Polarization In America Chapter Summary

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.

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.

Over the past three decades, the distance between parties has continued to grow steadily. As their distances increase it has become harder for presidents to receive votes from both parties.

As a young child, politics has always been a complicated idea that I could never wrap my mind around. Even knowing nothing whatsoever over politics and the government, I could still see that there was something truly wrong with politics, and as I grew older, I began to understand politics as it itself is in a state of dysfunction. The question at hand here is how and why this dysfunction is occurring in our politics today. For many experts, they have found that it can all be centered on one main topic. Even though many experts have various viewpoints when it comes to politics, many can agree that it is partisanship that is causing dysfunction in politics, however there are also those who believe otherwise.

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.

In making the polarization bigger and beyond the legislative politics; the beginning of a highly ideological

“The argument that polarization in America is almost entirely an elite phenomenon appears to be contradicted by a large body of research by political scientists on recent trends in American public opinion. While there have been relatively few studies directly addressing Fiorina’s evidence and a growing body of research indicates that political and cultural divisions within the American public have deepened considerably since the 1970s. These studies have found that the political beliefs of Democratic and Republican voters have become much more distinctive over the past 30 years” (Abramowitz and Saunders

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.

The Core lecture was titled “Me, Myself, and I, D or R: Politics through Red and Blue Colored Glass” and lectured by Alex Theodoridis, who is a doctor of political science. The main argument of the lecture was that polarization will continue to increase between the parties until they are no longer able to close the gap of polarization. The main 3 groups of the lecture focus on were psychology, aggregate, and 2016 election. Psychology is basically how all individuals group themselves with it each of the parties. The way many identify themselves in each parties are our attachment to the parties, influence from parents, and new perspective change. Under these condition we identify ourselves to the parties. This explains that much of identification are influence by many factors and much polarization does come to play. From the article “Polarization in the Age of Obama” explains that polarization can affect us in deciding whether or

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.

The United States is growing more and more polarized every year. Not only is the government refusing to cooperate with itself, but its very people are splitting into two allegiant parties. US citizens either conform to party ideals or risk losing all representation. This positive feedback loop forces people to polarize their ideas of themselves and others. People are seeing each other as either Republican or Democrat, not the complex mix they really are. America needs to drastically change how it views its citizens and politics.

Ever since the 1960s ideological conflict and political polarization have evolved as more factors have come into play. Examples of important factors that have fueled the evolution of these two topics are abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, gun control, illegal immigration, Euthanasia, drug, war, and religion. These factors are important topics that over the years have caused the evolution of ideological conflict and political polarization and have caused such divide amongst the people of America when it comes to their views and stance on specific things. In my opinion I believe to the utmost degree that ideological conflict and political polarization poses a major threat to the effective functioning of the democracy in America today.

In his 2002 article “Why the Poor Don’t Soak the Rich,” Ian Shapiro seeks to explain “why there is so much inequality” in American democracy, despite the fact that “most [American] voters, being relatively poor, would…[theoretically] favor taxing the rich and transferring the proceeds downward.” Contrary to what he calls “institutional accounts” of economic inequality, Shapiro argues that numerous social and psychological factors ensure that underprivileged Americans remain unaware of – or simply uninterested in – the overall income distribution in America. His theory, as he himself puts it, seeks to refute the common notion that most American voters “are like coiled springs…[in that] were it not for various external forces…pressing them down, they would leap into action and demand a greater share of the economic pie.”

Researchers agreed that economic inequality and political polarization coincide with one another, because as one rises so does the other (McCarthy, Nolan & Poole 2003). The research for this study also seemed to support the idea that the political polarization increase in recent years is due to the fact that the gap had widened between voters who were republican and identified themselves as conservatives and democratic voters that identified themselves as conservatives. There was an increase in the number of republican voters identifying as conservatives while there was also a decrease in democratic voters who identify as conservatives.