and exit polls, Abramowitz’ observations include the correlation between engagement, party identification, religious and social groups, ideological realignment, and education on the idealization and polarization of the public. Contrary to Fiorina, “there is no disconnect between the political elite and the American people. Polarization in Washington reflects polarization within the public, especially within the politically engaged segment of the public” (Abramowitz 2010, x). According to the ANES (American National Election Studies), the

Political Polarization in America Today it is common to hear politicians and journalists refer to “today’s polarized America” and lament the effects of polarization on American political discourse. But what exactly is this polarization and is it really so destructive?

First, we can analyze the costs that Abramowitz associates that are bought about polarization being present among the political elites. The first cost is fairly obvious, with increased polarization, there are fewer moderates representing each party in the House. The term “Liberal Republican” or “Conservative Democrat” has all but seemingly disappeared over the past several decades. This is in part due to as previously mentioned, better party sorting amongst the electorate. Another cost that Abramowitz sheds some light on is the increased instances of divided party control of the government. As Abramowitz explains on page 161, due to the fact that the president is elected separately from Congress, there is always the possibility that one or both chambers of Congress that are a different party than the presidents. This leads too many issues, as one can imagine, legislation nearly coming to a complete halt, as each party has a different agenda that they would like to enact. This level of partisan gridlock or divided party control I think is perfectly illustrated as it relates to Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As the Washington Post reported, as of March 2014,

One of the greatest challenges to the development and implementation of public policy has been the inability of Congress and the president to overcome partisan polarization. This is evident in the many partisan clashes over policy between Republicans and Democrats in Congress and between Congress and the White House. Partisan polarization has become increasingly evident

Polarization in politics is a conflict that both Is Polarization a Myth written by Alan I. Abramowitz as well as Kyle L. Saunders and Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America written by Morris P. Fiorina talk about. On a political scale it has either a republican side or a democrat side and in the articles they discuss whether or not people are in the middle of the scale, or on one side or the other. Alan and Kyle are trying to prove that people are beginning to choose one side or another and stated in Is Polarization a Myth, “Our evidence indicated that since 1970s, ideological polarization has increased dramatically among the mass public in the United States as well as among political elites”( Abramowitz and Saunders 542). Florina stated in chapter two that each election the votes came in 50:50. After reading the articles I came to a conclusion that I agree with Fiorina’s opinion on polarization.

James Campbell’s book is a political masterpiece that outlines how American voters are divided across the United States. Campbell provides a totally new perspective on the polarization with a historically context on how and why voters are politically divided. Campbell’s argument may seem indirect, but he provides circumstantial evidence and empirical evidence to support his claim of polarization. Polarized is significant to understanding American polarization, and surprisingly other books fail in comparison due to their lack of empirical evidence. Campbell’s book was written in 2016 which provides updated information that can help explain the cause of 2018 election polarization among voters.

Congressional polarization can easily be tracked unlike the polarization trends in the public which causes the moderates to become ignored. According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But,

Perhaps, partisan elections alone are the root for polarization in the U.S today. Nevertheless, if we take the great state of Nebraska and its unicameral elections does polarization still occur. Nebraska voters have had nonpartisan state elections ever since 1937 however, is it the solution to the end of polarization? Nonetheless, with the ban on partisanship, polarization managed to find its way. Legislators’ voting history reports and media outlets made it clear, and easy to determine which partisan party they were in favor of (McCarty & Shor 2015). This was good for elite polarization, but due to low coverage for the public it played a lesser role in mass polarization (p. 70).