The Negative Effect Of Polarization As The Presidential Campaign

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

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.

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.

According to the Pew Research Center, partisan polarization has been an issue for many Americans for a long period of time. Meaning, that those Americans are not in complete agreement with either republican or democratic parties, their ideas, and standards. In response, the Pew Research Center made an anonymous survey in an attempt to find and categorize people’s typology. If one were to take the quiz, their answers would create the their new typology and show how it may correspond with either partisan parties. When I took the Pew Research Center quiz, I found out that I am in the Faith and Family Left typology category. I agree with my given typology to a certain extent. Due to the limited number of answers of the quiz and the way questions were worded, it forced me to make uncomfortable choices, which weakened my ability to agree with my results. Although, the quiz did include all government issues and involvements, I think the most prominent issue is foreign involvement, specifically, the Islamic State in which the government will have to become more active and continue to be involved in with the Islamic State.

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

These two phenomena are interconnected because not only is there a growing polarization between liberals and conservatives, but also within the Republican Party itself. It’s facing a historic divide over the party’s basic principles and identity. The issues raised by grass-roots voters (resistance to immigration, concern about wages, etc.) are deviating from and clashing with the Republican establishment’s interests (openness to immigration, free trade, etc.) (Healy and Martin – article from class).

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.

The president and Congress work together to accomplish tasks in the legislative arena. However, such task of working together has become more difficult and has diminished throughout the years. Several factors are the cause of this, and an argument can be made that the relationship between the president and Congress has become defective. Congress has the tools to make president’s job more difficult. Consequentially, presidents have their own tools to attempt to undermine such difficulties.

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

Polarization is increasing. Good or bad, the electorate is dividing more and more down party lines. Voters are struggling against each other in increasingly rigid groups with increasingly rigid ideologies. In Polarized Public Alan Abramowitz catalogs the data showing this trend through time (2013). The trend towards the poles of American politics has continues since his studies and shows no sign of stopping.

The Core lecture was titled “Me, Myself, and I, D or R: Politics through Red and Blue Colored Glass” and lectured by Alex Theodoridis, who is a doctor of political science. The main argument of the lecture was that polarization will continue to increase between the parties until they are no longer able to close the gap of polarization. The main 3 groups of the lecture focus on were psychology, aggregate, and 2016 election. Psychology is basically how all individuals group themselves with it each of the parties. The way many identify themselves in each parties are our attachment to the parties, influence from parents, and new perspective change. Under these condition we identify ourselves to the parties. This explains that much of identification are influence by many factors and much polarization does come to play. From the article “Polarization in the Age of Obama” explains that polarization can affect us in deciding whether or

In Chapter 8 of his book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, Gelman discusses the polarization of America’s political parties. It is often stated that America is becoming more polarized, but the only evidence thus far is that politicians are the ones who are actually further apart. People complain that polarization is breaking the country apart and impeding government action. On the other hand, polarization does have certain benefits in that it makes it easier for uniformed voters to easily select candidates. The author develops ways to measure political divisions and arguments to determine if division in America is a real phenomenon. Gelman does this because he wants to determine if it is the voters, the politicians, or both who are polarized in contemporary society and if it is actually increasing.

In this paper I will discuss the matter of the two-party system and the issue of polarization of thought in America. With the system under which we live, political and moral thought is limited by political identity in that individual’s ideas must conform entirely to their thought of their political party otherwise they would be discredited. Non-conformist thought is seen as immoral because to lean too far onto the side of the opposing political party is extremely frowned upon as the other side is seen as immoral. Additionally, each political party is polarized in that the ideals of the party that are presente a the governmental level are extreme, whereas the political ideas of individuals may not be. Because of this, we are only shown the polarized

Agreeing with Hastings, I think we all need to learn how to stand together and learn how to work alongside each other. If we do not, the future of our country may be in jeopardy. The next article, The U.S. is not a country divided, discusses how the American society is not polarized. Studies show how people have become more accepting now than they did in the past. This is good because Americans have become more tolerant throughout the years. Even with this change, faults still exist. These problems involve: assuming the views of the political class, thinking the election results reflect what the electorate wants, and not understanding divisions. Again, this goes back to unity and being respectable of people's

Ever since the 1960s ideological conflict and political polarization have evolved as more factors have come into play. Examples of important factors that have fueled the evolution of these two topics are abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, gun control, illegal immigration, Euthanasia, drug, war, and religion. These factors are important topics that over the years have caused the evolution of ideological conflict and political polarization and have caused such divide amongst the people of America when it comes to their views and stance on specific things. In my opinion I believe to the utmost degree that ideological conflict and political polarization poses a major threat to the effective functioning of the democracy in America today.