Polarization In The United States

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.

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.

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

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

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

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,

Robert J. Samuelson’s essay, “Picking Sides for the News,” details the problem of citizens only hearing the news that they want to hear through statistics. Samuelson begins his essay by giving the reader the opinion of Americans in regards to news being reported. He goes on to say that Americans are increasingly choosing to listen to news based on “partisanship,” meaning conservatives listen to Republican news and liberals listen to Democratic news. Samuelson highlights the fact that most Americans are starting to not believe what they hear in the news, partisan growth resulting because of the distrust. Samuelson concludes his essay by describing why the reader should care. He believes the reader should care because the media’s bias’ are shaping

Grouping participants into categories, Abramowitz and Saunders identified ideological change among groups consisting of nonvoters, voters, low- and high-interest voters, college educated voters, and voters with some college education. The results of their study identify significant ideological shifts over ten- and twenty-year spans among educated voters, and less pronounced yet still significant ideological shifts over similar periods among the other listed groups. Ideological shifts of up to 11%, measured from a period of years between 1980 and 2004, was identified as average among all respondents (546). This trend, too, is affirmed by the Pew Research Political Polarization study, which states that “the overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions [has] doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%” (Pew, Political Polarization, Section 1). Such rates suggests that, contrary to Fiorina’s theory of elitedriven political polarization, individual political polarization—that is,

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.

If one stops and takes a look at our political system today, one could be surprised by the remarkable progress that we have accomplished in this great country of ours. Many people believe that all is good in the USA, and that our political system could not be any better than it is today. However, this isn't true, our political system is taking a dive towards the worst. Who might the culprit be behind this decline of the political system in America today? The answer to this, is none other than polarization and partisanship. One might wonder, how exactly does this spread? The answer lies in social media. Americans will be able to find common ground and become less polarized, in a political sense, if and only

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.

The journal, Correlating Political Polarization and Spread of Misinformation, by Manoel Horta Ribeiro, claims that social media is contributing to an increase in party polarization due to the increasing