Polarization In Congress

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price

The election of members to Congress in the United States of America is contingent on the financial muscles of the candidates and their supporters. It all starts with a deep pocket investment. The recently concluded election will yield a new administration with new cabinet members. The election of Donald Trump as the next U.S President is partly attributable to the synergy and efforts made by some of the most influential people in the Republican Convention. With Trump already appointing some of his chief strategists, it is necessary to conduct a deeper analysis of the financial input of other members of the Congress in an attempt to gain seats.

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

Sometimes this takes the form of wooing legislators, including legislators of another political party or ideological persuasion. When polarization and partisanship make such wooing hard if not impossible, that same ambition is likely to take the form of aiding the election of candidates who can be counted on to support one's

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 course of time, the United States Congress has gradually become polarized or partisan. In essence, Congress has been divided into polar sides. I believe the links provided are outdated and the data that needs to be analyzed has been removed. However, Darrell Issa, my representative, is proved to be partisan to the Republican party. According to OnTheIssues, Representative Issa’s stance on abortion(pro life) and gun control (less gun control) mirrors that of the Republican party (OnTheIssues, “Every Political Leader on Every Issue”). Consequently, having a polarized Congress is unhealthy for the government.

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.

Money has played a large part in this shift from party-centered to candidate-centered elections. As campaigns have grown more expensive, candidates have come to rely increasingly on their own fundraising abilities or personal fortunes to win public office. For example, about $6 billion was spent on the 2012 presidential election campaigns. On average, winning candidates for a seat in the House of Representatives spent $1.5 million each. Winners of each Senate seat spent an average of $9.7 million. In future elections, the cost will likely be even

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.

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,

Studies conclude that citizens who tend to classify themselves as either conservative or liberal tend to have opposing political and policy views (p. 571). This means that social opinions alone does not have a significant or resilient influence in elite or mass polarization. This leads us to our next variable, partisan elections.

In an era of polarization a unified or divided government is detrimental to determine the relationship between the president and Congress (Edwards 1997, 545). The type of government helps determine how difficult legislation is passed in Congress, especially legislation important for the president. In unified government, where both chambers of Congress controlled by the same party as the president’s, legislation is much easier to pass in Congress. Presidents in a unified government have much success within Congress because their party tends to vote in favor of the president. Congressmen are more likely to vote on legislation in favor of the president because they are optimistic that the president will help them when elections come around (Coleman 1999, 821). Moreover, in a polarized era, congressmen are loyal to their party. For example, David Price (D- NC) has voted nearly ninety-five percent in favor of the Democratic Party in the 113th Congress (OpenCongress)