Political Polarization And The United States

differences between their parties and policies. Although there are similarities between the parties, they tend to be overshadowed by individual party ideologies. With so many fundamental differences between the parties, finding topics or issues upon which constituents agree upon can at times be somewhat difficult. Although there are chasms between the voting practices of the parties, there are also some fundamental similarities as well.

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

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

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?

In order to understand the concept of political polarization one must first understand the meaning of ideology. Ideology is defined as “a manner or…content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.”(Merriam-Webster) Voting based on ones ideology is considered a rather recent phenomenon. Prior to the rise of ideological based voting, candidates were selected and scrutinized based on their own personal attributes and characteristics rather than their ideas. Prior to the 1970’s, there was not a huge difference in ideology between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. For example, take for instance the House and Senate votes on the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. In this vote both Democrats and Republicans were widely in support of its passage. (SSA) This is in stark contrast to today when neither party can agree on the future of Social Security. Another example would be the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act

The changes between the parties have become more distinctive throughout the years. Some of these changes include preferences, behavior, increasing homogeneous districts, and increasing alignment between ideology and partisanship among voters.

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.

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

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

One of the greatest challenges to the development and implementation of public policy has been the inability of Congress and the president to overcome partisan polarization. This is evident in the many partisan clashes over policy between Republicans and Democrats in Congress and between Congress and the White House. Partisan polarization has become increasingly evident

In Chapter eight it is discussed that the 2004 election was based on the leadership role of George W. Bush and not the moral values that people believe made him president again. In chapter nine it shows that the polarization of partisan elites can give the appearance that many voters are shifting emphasis from economics to religion and morality, even while voter preferences stay completely stable. In the last chapter Fiorina discusses how extreme voices have come to dominate American political discourse. Overall I believe that it just depends who you ask about it, if they believe if Americans are polarized or not because all Americans can only choose between the alternatives offered by 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,

Political polarization can be analyzed by two approaches i.e. elite polarization and mass polarization (Fiorina & Abrams 2008). In its simplest form, what influence politics and what influences the public. Both types can take place over time

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

Articles read within my 2016 Presidential Election Course gave me some ideas to look for partisanship, party polarization, and floating voters relative to the scope of this assignment. I started this assignment by choosing interviewees, two males, and three females. Both males are age 20; female’s ages are 20, 21, and 48. All of my interviewees were from Northern Virginia, three from suburban regions and 2 from rural one’s. The interviewees come from different racial backgrounds; two participants are African American and the others Caucasian. My selection of