Political Polarization Research Paper

Sometimes this takes the form of wooing legislators, including legislators of another political party or ideological persuasion. When polarization and partisanship make such wooing hard if not impossible, that same ambition is likely to take the form of aiding the election of candidates who can be counted on to support one's

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.

In his essay “Polarized Parties Are Good for America”, Matthew Yglesias asserts that the two-party system is ideal for America. He begins by stating that polarization is bad for elites, as it leaves little to no room for “self-styled players”. He then suggests that the two-party system is beneficial for voters, insisting that having clearly labeled candidates creates a “menu” that allows the masses to know what they’re voting for from the start. He concludes by stating that the problem isn’t in partisanship, but with the small number of parties. In this essay I will prove that the two-party system is bad for America.

The political climate today is increasingly becoming more turbulent as Republicans and Democrats volley for superiority in Washington. The two parties are becoming more polarized by the hour, and this is affecting the ability of the government to move forward and pass legislation and continue to improve America. The Senate is in a state of gridlock on some of the most important issues to the people of the United States to date, and yet the senators which the people elected are instead caught up in fighting the people on the other side of the aisle. They should be listening to what their constituents need and want. Today Republican senators are using filibusters, scare tactics, and even entire news networks

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for reelection in 2010. In the 2010 U.S. House election, the average amount spent by Super PACs in 87 districts was $242,580; see Table 1 and Figure 1 for average spending by outside entities and challengers. The maximum about Super PACs spent was $912,503 in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, where Cory Gardner (R) defeated incumbent Betsy Markey (D). The average independent expenditures by political parties in 94 districts was $1,238,897. The maximum outside party spending was $4,289,706 in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, where Tim Walberg (R) beat incumbent Mark Schauer (D). The average challenger spending was $704,692 in 366 districts. Figures 2, shows the

4. Many argue that partisan polarization has led to dysfunction within Congress and between Congress and the president. What are the sources of polarization? How does polarization influence the development and implementation of public policy? Provide evidence from the lectures and scholarly literature (see Thurbers chapter on this) and examples from recent policy debate.

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.

Party polarization is another factor halting action being taken to solve the problem. Both political parties in the United States have divided views among many issues. This polarization between the Democrats and Republicans has formed because over time their membership of the two parties are purer, causing them to grow farther apart, states Jonathan Haidt and Sam Abrams in their article, “The Top Ten Reasons American Politics Are So Broken.” Republicans are becoming more conservative while the Democrats on the other hand, are becoming more liberal. In the issue of global warming, the division between the two parties are very distinct. The Democrats in this matter believes global warming exists and should be dealt with. The Republicans on

"Democracy requires citizens to see things from one another 's point of view, but instead we’re more and more enclosed in our own bubbles. Democracy requires a reliance on shared facts; instead we’re being offered parallel but separate universes."- Eli Pariser. Polarization is part of life, from P.C and Mac, Pepsi vs. Coke to Xbox and PS4, humans tend to give an allegiance to the things they care about. In the past decade, the United States has seen a rise of political polarization in many aspects of life, from social networks to the election. Since the 2016 election polarization has been discussed more and more, there has been a spotlight on this current issue. This phenomena

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).

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.

Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches is written by Nolan McCarty, Keith L. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. This book described a detailed analysis of how increased income inequality has increased political polarization. The main argument of the book is to prove that the rise of income inequality and political polarization is connected. I believe that they have a very strong argument throughout the entire book by providing an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be denied.

It is not a coincidence that the increased availability of news sources has been accompanied by increasing political polarization. Over time, polarization appears to have spread to the level of mass public opinion (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006; Abrams, & Pope, 2005). For instance, in U.S. politics, Democrats’ and Republicans’ negative evaluations of a president of the other party have steadily intensified (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006; Jacobson, 2006). The presidential approval data reveal a widening chasm between Republicans and Democrats; the percentage of partisans who respond at the extremes (‘‘strong approval’’ or ‘‘strong disapproval’’) has increased significantly over time. In fact, polarized assessments of U.S. presidential performance are higher today than at any other time in recent history, including the months preceding the resignation of President Nixon.

Today, the majority of self-identified Democrats or Republicans adhere to an ideological stance that their party proclaims -- they are the straight-ticket voters. At the same time, growing numbers of voters proclaim themselves “independent,” which implies that you vote based on educated judgments about the candidates. This new group of voters has created the “negative partisanship” phenomenon and caused “voters [to] form strong loyalties based more on loathing for the opposing party than on the old kind of tribal loyalty” (Chait).

The government has hit an all time for low approval ratings congress being the lowest at 7%. Part of this could be contributed to congress’s apparent inability to be productive. The main cause being the divided nature of congress or in terms of the topic the polarized nature. This nature can be seen as both a boon and a iron ball. Although polarization does help cover a wide group of people it also can slow change to a snail pace. Polarization alone isn’t bad, it can be helpful representing the far right and left, equal representation should be across the board. The government itself isn’t even comply polarized on all issues, for an extreme example no government official would say terrorism is a good thing. The idea the government isn’t entirely as polarized as it first appears and to a further extent we aren't as polarized either. The real may not be the toxic levels of polarization but the system that it resides in.