The Two Party System: The Black Lives Matter Movement

" This article contends that the polarization in American political parties stems from the weakness of the parties themselves. Weak party structures might lead to fragmented ideologies, lack of party discipline, and susceptibility to outside influences such as special interest groups. Consequently, without strong leadership and cohesive party platforms, members may resort to

I think that it is agreed by all parties, that our current system of organizing ideas and policies is flawed, in that it brings about division and strife amongst the nations people of America. In this present deplorable state of government, it is expected that the average American shall default to either the Democratic or the Republican side of the political spectrum, essentially eliminating all other parties from viability. Should this be changed, we could unite as one nation, just as the four-fathers intended.

I truly agree to the statement of Fareed Zakaria on why political polarization has gone wild in America. He said over the last few decades, the rules of organizing American politics have changed. This is in regards to the changes in congressional rules that made it more difficult to enact large compromise legislation (Zakaria, 2011). This is the type of problem, we as citizens of this country and the nation will compel to face if no changes will occur.

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

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.

For many of us who would like the be called political moderates, these are troubling times. Despite the repeated calls for bipartisanship and civility, the reality is that the two parties in Congress are very far apart from each other. Not only is this the case, but it is even getting worse. Far to common are the party wars and voting along party lines even when it is their represented constituents who suffer. The days of bipartisan problem-solving seam to be nothing more than a campaign slogan tossed out by hopeful candidates and a phrase that has lost almost all meaning to a numb American public. Just how did things get to be this way? And what about the supposedly moderate public: how and why do they stand for this? To understand these questions, a good place to start is Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics, by Morris P. Fiorina, a professor of Political Science at Stanford University.

It is present among the voters as well as our elected representatives, at all levels of government (Jacobson 2000, Aldrich and Battista 2002). We can see it through simple measures like red states and blue states and in more sophisticated ones like party unity. For instance, it may be that elites have become more extreme in recent years and the voters are forced to choose between increasingly divergent candidates. Along with these examples, the article from the Washing Post states that, “This is true in both chambers, although polarization has progressed at a greater rate in the House. Congress is now more polarized than at any time since the end of Reconstruction.”

In the book, Culture War by Morris Fiorina, his political stance on Americans not being polarized has not been caused by a growing significance of the political parties today, rather a change in the government over the years. He believes that the two parties, Democrat, and Republican are the most polarized while the public is not. Abramowitz argues that there is no polarized relationship between the American people and the political parties. He believes the polarization is reflected through those who are politically informed and those who are not. While recognizing both of these views, Fiorina and Abramowitz will give us background knowledge on why America is or not polarized and what are the misconceptions that shape that further

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.

Social media has made it easy for people to create conflicts about their opinions on certain topics. With Smith’s argument, America has and will never have a unified political culture and will have many arguments about American’s conflicting ideas. (Smith 555?) This past presidency election consisted of many heated arguments. Not only from the candidates but from people supporting their preferred candidate. It appears people felt validated when their candidate had a higher chance of winning. Their ideas, arguments, and opinions would be “right” if their candidate won. Once the republican candidate won, there has been many feuds in the country. As the newly elected presidents, Trump, tries to pass new laws, there has been backlash. People seem firmly rooted on their beliefs and they do not want to support him at all, despite him being our new president. People tend to not easily back down from what they deem is right. There may continue to be constant arguments and debates, from the left and from the right, but this is what forms our American culture, according to

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

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.

Republicans and Democrats have clearly divided themselves among the issues of; political beliefs, religion, race. This in turn creates 2 separate teams that constantly battle each other to advance their cause at the expense of the other. And due to the constant battles we see today, it has created a political environment filled with hostility and one way thinking. (Alan I. Abramowitz and Stephen Webster, 2016) state in their article “The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century””supporters of each party have come to perceive supporters of the opposing party as very different from themselves in terms of their social characteristics, political beliefs and values and to view opposing partisans with growing suspicion and hostility. (Mason, 2015)” As an illustration this statement is backed up by one of the questions that was asked during the interviews that I conducted. The question read “would you consider listening to someone from the opposing camp try to persuade you to vote for their candidate?” Nine out of ten gave me a variation of how they would not listen to the other side's point of view on their candidate. One memorable quote from an interview read this “Hell no! Any democrat should be ashamed of themselves for voting for a criminal like Hillary Clinton. And because of her Democrats in my opinion have lost all

Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.