Prominent among the many controversial issues and themes that significantly appeal to the United States political culture is the concept of polarization. With careful scrutiny into the US political history, one may come to determine that this notion of political polarization does not have its inceptions from todays mainstream media, but this traces back to the very sentiments of our founding fathers and their careful deliberations in constructing a harmonious stable government. This goes back to Madison’s admonitions regarding the inevitability of partisanship, articulated in his famous federalist papers. Political polarization can refer to circumstances in which an individuals stance of a given issue or policy is more likely to be strictly …show more content…
The democratic party originally established by Thomas Jefferson, “advocated state’s rights, civil liberties, limited executive authority, strict interpretation of the constitution, and minimal regulation of business and commerce, while favoring the middle class in general over the educated and elite”. The republicans however were almost on the opposite spectrum of this viewpoint. Up to today, these two parties have gone even farther away from each other. In a recent study that was conducted on political polarization in America, it was suggested that Partisan antipathy is even deeper and more extensive than at any point in the last two decades. Some argue that polarization is not only dividing American ideology but it is dividing American society. Liberals and conservatives would be unhappy if their children married someone with a different political viewpoint. The result isn’t just polarized politics, but a divided society. With these thoughts in mind, it is inevitable that this polarization issue will soon inflict American culture all together, causing the nation to lose it cultural core values. The study also suggests that this ideological gap between these two has always been consistent and that the consistency remains inevitable. Given this country’s political history, it can be noted that the main issues at …show more content…
The arguments of both proponents and opponents to political polarization can be summarized by two quotes, each representing a side of this argument. With regards to the first argument, President Jimmy Carter is quoted for having said that “there’s no doubt in my mind that, in history, this is the most polarized country and the most polarized partisan divided that we have ever seen.” President Carter’s implications were very clear from these sentiments of his that political polarization has nearly destroyed both partisanship and society. Many people see American in general as politically polarized, red states and blue states. One can also derive from this quote that the ideological differences between democrats and republicans are only shifting apart from each other. They are neither willing to compromise nor collaborate. The second quote, which represents the second argument, comes from President Barack Obama, who said that “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America. There are only certain influences that allow certain individuals to perceive political polarization of being inherently evil. From quote and what has already been explained earlier, it can also be said that one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the public in recent decades is the red/blue division of our country, however unlike
Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government, which results in the election of polarized candidates and policies.
Since the late 1700’s, an era where the formation of political parties began, people have come together based upon similar views or opinions, otherwise known in the political world as factions. Factions have created political parties, factions have also created freedom. Madison claimed that there were two methods of relieving the mischiefs of factions; removing its causes or controlling its effects. “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the s...
Furthermore, he introduces the idea that popular polarization is different from partisan polarization and that sorting has occurred within the parties. Meaning that “those who affiliate with a party… are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically ‘correct’ party than they were [before]” (Fiorina et al. 61). To illustrate the concept of polarization he uses a figure with marble filled urns. These urns depict red blue and gray marbles with r for republican d for democrat and i for independent. When polarization, all gray independent marbles disappear becoming either red or blue.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
In Sinclair’s analysis, voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant roles in creating and enforcing the ideological gap between the two major parties in Congress. This trend of polarization is rooted in the electorate
Partisanship is a natural phenomenon for Human beings; we seek out, long for, and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through these people, we polish our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our viewpoint. Factions give breadth, depth, and volume to our individual voice. James Madison, the author of the Federalist #10 underlined the causes of factions, the dangers factions can pose, and solutions to the problem.
Whether political polarization is good or bad for the nation is still up for debate, but the general consensus is it exists due to a variety of reasons. From the construction of our Constitution, it is clear that the intent of our founding fathers was to create opposition in order to prevent tyranny from prevailing. Polarization is a result of the dividing of a nation into political parties. Though polarization has fluctuated throughout the years, it has caused a great deal of trouble in regards to passing legislation and has resulted in a gridlocked Congress. Even though some fear congressional polarization is destined to get worse, “it is mathematically impossible for congress to get much more polarized” than it is now.
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
Cleavages existing in society are divisions such as religion, gender, race, and most importantly socioeconomic status. Political parties form around these divisions in society and in America’s society; money has proven to be the major factor. The major parties in American politics are Democrat and Republican, and the political preference of each member of these parties’ deals greatly with the amount of income they receive.
Recently, the debate of whether bipartisanship has completely left this country incapacitated due to the lack of cooperation between Senators and House members with conflicting opinions has grown especially due to the Clinton Impeachment Debates. Many individuals feel that the only reason William Jefferson Clinton was impeached in the House was due to the fact that the majority of the House is republicans. This research proposal will attempt to define if the concept of bipartisanship does exist. If it does exist, what are the contributing factors to it (convincing individuals, convincing corporations, money, the Senators or House member’s families)? These can be considered to be the independent variables. Presently, the Internet consists of numerous, almost uncountable, sources on bipartisanship. Many magazines and newspapers are major contributors to this subject as well. The amount of scandal contributing to this particular issue creates a level of curiosity that intrigues all aspects of this society. When the public seems to want press on a particular issue, they seem to get it.
In conclusion, I believe that polarization exists in the United States. I agree with many of the points that Wilson brings up in his article, as states previously. The gap between liberals and conservatives is getting wider and wider, leaving nowhere for those with moderate views to be in the mix. Polarization is detrimental to our two party dominated republic, and it is difficult to determine what may fix our political system.
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
... Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification. American Journal of Political Science, 970-988. Oakes, P., Alexander, H., & John, T. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality.
Americans have become so engrossed with the rhetoric of political parties that many are unable have real discussions about “freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, security, accountability.” (Lakoff p.177) The election of 1828 gave birth to the “professional politician” it demonstrated how “ambivalence” on issues, how image and the right language or narrative can influence voters. Partisanship did increase competition and empower voters to a greater degree, but it has also divided Americans and obstructed communication. As one historian declared the “old hickory” killed the ideal of nonpartisan leadership. (Parsons p.184) For better or for worse American politics were forever be changed in 1828.
What we disagree upon is the interpretation of these founding documents. According to Pew Research, since 1994, the average partisan gap has increased from 15 percent to 36 percent. Our political culture and the media industry feed on creating difference and demonizing opponents. The issue arises when arguments transfer from the confines of news media to the dining hall. Students and society as a whole are reflecting the argumentative standard set before them on television.