Political Polarization Essay

A liberal is a person that believes that the government should provide equality for all, while a conservative is a person that believes in limited government and that the government should provide the necessary freedom for people to pursue their own goals. Over time, it has been argued, mostly by conservatives, that there is a liberal bias in the media. Liberals have combated this idea with the belief that conservative media is devoted to making efforts to invoke fear and division in the general public. Though liberals make a fine counter-argument, it is easier to observe that the media is liberal-biased. The liberal versus conservative debate can be compared to facts versus values. Another reason for bias within the media is that a significant percentage of minorities, or smaller groups within the population that are often thought to be poorer, politically identify themselves as liberals. To make these minorities feel like the government is on their side as well as everyone else’s, the media must accommodate the needs of these minorities. Because of this, the media becomes liberal-biased.

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.

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.

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.

The political climate today is increasingly becoming more turbulent as Republicans and Democrats volley for superiority in Washington. The two parties are becoming more polarized by the hour, and this is affecting the ability of the government to move forward and pass legislation and continue to improve America. The Senate is in a state of gridlock on some of the most important issues to the people of the United States to date, and yet the senators which the people elected are instead caught up in fighting the people on the other side of the aisle. They should be listening to what their constituents need and want. Today Republican senators are using filibusters, scare tactics, and even entire news networks

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

Political Polarization in America Today it is common to hear politicians and journalists refer to “today’s polarized America” and lament the effects of polarization on American political discourse. But what exactly is this polarization and is it really so destructive?

While Fiorina’s claims that Americans polarization is a complete myth, counter to Fiorina’s belief, Abramowitz with his book The Disappearing Center argues that Americans are in fact polarized. Abramowitz brings much evidence to refute Fiorina, but does it really counter Fiorina’s argument, or merely talk past him while adding some studies and fancy statistical data? The first argument that Abramowitz uses to refute Fiorina is the Engaged Citizen Argument that can be found on page 4. Abramowitz argues that citizens who care about government and politics, pay attention to what political leaders are saying and doing, and participate actively in the political process. Specifically, on page 4 and 5 Abramowitz describes how partisan-ideological

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

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

In making the polarization bigger and beyond the legislative politics; the beginning of a high ideological