Polarization In The United States

Reagan kept trying to make the economy better throughout his presidency. The midterm elections in 1982 saw a change in Congress when the Democrats gained twenty-five seats in the House of Representatives (Moss & Thomas, 2013, p. 236). House speaker Thomas O’Neill managed to get Reagan to agree to budget compromises in 1983 in order to get the economy back on track (Moss & Thomas, 2013, p. 236).

The United States began as a weak, newborn nation that grew into a large, self-supporting country with a governing body unique to this time period. As the government grew and the nation prospered, the rise of leaders and political figures came about and with this, conflicting principles and ideology spawned, thus creating the first of the political parties; the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Although the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans ideology and stances on the power of the federal government, domestic economic policies and the group of constituents they represented differed vastly, members of both parties often compromised their own beliefs for the nation’s best interest as a whole.

President Reagan wanted America to govern itself. He felt that when some prosper it would trickle down to all. He especially did not believe in big government spending programs. With his less government views

Historically the United States has seen times of large political polarization, this is analyzed in "Back to the Future? What the Politics of the Late Nineteenth Century Can Tell Us about the 2016 Election." In which Julia Azari and Marc Hetherington analyze the striking similarities of the elections and polarization of

Thomas Mann of Brookings Institutions writes that, “in addition to the decline in competition, American politics today is characterized by a growing ideological polarization between the two major parties”. In addition to his opinion, political data has shown that political polarization is increasing and is more readily seen in the way the American government functions in the political sphere. In an article by the University of Rochester’s Campus Times they wrote “In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties wrote a report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report said that party leadership in Congress was far too lenient when it came to dissent within the party ranks, allowing members’ difference in positions to not be as important as they should. They said that in order for there to be a healthier democracy in the US, the country needed cohesive, top-down parties with clear agendas that can be carried out when in the majority. It also needed a cohesive minority party to criticize the majority party and act as an alternative.” While both the Campus Times and Thomas Mann suggest that polarization is somewhat necessary and is increasing, whether or not the necessity or increase is beneficial to American politics and government is debatable. In this paper, I argue that while polarization can be both unbeneficial and beneficial, for the most part is has proven to be unbeneficial for American politics and government.

FDR's New Deal programs focused on job-creation through public works[?] projects as well as on social welfare programs such as Social Security. The political coalition of labor unions, minorities, liberals, and southern whites (the New Deal Coalition) allowed the Democrats to control the government for much of the next 30 years, until the issue of civil rights divided conservative southern whites from the rest of the party (see Dixiecrat).

Reagan’s approach to governing was that government is the problem; Reagan called this cut and slash approach “new federalism.” He cut aid for famers; this was the largest tax cut in history and increased military spending. He also started the crack of weakness by firing the air traffic controllers, which paved the way for most republicans to run their campaign’s against unions’.

Ever since then, politicians who want to be viewed as a conservative person who can bring success try to compare themselves to Reagan. They use Reagan as a mold for their policies and platforms they pitch at the citizens. Present day Republicans running for president are the guiltiest of trying to be like Reagan. They all claim they are children of the Reagan Revolution to bring in voters who remember the Reagan success and also are trying to persuade moderate and conservative Democrats who united under Reagan to come to their side. Reagan’s success as president was so apparent that even members of the opposite party do not argue his success.

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.

I truly agree to the statement of Fareed Zakaria on why political polarization has gone wild in America. He said over the last few decades, the rules of organizing American politics have changed. This is in regards to the changes in congressional rules that made it more difficult to enact large compromise legislation (Zakaria, 2011). This is the type of problem, we as citizens of this country and the nation will compel to face if no changes will occur.

In 1796, in his Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the “party passions” that weaken public administration, afflict the community, promote animosity between different sectors, and as a result, render the American nation vulnerable to foreign invasion. Political polarization is most simply defined as the divide between Liberals and Conservatives or between Republicans and Democrats. According to measurements from DW-NOMINATE, a system that gives politicians a score based on how liberal or conservative they are, polarization has been rising steadily for the past four decades. The general consensus among scholars is that the United States has not heeded the first president’s warning;

Since the beginning of American politics, we have lived in a two party political system. These two parties play a very important role in our government, they are a source of ideas for public policy, and they legally oppose each other (class citation), forcing compromises of ideas which are beneficial to the people of the United States of America. Though these two parties generally always oppose each other on the issues, some people believe that there are not significant differences between the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party. Despite similarities in views on foreign policy, the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party are different based on their stands on domestic economic issues in the 1992

networks. However much the government, national leaders and even the mass media tried to portray the attacks as simply the actions of evil, disgruntled people, it was practically impossible for the citizens to accept the attacks as anything other than religious attacks. In the aftermath of the attacks, ‘Islamophobia’ swept through the country and the perceptions of the citizens towards the Muslim population in the country changed completely. There were reported attacks of religious attacks on individuals of Arab heritage regardless of the fact that a majority of Arabs living in America, about 77% are Christians. While the government must be commended for not acting in a non-polarizing manner, the perceptions of the general American population with regards to the Arab population changed after the 9/11 attacks and to this day, a feeling of ostracization in some quarters of the Muslim community in the USA is still very rife.

These books point out that there is an ongoing debate among political scientist, in regards to whether the voters, elites (not the elected officials), or government elites are more polarized. Unquestionably, it is clear from the evidence in these four books that the parties are more polarized. Which is unfortunate because polarization is bad for getting things done because there is no compromise, no moderation, which consequently leads to nothing getting done.

Although American parties tend to be less ideologically cohesive and programmatic than parties in many democracies, they do play a major role in shaping public policy. Indeed, since the 1994 elections, both congressional Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated sharp policy differences and an unusually high level of intraparty unity. This has created a super-heated atmosphere of partisan conflict, especially in the House of Representatives. In an era of divided party control of the government, partisan conflict has been unremitting between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress. Partisan divisiveness was especially intense during the congressional impeachment proceedings against President Clinton during 1998 and 1999. The intensified partisanship within the Congress and between the legislative and executive branches reflects the extent to which the