Polarization Between American Politics And Politics

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

Polarization in Congress is growing uncontrollably. Congress will not agree on anything because officials are so far on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a number line that shows how liberal or conservative someone is (negative is

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.

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.

Over the past three decades, the distance between parties has continued to grow steadily. As their distances increase it has become harder for presidents to receive votes from both parties.

The polarization of the political parties is a reflection of a country, not simply a government divided, but the country’s populous in growing further apart. Alan Abramowitz indicates the polarization of the Democrats and Republicans causes them to be on opposing sides on almost all issues and Washington reflects the growing division within Americans (714). Thus the major problem with Polarization and gridlock is not the simply the inability to pass the legislation when gridlock occurs but what it does to the morale of American citizens. D.J. Flynn and Laurel Harbridge completed two surveys in order to study how partisan congress affects public opinion. A result from the study indicated most people will accept legislation in favor of the opposing party than they will gridlock (885) and while more research is needed the result of their survey is gridlock does cause a decrease in the populist confidence in Congress (Flynn, Harbridge 890). It is clear something needs to be done to improve the mindset of the American people. One of the best ways to improve the mindset of the American populace is for them to become more educated. When the country was first established, people were not privy to every action the congress was taking as it happened, and therefore the quibbles within congress were not in the forefront of people’s minds. Even Melnick illuminated the fact that the populist is now bombarded with opinions about what is happing in Washington. He indicated when the constitutional convention took place the meeting was behind closed doors miles from constituents allowing them

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

Outside party spending has a significant effect in 2010 on member’s ideological position in the 112th Congress (p = 0.03). When there is outside spending present in a district, there is a slight impact on a member polarization score, which decreases by 0.003 units. While the substantive effect of outside party spending is minimal, at best, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Outside party spending promotes moderation of ideological positions by members of Congress.

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

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,

"Over the past 30 to 40 years, growing partisan polarization...has been driven by generational replacement as new entrants evinced greater party-issue constraint than did

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).