Polarization's Impact on American Security Policy-Making

The consequences of political polarization for American foreign and national security policymaking are increasing gridlock in Congress which refers to limit the number of legislation passed and reduce policy inaction in the discussion during Dr. Scott’s lecture. Also, it is important fact to examine how the political preferences of the U.S. Congress have been changed and to analyze which factors have been influencing the political preferences. Persily defines the problems of polarization which are ideological convergence within parties, characteristics of “gridlock” in terms of the inability of policy-making due to obstructionist tackle, and government dysfunction. Consequently, most solutions to gridlock begin with reforms of Senate and House

In view of Guantanamo Bay, the existing population stands low. However, still open are the special military courts and camp. The Obama administration continues to retain broad programs on National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, as well as formulating only modest reforms. On the same, the justice system shows great focus on cracking down on leakers of government secrets, while it clearly guards against court reviews of these secrets. For instance, the current administration has placed a ban on harsh interrogation, similarly to Bush administration. Conversely, the Obama administration under the arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) upheld the increase on drone strikes. Savage explores the process of policy continuation, with a broader insight into the underlying causes. The practical approach by the Obama administration on addressing threats, and resistance from congress and the Republican sides becomes unclear as pertains to the reasons for the current misunderstanding on policy formulations. A clear fact remains: both parties play a major role in the emergent policy frameworks under Obama administration. The current American government has created a philosophical strategy to reform that show sustenance of a variety of controversial decisions from past administrations,

Certainly, there is less coordination between political parties as well as between the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. This political trend in Congress and many bills are still passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. In addition, political polarization “can refer to the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes” (“Polarization (politics)).” It means that polarization is the similar meaning of divergence on a broad range of issues or set of beliefs. This may occur at the same time or independently of each other on the same issues within the party-in-government, party-as-organization, media, or public. Therefore, as long as judicial system is not affected by the implications of political polarization, the U.S. policy may not be big differences if Congress were less