The Plagues And Profits Of Polarization

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.

The English Civil War in the 1600’s was fought between two parties in the government, the Tories and the Whigs, that either supported the king or disapproved of him. This violent show of political partisanship may have warned the Founding Fathers that political parties had the power to divide governments and lead to tyranny. Aside from the possibility of leading to a violent power struggle, political parties have the potential to draw away politicians’ loyalty from the American population as a whole to the benefit of their political group. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he never wanted to adhere to a group when he was capable of thinking on his own. He called submitting a whole opinion to a party, “the last degradation for a free and moral agent.” (Hatzenbuehler 32) Arduous bipartisanship also leads to a stalemate in Congress. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, in Congress seventy-five percent of salient issues in 2014 were in gridlock. (Binder 2016) Attitudes become increasingly sharp in politics as the political sides compete, each trying to prove the other a radical. If there were no political parties every member would most likely treat their fellow members with civility in the hopes that they would choose to support mutual

While there is agreement the two-party majority system provides a government with differing ideologies which often causes gridlock during decision making process, not everyone sees a problem with the polarization of the ideologies and the gridlock it causes. In the article by R. S. Melnick, titled “The Conventional Misdiagnosis: Why “Gridlock” is Not Our Central Problem and Constitutional Revision is not the Solution,” he compiles an argument refuting polarization and gridlock to be a problem under the current constitutional

Party Polarization is a defining feature of contemporary at both the elite and activist levels. Party polarization is defined as “the division between the two major parties on most political issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover” (371). One explanation for party polarization is how the congressional districts are being sorted and how those districts play a role in the congressional elections. The congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party, republican or democrat, over another; in other words, they are “safe districts”. This is done by drawing a district in such a way that there is a clear majority of one party or the other. Lawmakers want to do this because it eliminates the competition within the general election.

Today, politics in the United States engulf us in the drama of it all and is greatly reflected in the people we choose to cultivate relationships with. For example, there is quite a wide polarization between the two major parties in the U.S., which makes it difficult to have a relationship with someone of the other party because their views are wildly different, and even opposite, of your own. As the reading puts it, “The Rhetoric deals with the possibilities of classification in its

Polarization in politics is a conflict that both Is Polarization a Myth written by Alan I. Abramowitz as well as Kyle L. Saunders and Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America written by Morris P. Fiorina talk about. On a political scale it has either a republican side or a democrat side and in the articles they discuss whether or not people are in the middle of the scale, or on one side or the other. Alan and Kyle are trying to prove that people are beginning to choose one side or another and stated in Is Polarization a Myth, “Our evidence indicated that since 1970s, ideological polarization has increased dramatically among the mass public in the United States as well as among political elites”( Abramowitz and Saunders 542). Florina stated in chapter two that each election the votes came in 50:50. After reading the articles I came to a conclusion that I agree with Fiorina’s opinion on polarization.

Thomas Mann of Brookings Institutions writes that, “in addition to the decline in competition, American politics today is characterized by a growing ideological polarization between the two major parties”. In addition to his opinion, political data has shown that political polarization is increasing and is more readily seen in the way the American government functions in the political sphere. In an article by the University of Rochester’s Campus Times they wrote “In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties wrote a report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report said that party leadership in Congress was far too lenient when it came to dissent within the party ranks, allowing members’ difference in positions to not be as important as they should. They said that in order for there to be a healthier democracy in the US, the country needed cohesive, top-down parties with clear agendas that can be carried out when in the majority. It also needed a cohesive minority party to criticize the majority party and act as an alternative.” While both the Campus Times and Thomas Mann suggest that polarization is somewhat necessary and is increasing, whether or not the necessity or increase is beneficial to American politics and government is debatable. In this paper, I argue that while polarization can be both unbeneficial and beneficial, for the most part is has proven to be unbeneficial for American politics and government.

When you observe the graph that the American National Election Studies has created, you begin to notice a pattern. This pattern would be that there was either an increase or decrease in the strength of the people's partisanship for each party around the time that a new president came into office. It seems that every single time that there was a change in the political leader of our country that people either felt very strong partisanship or very little. This must have to do with the idea that with each new president, the new issues arising in the country will be handled a certain way. Furthermore, how said issues are handled by those in office affect the partisanship. These new issues

The gaps have grown larger between Republicans and Democrats based on fundamental political beliefs. America’s two political parties have become so divided that it has come to be known as polarization. Divided government has been extremely common after World War II. Political polarization has increased intensely since the New Deal in the 1930s. The New Deal coalition emerged during the 1932 presidential election and had launched a partisan realignment in American politics, allowing the Democrats to become the majority party in US Politics.

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.

Ideological polarization has become a serious problem. There are much fewer liberal republicans and conservative democrats in Congress. Clear evidence of this polarization was the rise of the Tea Party during President Obama’s first term. In 2010, the midterm elections saw dozens of Tea Party candidates win seats. Their anti-Obama and anti-establishment platform appealed to Republicans who, fearing more inaction, worried that the party leadership wouldn’t push their agenda strongly enough with a Democratic White House. Instead of achieving passable legislation, the Tea Party achieved a government shutdown and a weaker, divided GOP. A Republican controlled House was barely able to pass any meaningful legislation because of this division. While party ideology is being forced away from the center, the American public hasn’t experienced any considerate ideological shifts recently. The only dramatic shift in ideology has been an overall increase in social liberalism since 1950. (Gallup) Moderate voters have just begun opting for more extreme candidates in the hope of producing some kind of policy outcome. People are becoming so desperate for any kind of change in whichever ideological direction they believe is right, that they are willing to go to new extremes on election day. The two party system can’t function if each party is ripping themselves apart from within while simultaneously sprinting towards their respective ends of the political spectrum. Party infighting caused by ideological polarization is counterproductive. Political parties that can’t even agree on a realistic platform do not inspire confidence among an already cynical

POLARIZATION OVERVIEW: Polarization occurs when members of both political parties consistently vote along ideological lines. Ideological differences in Congress today are quite staggering. Congressmen have increasingly been moving away from moderate stances and adhering more to party ideologies. The issue with polarization arises when there are two incredibly differing ideologies where both sides feel so strongly about their view that compromise is unfeasible. Some Congressmen able to adhere to a coherent personal ideological beliefs, but there is a growing number of Congressmen that vote based on the party issue positions or on how their

In September of 2013, the US government ran out of money and was forced to shutdown. The shutdown cost the government billions of dollars, although it’s promoted effect was to save money. Today, Congressional approval is at 13% and everything from Congressional stalemates to the 2016 presidency is filtered to the public through a partisan lens created by the parties and the media. The most common reason proposed for Washington’s woes is the excessive partisanship stemming from ideological divisions among the political elites in Congress. Both branches of the modern Congress display similar levels of polarization (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 2006; Theriault 2006, 2008), yet the popular theories of polarization fit the House’s processes far

"It's a reflection of the political dynamic in America, where we don't look at America as a whole. We look at it through the red and blue prism” (Taylor, 1). The red and blue prism that Senator Olympia Snowe is referring to is the political parties that function in the United States. The current existence of political parties in America is a hindrance to effective representation of the people. Because of the lack of bipartisanship between the parties in Congress, the absence of compromise leads to gridlock in regards to passing legislations by members of Congress. In this paper, I will argue how the strengthening of political parties’ polarization in America—and the priority of party over constituents—contributed to a lack of effective