Polarization In America

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

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.

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

Party Polarization is a defining feature of contemporary at both the elite and activist levels. Party polarization is defined as “the division between the two major parties on most political issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover” (371). One explanation for party polarization is how the congressional districts are being sorted and how those districts play a role in the congressional elections. The congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party, republican or democrat, over another; in other words, they are “safe districts”. This is done by drawing a district in such a way that there is a clear majority of one party or the other. Lawmakers want to do this because it eliminates the competition within the general election.

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

These two phenomena are interconnected because not only is there a growing polarization between liberals and conservatives, but also within the Republican Party itself. It’s facing a historic divide over the party’s basic principles and identity. The issues raised by grass-roots voters (resistance to immigration, concern about wages, etc.) are deviating from and clashing with the Republican establishment’s interests (openness to immigration, free trade, etc.) (Healy and Martin – article from class).

There’s a great deal of debate on whether the issue of increased political polarization of our elected representatives has had a positive or negative effect on voter turnout, there’s however little debate on whether the political process has become more polarized. While this is an issue for voter turnout of all ages, I’m in a unique position to speak on it as a young voter. As I mentioned earlier growing up I was excited at the chance to help shape public policy with my vote. However, as the years went on the increasingly polarized atmosphere of my representatives has had a draining effect on me. I don’t tune in to the TV broadcasts or read the newspaper with the same gusto anymore. The constant name calling and gridlock has had a profoundly negative effect on my enthusiasm to partake civic activity. Being a young voter I have dwelt on this quite a bit, and come to the conclusion that this has discouraged me from taking part in the political process. Apparently that’s a common symptom of increased political polarization on the electorate, as noted by several political scientists. For example, in a paper published in American Journal of Political Science Dr. John Rogowski notes that “My main finding is that, rather than stimulate political

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).

Within the last few months the American people have experienced an event which has caused the most division this country has seen since the days of the Civil War. The incident in question is that of the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump single-handedly managed to create a powerful divide within the country over something as menial as political views. Due to the controversy incited by this event our two major political parties escalated to hold unprecedented levels of ambiguity towards one another. Nobody can dispute the fact that this separation has occurred. The only topics up for debate are those of why division grew to such a large degree and whether it was warranted. Is it possible that the masses were swayed into such a staunch devotion towards a political side by the media; rather than their own devotion to their parties cause? Maybe the reason that this country hasn’t seen this division in ages is because that no generation before ours has had the capacity to reach millions with their agenda with such simple means. As the voting date of November 8th, 2016 drew closer, the prevalence of candidate advertisement

The political attitudes of voters can be influenced by a number of different ways. Families are predominantly the first, and often the most long-lived influence on adolescent’s who are establishing their own political opinions. Understandably, the more politically involved your family is, the more likely you are to have identical beliefs. Although the influence still remains, as people mature, alternative influences come into play and normally causes them to deviate from those of their parents. Survey data over recent decades also show men to differ from women on a number of political attitudes and on political party identification. In a review of the major US national opinion survey from the 1980s, Shapiro & Mahajan (1986) found substantial

In the aftermath of the disaster of an election in 2016, the political parties’ were even more combative than usual. Even citizens who were not previously politically active were taking to the streets (of Facebook) to declare the supremacy of their beliefs, candidate, party, etc. Words like “liberal”, “conservative”, and “snowflake” (of all things), became insults sandwiched between obscenities. The circumstances of the election illustrated the country’s polarization, even though I believe most of it is an illusion.