Polarization Is Increasing. Good Or Bad, The Electorate

The United States has maintained its two party system for some time, but the major parties have not always been so clearly separated. In the early and mid-twentieth century, polarization was actually declining, as there was much ideological overlap between the members of the two parties (Kuo). Many people, such as conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, rested in the ideological middle. Additionally, each party represented a coalition of diverse interests. At

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.

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

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,

Furthermore, generational political parties have shown to have different perceptions of racial discrimination. Due to the significance race has in political parties, it has shaped party coalitions and party ideologies. Political beliefs not only reflect one’s ideology in terms of political issues but also reflects their judgments concerning racial and societal issues. Today, both Democrats and Republicans remain widely separated due to their differentiating views of race. The support for the freedom of African Americans that Republicans portrayed before the 1900s pushed African Americans to support their ideologies and institutions, while the same occurred after the 1900s when blacks expanded their advocate for Democrats due to their expansion

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.

POLARIZATION OVERVIEW: Polarization occurs when members of both political parties consistently vote along ideological lines. Ideological differences in Congress today are quite staggering. Congressmen have increasingly been moving away from moderate stances and adhering more to party ideologies. The issue with polarization arises when there are two incredibly differing ideologies where both sides feel so strongly about their view that compromise is unfeasible. Some Congressmen able to adhere to a coherent personal ideological beliefs, but there is a growing number of Congressmen that vote based on the party issue positions or on how their

Fiorina examines many issues that are misconceptions about why America is not polarized. First, we have to recognize why Fiorina believes that Americans are not polarized, he thinks that there is no divide in America although, there is a great separation between the two parties and their beliefs. However, Americans are reasonable when it comes to their views. For instance, red, and blue states, he believes that aren’t many differences between the two. Most if not majority of those who identify themselves as Democrat or Republican are moderate. Fiorina offers us an example, Table 3.4 offered varies ideas one being,” Is the government almost always wasteful and inefficient” (Table 3.4, 39). Red States were about 44% while blue states were 39%, both were very similar, or another example is “ discrimination main reason blacks cannot get ahead” (Table 3.4, 39). Red was 21% while blue was 25%, again very close. Consequently, there isn’t much difference when it comes to red and blue states, they are both relatively equal.

It is not a coincidence that the increased availability of news sources has been accompanied by increasing political polarization. Over time, polarization appears to have spread to the level of mass public opinion (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006; Abrams, & Pope, 2005). For instance, in U.S. politics, Democrats’ and Republicans’ negative evaluations of a president of the other party have steadily intensified (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006). The presidential approval data reveal a widening chasm between Republicans and Democrats; the percentage of partisans who respond at the extremes (‘‘strong approval’’ or ‘‘strong disapproval’’) has increased significantly over time. In fact, polarized assessments of U.S. presidential performance are higher today than at any other time in recent history, including the months preceding the resignation of President Nixon.

Recent years have seen this slowly increasing over the past few years. This creates problems, an analogy is a two headed snail where one wants to go one way and the other head wants to go anywhere but the direction of the other head. The two headed snail describes congress pretty well currently. This does not mean that it's entirely divided like stated before one wouldn’t expect a congressman to endorse terrorists or serial killers. A better question for this paper may be why are ideological silos forming in government not are they good, because when one starts searching you start to think in terms of the chicken and the egg what side causes the polarization the people or the system. If the system is responding to the people then the system works as intended, but if the people are the influence then is it the “vocal minority” pushing for

There is, in this country presently, an ultimate, lingering atmosphere of tension and hostility caused by the political parties. Like static, it makes your hair stand on end and your nerves begin to jitter, afraid to touch anything or anyone in case of that sudden shock. Politics are not spoken of with acquaintances and friends in fear of driving them away with your different opinions. Different opinions are quickly slandered as tyrannical or unconstitutional. This is the prelude to the storm. The Republicans and Democrats have created an identity crisis in the United States, pitting us against them, us against the other party. How? History teacher Michael Blood says “People stick with a party because of their opinion on a singular issue. If their opinion on this issue is supported by the party, then the people will align themselves with that party. Politicians use these single-issue voters to remain in office.” These mercenary voters are victims of an attitude of petty sectionalism, an attitude that is too similar to the party divisions that were so potent in the shattering of our state in the Civil War. It has created a magnetic push away from necessary, healthy discussion. It is the fruit of

As with much political science, the concept of polarization can be a bit murky. Inferring from the term itself, one could say that polarization in American politics refers to a widening of the gap between what could be called the average left-wing and right-wing politician, voter, or ideology on a standard political spectrum. Another examination of the term could result in a definition regarding the lack of cooperation between the two major American political parties. Although, it would be more accurate to say that both examinations of the term are correct – and that polarization can create an environment in which the two main modes of thinking are largely incompatible. Proceeding from a definition, one might speculate how polarization

Political scientists agree that party realignment has been a constant re-occurrence in our country’s political system, and the effect it has on voter switching is substantial. If a party has realigned, and represents a voter’s interest and ideological beliefs to a greater degree than their own party, then that voter will surely switch party allegiance. It is usually the case, however, that party realignments take numerous elections, and a variety of strong candidates, before they can be completed. A primary example in which party realignment caused a large demographic to switch Party Identity was the realignment of the Democratic Party and African-American voters