Polarization In America Research Paper

Jay Macleod’s ethnography, Ain’t No Makin It, sheds light on the institute of education in America and how the country’s capital economy both mirrors and produces inequality by creating hierarchies that make social mobility obsolete. He does this through the use of two groups of predominantly Caucasian and predominantly African American youth who reside in the same low income neighborhood and attend the same school. He soon learned that in contrast to the Hallway Hangers, the predominantly white group who for the majority believed that there was no escape from their socioeconomic background, the Brothers, the predominantly African American group do aspire to hold middle class jobs in the future that provided stable incomes and commit to long term relationships with significant others. However, in his pursuit to conclude his research on the two groups MacLeod found that with the exception of one or two, members from neither of the groups were able to climb up the social ladder and bring about change to their status. Although the two groups did share a common upbringing, they differed in race, beliefs, ideas, and attitudes and therefore their failure to achieve success cannot be seen as mutual.

Writer Gregory Mantsios in his article “Class in America”, talks about these things, and how wide the gap is between the rich and the poor and also discusses how the rich continue to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. Mantsios gives his readers the profiles and backgrounds of three hard-working Americans, two of them are white males, whose family background as well as education played a role in their success, while the other person is a black woman who is just above the poverty line despite her work as a nurse’s aide. Through these profiles, Mantsios article shows exactly how sex, race and shows how your parental and educational background of a person can play a role in the things that you achieve. Mantsios also talks about one’s performance in school and the level of school completed can suggest whether or not class that person may belong in.

Outside of the political spectrum, there is another group of organizations that have perhaps and even stronger grasp on the media than media regulators themselves. The incredibly complex and well organized drug cartels that base themselves mostly in northern Mexico and along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico are in many ways the most influential organizations in the nation’s media. As mentioned earlier, Mexican citizens were granted freedom of the press in the 1857 Federal Constitution giving them expressional rights that closely resembled the United States’ on paper. However, as the cartels ran rampant throughout the country some indirect restrictions were put on these rights. The cartels employ ruthless violence and torture in order to punish those who oppose them, including journalists and reporters who attempt to portray them in a negative light. Over the past decade “there have been ‘172 attacks on press freedom, including nine journalists and two media workers killed’” (Hernandez-Garcia 2012). As a result, anyone reporting on the drug wars is essentially risking his or her own life; a risk the majority of reporters are not willing to take. The fear of being found and captured by the cartel is enough to cause a chilling effect among reporters and even stop some news outlets from reporting on the cartel’s actions at all. That’s not to say that news of the cartels’ actions doesn’t get released to the public. Lepe summarized the media portrayals of the cartel as such:

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.

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 political climate today is increasingly becoming more turbulent as Republicans and Democrats volley for superiority in Washington. The two parties are becoming more polarized by the hour, and this is affecting the ability of the government to move forward and pass legislation and continue to improve America. The Senate is in a state of gridlock on some of the most important issues to the people of the United States to date, and yet the senators which the people elected are instead caught up in fighting the people on the other side of the aisle. They should be listening to what their constituents need and want. Today Republican senators are using filibusters, scare tactics, and even entire news networks

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for reelection in 2010. In the 2010 U.S. House election, the average amount spent by Super PACs in 87 districts was $242,580; see Table 1 and Figure 1 for average spending by outside entities and challengers. The maximum about Super PACs spent was $912,503 in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, where Cory Gardner (R) defeated incumbent Betsy Markey (D). The average independent expenditures by political parties in 94 districts was $1,238,897. The maximum outside party spending was $4,289,706 in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, where Tim Walberg (R) beat incumbent Mark Schauer (D). The average challenger spending was $704,692 in 366 districts. Figures 2, shows the

In Robert Putnam’s “Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis”, we are introduced to stories that give us glimpses into the lives of youth across America. The stories represent and act as examples of the two very different groups of youth living in our nation today: children born to parents who are educated, and children born to those who likely only graduated high-school and are struggling to stay afloat economically. There are the rich kids and the poor kids, and, as his book and his research illustrate, the gap between the two continues to grow. National trends regarding rising income inequality, the disappearance of the working-class family, and growing class segregation show that the lives and experiences of rich kids and poor kids are drastically different and continue to veer further and further apart. The subject of his book is the “nationwide increase in class inequality- how the class-based opportunity gap among young people has widened in recent decades” (p. 19) and his thesis is that instead of simply talking about inequality of income among adults, we have to focus on this opportunity gap and work to begin closing it.

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

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,

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 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.

Marc Mauer begins his lecture by introducing the topic of racial disparities in the 21st century and discusses where they originated from. In addition, to how we can address these situations, and bring some form of clarity to this subject matter. Mauer shares the first story of his friend and his wife's teenage son and how “their teenage son started being a teenage son” (Mauer, 2011). His friend's son started staying out late at night, his grades in school were declining, and he was possibly drinking and using drugs. Shortly after that, he was arrested for stealing from a convenience store.