The Pros And Cons Of Congressional Polarization

Over the course of time, the United States Congress has gradually become polarized or partisan. In essence, Congress has been divided into polar sides. I believe the links provided are outdated and the data that needs to be analyzed has been removed. However, Darrell Issa, my representative, is proved to be partisan to the Republican party. According to OnTheIssues, Representative Issa’s stance on abortion(pro life) and gun control (less gun control) mirrors that of the Republican party (OnTheIssues, “Every Political Leader on Every Issue”). Consequently, having a polarized Congress is unhealthy for the government.

When it comes to political issues people often think, whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, that politicians have to back their parties’ legislation no matter what, and that politicians despise each other if someone is not of the same party affiliation as them. In some cases this could be true; however, everything is not always black and white, and there are a lot of gray areas when it comes to some issues. With certain matters, Republicans and Democrats can lay their differences aside and come together for a cause; human sex trafficking just so happens to be one of those concerns. Along with multiple other pieces of bipartisan legislation that has been introduced in the past, one that was introduced as recently

What is congressional gridlock? It is when it is a difficulty passing laws that satisfy the needs of the people. The government is in gridlock when the ratio between bills passed and the agenda of the legislature decreases. In America congressional gridlock or deadlock has become just like tax reform, in the sense that no one does anything about it but everyone talks about it. Gridlock has manifested everywhere, for intense the Congress failure to make a budget for the United States of America, or to have enough judges to fill the vacant spots in the federal courts. New political players and movements like Move-on, Club for Growth, Occupy and the Tea Party, have highlighted congress lack and inability to find common ground or compromise. It

"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

“The argument that polarization in America is almost entirely an elite phenomenon appears to be contradicted by a large body of research by political scientists on recent trends in American public opinion. While there have been relatively few studies directly addressing Fiorina’s evidence and a growing body of research indicates that political and cultural divisions within the American public have deepened considerably since the 1970s. These studies have found that the political beliefs of Democratic and Republican voters have become much more distinctive over the past 30 years” (Abramowitz and Saunders

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.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was a consensus that the importance of political parties was in decline, that the shared conservative ideology of the American electorate was reflected in the similar ideology and policy of the Democratic and Republican party. Now, however, the parties are seemingly taking on renewed importance as the population of

At times, rising polarization gives the impression that the American nation has disintegrated, but many political scientists argue that although our nation has its flaws, polarization is not the problem. Political scientist, Alan I. Abramowitz, is especially adamant about the manners in which polarization profits American democracy. He admits that polarization can lead to immature mudslinging, but presents this as a small downside to the important and essential benefits it provides. In his opinion, polarization can be a solution to legislative gridlock in congress. Polarization between different parties leads to “party discipline” within a party because it moves the moderates in a party further left or further right. Abramowitz claims that this can overcome procedures, such as the filibuster, that actually inhibit the law-making processes. Additionally he believes that polarization manifests party lines, making it less complicated for American citizens to associate with a specific side, which as a consequence, encourages them to vote and discuss their political views with others. Shaun Theriault adopts a similar view. He decries the name-calling and

Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress are as ideologically consistent and distinct as they have been at any point. Both houses in the US congress have become more ideologically polarized in the past few years. Parties have grown increasingly divided in the past years on all major policy dimensions in American politics, Democrats have become more liberal and Republicans have become more conservative and independents are also leaning towards sides now a days. In fact, I believe that political polarization in congress was at an all-time high the past year. Party polarization has been increasing since the 1970’s and I believe it will not slow down any time soon, despite a period of depolarization period in the mid-20th century

The division of two groups with separate opinions causes controversy amongst those affected. “Partisan polarization is undeniably the central and most problematic feature of contemporary American politics.” (Mann & Ornstein, 44). This statement justifies the structure of political parties during the current century. Mann and Ornstein stated, “The story begins with the fissures in the Democratic Party’s New Deal coalition that were evident in the 1960’s” (page 47). The authors continue to list several key points that were a part of the separate party agendas. Increased ideological polarization between Republicans and African Americans created majority-minority districts to gain more representation in Congress. Republicans hypothesized that pushing

In Congress, the whips are selected by each member of their respective political parties in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Also commonly known as the assistant leader, they are primarily responsible for rounding up party members for votes and quorum calls and negotiating with the opposition. If necessary, they can stand in for the majority and minority leaders in their absence. Modeled after the British House of Commons in the late 1680s, both chambers of Congress as well as state legislatures have employed the use of majority and minority whips since 1899, Democrats and Republicans alike, although their positions vary from one another. For example, the House Majority Whip assists the Majority Leader to ensure party discipline

The American political system is always susceptible to change. In recent decades, the United States has experienced an increase in political polarization between the two parties. These extreme views resonate with the Americans that sit at the tips of the ideological spectrum, but the majority of people have more moderate ideologies. Most fall in between the two extremes, holding different combinations of social and economic values that make it difficult to place each person on the traditional linear spectrum. To further analyze voters, a political typology of the United States can be conducted, which further sorts voters into more connected groups based on their attitudes and values. This data has proven to be crucial for political parties when determining what policies to include in their platform, because recent general elections have revealed that the undecided vote plays a large role in determining the winner. In order to maximize the amount of voters the Republican Party receives in the general election, the party must incorporate values and policies in their platform that attracts the maximum amount of moderate voters, without drifting too far away from traditional Republican values to ensure the retention of the constituency. This can be achieved by adopting new policies on abortion, alternative energy, unauthorized immigrants, and

Political scientists Wilson and Fiorina both tackle the concepts of party polarization and culture war through the lens of the 2004 U.S presidential election. In 2016, their musings are, for the most part, still highly applicable. Neither denies the existence of either a culture war or political polarization. Rather, their theses differ in the extent to which they apply these terms to the general electorate rather than to the political elites. Wilson argues that both elites and voters are polarized, a phenomenon driven by the media, homogenization of political parties, and interest groups.1 However, Fiorina maintains that the polarization in the voting patterns of the electorate is merely a reflection of elite partisan stances rather than the polarization of the voters themselves.2 In examining their arguments, it is evident that Fiorina had the more tenable thesis in regard to the polarization of the electorate in 2004. Yet this does not preclude the existence of a culture war that has led polarization in 2016. Today, Wilson’s theories are more applicable to the political and cultural context. Looking towards the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic party in particular should focus on cultivating moderate stances that can appeal to both Democrats and Republicans with the aim of gaining seats in the Senate and House of Representatives.

In this paper I am going to argue that voters are not more polarized; in fact, v are moderates forced to vote polarized. I arrived at this conclusion after reading the assigned readings, “It’s Even Worse than It Looks, Moral Politics, Big Sorting and Culture Wars.”