Trump's Effectiveness

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.

Once he begins to appeal to the emotions of the audience, they forget that he has no credibility and are roused by his compelling arguments. He began the conversation by saying, “we’re gonna spend as much time as we need today” making sure that the audience knew they were the center of attention for as long as needed. Continuing in his opening remarks, Trump flattered the audience by saying he won the south states because “the evangelicals were so incredible.” Trump indulges the conscience of the audience with his flattery. The evangelicals that were listening felt important and crucial to the Trump campaign. At the end of the conversation Trump went as far to say that the evangelicals are “the most powerful group in the county” and that “there’s nothing more important to him than this group of people here.” This was just another dip into the audience’s ego and another vote for Trump on the

The polarization of the political parties is a reflection of a country, not simply a government divided, but the country’s populous in growing further apart. Alan Abramowitz indicates the polarization of the Democrats and Republicans causes them to be on opposing sides on almost all issues and Washington reflects the growing division within Americans (714). Thus the major problem with Polarization and gridlock is not the simply the inability to pass the legislation when gridlock occurs but what it does to the morale of American citizens. D.J. Flynn and Laurel Harbridge completed two surveys in order to study how partisan congress affects public opinion. A result from the study indicated most people will accept legislation in favor of the opposing party than they will gridlock (885) and while more research is needed the result of their survey is gridlock does cause a decrease in the populist confidence in Congress (Flynn, Harbridge 890). It is clear something needs to be done to improve the mindset of the American people. One of the best ways to improve the mindset of the American populace is for them to become more educated. When the country was first established, people were not privy to every action the congress was taking as it happened, and therefore the quibbles within congress were not in the forefront of people’s minds. Even Melnick illuminated the fact that the populist is now bombarded with opinions about what is happing in Washington. He indicated when the constitutional convention took place the meeting was behind closed doors miles from constituents allowing them

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.

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.

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

James Campbell’s book is a political masterpiece that outlines how American voters are divided across the United States. Campbell provides a totally new perspective on the polarization with a historically context on how and why voters are politically divided. Campbell’s argument may seem indirect, but he provides circumstantial evidence and empirical evidence to support his claim of polarization. Polarized is significant to understanding American polarization, and surprisingly other books fail in comparison due to their lack of empirical evidence. Campbell’s book was written in 2016 which provides updated information that can help explain the cause of 2018 election polarization among voters.

Congressional polarization can easily be tracked unlike the polarization trends in the public which causes the moderates to become ignored. According to scholars, many moderates in the public ‘lean’ toward either the Democratic or Republican camp which complicates the polarization trends (a); they often outnumber partisans of the party towards which they ‘lean’ (Smith). While the public remains consistently moderate, Congress consistently loses its moderates as they retire, and more radical congressmen and women secure their places (Fiorina 5). Fiorina hardly considers independents or moderates in this essay; this mistake overlooks their ‘swing vote’ in many major elections for both Congress and the executive branch (Enns and Schmidt). But,

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.

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.

Donald Trump offered an Olive Branch to the Republican Establishment fearing him. From the opening bell, Trump called upon the party to unite around his candidacy. Trump cast himself as the leader of a movement that will make America Great, and rightfully so. The candidates clashed over foreign policy depicting Trump savvy business astute opposed to his opponents. The

The Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump continues to rise in the polls even after a widely held opinion that he lost the debate to a much more eloquent and prepared Carly Fiorina. Fiorina in response to her strong performance has seen a modest jump in the polls; however, Trump supports continue to see high numbers in the polls. His bombastic personality and candidacy have received cheers from liberals and confusion by establishment conservatives who normally would treat candidates like Trump as only the popular dish of the day. Establishment conservatives are praying that voters eventually see the Trump dish is undercooked, and that it would ultimately leave them at the mercy of the porcelain throne the next four years. The main

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

The United States has always seen political disputes between both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum. However, this polarization has increased significantly within the past few decades. As the graphs show, there has been a noteworthy rise among “consistently liberals” and “consistently conservatives” since 1994. In addition, the placement of “median” Republicans or Democrats on the spectrum have distanced themselves farther apart (Pew Research Center). This is the ultimate gap visible within the entire entity of polarizing politics. Republicans and Democrats are becoming further apart, thus creating a lack of understanding and compromise between the two parties.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.