Political Polarization In America

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

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 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.

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

This dilemma of serving local interest or focusing on national interest is severe and a reason why Congress is looked at so negatively. The result of this is an institution designed to be disliked. In addition, Congress is also polarized because the nation is becoming more polarized, thus making even more troublesome to pass laws that would satisfy the nation or resolve larger issues that the nation faces. This makes a gridlock and it is difficult to make any progress when this

When the word partisanship comes up, our minds can think of numerous things; in this case partisanship with the help of other reasons can explain the dysfunction of the government in the area of politics. To begin, one could ask how exactly does partisanship affect politics today. Jim Douglas does an excellent job of showing how partisanship is affecting our government and why it is important to stop it. He does this in his speech, "Beyond Partisanship." "Partisan rhetoric is abundant, while solutions are scarce. The result is a Washington [or political system] that is broken"(Douglas 104). Here, Douglas tells his audience that instead of looking for compromises or achieving results in politics partisanship is allowing

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

Outside party spending has a significant effect in 2010 on member’s ideological position in the 112th Congress (p = 0.03). When there is outside spending present in a district, there is a slight impact on a member polarization score, which decreases by 0.003 units. While the substantive effect of outside party spending is minimal, at best, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Outside party spending promotes moderation of ideological positions by members of Congress.

"Over the past 30 to 40 years, growing partisan polarization...has been driven by generational replacement as new entrants evinced greater party-issue constraint than did

In “Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America” Morris P. Fiorina writes about how Americans may or may not be polarized when it comes to certain issues. In chapter one Fiorina mentions many quotes about what many people think about this topic. In the next chapter he goes onto stating why Americans think that America is polarized. In chapter three Fiorina gives some examples of how of little differences are between the red states versus the blue states.

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

Studies conclude that citizens who tend to classify themselves as either conservative or liberal tend to have opposing political and policy views (p. 571). This means that social opinions alone does not have a significant or resilient influence in elite or mass polarization. This leads us to our next variable, partisan elections.

Therefore, if the public becomes more polarized in terms of their political ideology, this will break a unifying bond that is holding the United States together and divide the country up racially. Political polarization is negatively affecting the society in the USA by causing political and racial