Polarization In Obama

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.

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.

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.

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

Partisanship is defined in The American Voter “as both a set of beliefs and feelings that culminate in a sense of “psychological attachment” to a political party. It is one of the most important factors affecting the American political system. It explains, to some extent, vote choice, political engagement, partisan reasoning, and the influence of partisan elites. This definition generates two competing views of partisanship, the instrumental and expressive perspectives. This debate is what

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.

Recently, Party polarization in the US has been gaining more attention. Some claim that it is a recent phenomenon, but in fact polarization has been ongoing ever since the 18th century. Political polarization is when an individual makes a decision on an issue, policy or candidate solely based on the political party they identify with or with their chosen ideology. In the 1790s, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists were polarized over tariffs, the national bank and federal versus state and citizen power. Between the 1830s and the 1840s, polarization took form between the Whigs and the democrats. In the 1850s polarization was focused on the issue of slavery, agrarian and currency issues. In the 1930s it was welfare and in the 1960s

Polarization is increasing. Good or bad, the electorate is dividing more and more down party lines. Voters are struggling against each other in increasingly rigid groups with increasingly rigid ideologies. In Polarized Public Alan Abramowitz catalogs the data showing this trend through time (2013). The trend towards the poles of American politics has continues since his studies and shows no sign of stopping.

The 2016 presidential election has polarized both Democratic and Republican voters into increasingly solidified voting blocs. The Clinton and Trump campaigns have individually targeted different undecided voter typologies which play important roles in attempting to secure a winning electoral coalition. This essay will assess the policy positions of Clinton’s campaign and evaluate their appeals to various typologies set out by Pew Research Center. Furthermore, the typologies will be analyzed in order to determine their relevance and viability for building an effective coalition for the Clinton ticket.

The Core lecture was titled “Me, Myself, and I, D or R: Politics through Red and Blue Colored Glass” and lectured by Alex Theodoridis, who is a doctor of political science. The main argument of the lecture was that polarization will continue to increase between the parties until they are no longer able to close the gap of polarization. The main 3 groups of the lecture focus on were psychology, aggregate, and 2016 election. Psychology is basically how all individuals group themselves with it each of the parties. The way many identify themselves in each parties are our attachment to the parties, influence from parents, and new perspective change. Under these condition we identify ourselves to the parties. This explains that much of identification are influence by many factors and much polarization does come to play. From the article “Polarization in the Age of Obama” explains that polarization can affect us in deciding whether or

"when the 2004 election almost reproduced the 2000 map, belief in the polarization narrative peaked as social conservatives gloated about the purported importance of “values voters” for the re-election of President Bush, and liberal commentators bitterly accepted that interpretation."(2008, 564, 565)

In the book, Culture War by Morris Fiorina, his political stance on Americans not being polarized has not been caused by a growing significance of the political parties today, rather a change in the government over the years. He believes that the two parties, Democrat, and Republican are the most polarized while the public is not. Abramowitz argues that there is no polarized relationship between the American people and the political parties. He believes the polarization is reflected through those who are politically informed and those who are not. While recognizing both of these views, Fiorina and Abramowitz will give us background knowledge on why America is or not polarized and what are the misconceptions that shape that further

In September of 2013, the US government ran out of money and was forced to shutdown. The shutdown cost the government billions of dollars, although it’s promoted effect was to save money. Today, Congressional approval is at 13% and everything from Congressional stalemates to the 2016 presidency is filtered to the public through a partisan lens created by the parties and the media. The most common reason proposed for Washington’s woes is the excessive partisanship stemming from ideological divisions among the political elites in Congress. Both branches of the modern Congress display similar levels of polarization (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 2006; Theriault 2006, 2008), yet the popular theories of polarization fit the House’s processes far

While popular sentiment dictates that hyper-polarization has acted as a force for counter productivity in America, this claim is worth countering with another argument. Rather than act as a means for harm, it may actually be an effective method for improving the current state of American politics. The current conversation that argues that this partisanship is the problem may be distracting from the actual issue – the fundamental structures of the American system.