Polarization in Congress: A Dichotomy of Unity and Division within the Legislative Branch

A variety of different factors can cause gridlock in government, but the basis of the disagreements in the field relate to how much divided and unified governments impact legislations. Much of the conversation surrounding this topic is based on the notion that divided government causes gridlock, but scholars are now questioning this conventional knowledge. Mayhew, Krehbiel, Coleman and Binder address this topic, but from different standpoints. Research on gridlock has been active since the early 1900’s. Up until Mayhew wrote Divided We Govern in 1991, divided government had been considered to be the main cause of gridlock. The researchers I will address either flat out reject this idea, include other variables that cause gridlock, or reaffirm

Is congress a dysfunctional institution? Columnist Ezra Klein contends that institutional deadlock and partisan rancor have paralyzed congress, causing it to lose power to the president and the bureaucracy. Former Massachusetts Senator Mo Cowan describes he has to come view the work of congress along with fellow members after fulfilling the remainder of John Kerry’s term upon the nomination of Governor Deval Patrick.

Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.

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

Congressional gridlock in the United States is at a high currently, doubling since the 1950s. Gridlock is the slowing of the legislative processes due to the difficulty of congressional officials to agree on certain bills and or laws. Gridlock makes the passage of legislation time consuming and hardly any progress can be accomplished. This is how Congress acquired the nickname “Do Nothing Congress.”This usually occurs when both parts of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are of opposing parties. This then makes the President have the final say.

Increased shifts to the political extremes causes voters to vote in lockstep with party leaders. Polarized voters are less informed on energy, healthcare, education, and other key issues4. Polarized voters also ignore fundamental arguments in favor of partisanship. When told that their party endorsed a certain stance, the polarized voters became more supportive, regardless of facts. Because the election process requires

Congressional gridlock has been around for centuries in Congress and does not seem to be changing anytime soon. Congressional gridlock refers to the inaction of the government and failure to make a decision or legislative law that satisfy the needs of the people. This inaction of the government and stagnation occurs when two parties cannot agree on a single matter, and they cannot come to a good agreement on how or when the law is going to be passed, thus leaving complex problems in the nation unhandled. Congressional gridlock does not just come and take over the government on its own, though. It is evident that congressional gridlock is a major problem in the American government that needs to be addressed because there are so many root causes that the government fails to fix including gerrymandering and a lack of “bridge-builders.” Solutions to these causes that have yet to be made include improving the system of checks and balances and reducing representative dynamics and some of the nation’s most pressing problems that should not even be examples of congressional gridlock include climate change and the gun laws issue.

Polarization in Congress is growing uncontrollably. Congress will not agree on anything because officials are so far on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a number line that shows how liberal or conservative someone is (negative is

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.

As a consequence, polarized Congress will only fall under a gridlock that will obstruct the legislation process. However, I believe that there are ways in improving political polarization. Firstly, the journalistic coverage of public officials is in dire need of adjustments. Media should shift their focus and resources on the extreme members of Congress. This process will force those legislators to be more moderate in order to keep their positions. Lastly, people just need to vote. Even though “87 percent of registered voters voted in the 2012 presidential election, this only represents 42 percent of the total U.S population” (openstax, 249). This is an alarming number for a democratic country since all citizens are encouraged to participate under a democracy. If there are more people voting, officials are forced to appeal to a broader spectrum of

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

In modern American politics it is incredibly difficult for a President to legislate due to the fact that Congress has become incredibly polarized. Obama and other Presidents in the past ran their campaigns stating that they would unite divided government in order for both parties to work together to get legislation passed. What Obama and many other Presidents have found out is that because both parties are sticking to their ideologies the prospects for compromise has lowered and the only way to legislate is to work within one’s party. While political scientist such as Matthew J. Dickson have suggested focusing on issues that will bring bipartisanship and going public, it is clear in the wake of such polarization that change is needed to combat

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.

It would come as a shock to few to state that polarization is present in American politics and that in some cases, that polarization is quite extensive. However, far too often such a general statement is taken at face value and is assumed as the truth in most cases. The question all too often relies on universal applicability and thus, one is left with the blanket “American politics is polarized” statement. Yet, if one were to analyze the state of views on political topics across the nation, one might discover that this blanket statement is highly inaccurate, conveying only a half truth. As Morris P. Fiorina lays out in Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, the deep-set polarization across the nation that is often assumed as generally

We live in a world blanketed by the darkness of ignorance. Instead of blindly searching for the black or white answers, we must defeat the enemy by moving toward common ground. Currently in politics, we see the negative effect of polarization as the presidential campaign has become candidate centered rather than issue centered. We see the candidates resort to bully-like tactics where they attack each other personally, rather than focusing on the issues at hand. While it is said that polarity is an integral part of nature, we need our differences to bring us together as a whole, rather than drive us apart. Polarization is inevitable due to the unique design of every individual, but issues are seen as either black or white, when really