Causes of Political Polarization
Introduction
The divergence of extreme political attitudes to various ideas and opinions brings about the term political polarization. Polarization increases opposition from different political parties with diverse views and opinions. Polarization itself can be democratizing, natural, or even amiable. Whichever form it takes, there are long term effects on the society as well as the state as large. Researchers recommend that only a few issues need to be addressed when it comes to political polarization, whereas others list a lot of issues that need to be addressed. Elite and mass polarization are the two levels that distinguish political polarization. The elite polarization mostly focuses on political party organizers and elected officials, while the mass polarization focuses on the general public. It is rare for days or months to pass without a series of stories concerning political polarization, especially in the United States. Will the causes of political polarization create a state division or togetherness in the near future? With all the research, it would be correct to say that political polarization will create a significant drift among the people.
Political polarization has been brought about by various reasons. The most causes for this being, ideological divisions between political parties and officeholders. This can, however, be reduced or completely done by using several ways, for example, changing the parliamentary system in the country. The various causes of polarization are discussed in depth below here.
Party polarization is one of the biggest causes of political polarization. The prevalence of diverging parties has been the primary cause of political polarization (Layman, Carsey, Horowitz, 2006). This theory has been based on the recent updates in the United States political parties. The majority party occupies the most positions that contain their political ideologies. For both, the elites and the public have various and different ideologies, thereby increasing different positions in the party. Political scientists continue to prove that politicians play a better part in the increase in polarization. For example, in early 1990, the ruling party at that time used polarized tricks for it to become the majority party. A research study proved that voters are often more polarized by leaders of a different party rather than those of their party. This makes it possible for leaders to take even more polarized stances.
Each time a political leader tries to use their polarized tricks to incite their voters against even their political party will bring splitting ideologies to persons. Wealthy people in society, co-corporations, and unions mostly form these political parties. Since they are highly influential in society, they are responsible for a mass donor for these political campaigns. Some political scientists claim that not all polarized single donors lead to a mass campaign that will drive the citizens into polarization.
The other leading cause of political polarization has been attributed to the end of the cold war. Initially, the cold war united Americans at a high rate. America, by then, had a lot of unions and did not divide for whatever reasons. There was no political polarization by then. The end of the cold war ushered in a new era of political polarization. Since Americans did not expect any more external threats or wars from outsiders, they had time to boil up the internal issues they had. There was no longer a global enemy to the country since their unity had helped conquer it all. The external threat was gone, and only the internal issues remained. These internal issues became the reason and rise to polarization. A division was created rather than creating unity among the people. This was the first step into the polarization that Americans took.
The geographical sorting is also another cause of political polarization. As it is, Americans live in civic-minded like communities. Its government governs each community. With such a setting, everyone will likely be talking of and thinking about politics. Their ideas and opinions will differ, thereby creating a rift. In a geographical place where the people are highly politically minded, a single leader can acquire a lot of votes from this separate area. For example, in 1976, a single leader would have gotten a total of 25 votes in an area full of politically minded people, while in 2016, that same leader will get a total vote of 60 in that same region (Barber, McCarty, 2015). Americans will disagree and agree to various matters pertaining to politics; however, when it comes to voting, they will have various opinions. They will vote regarding how they see the candidates and how well they are capable of helping them raise their living standards.
Earlier in the days, there was only liberal and democrats republicans. Today, these two have faced very high levels of sorting, and this has created a rift in these political parties. This gap has been said to increase from the initial 15% to 36%, which is a considerable margin. This goes hand in hand with the high diversity in religion, race, and ethics. America is less religious, and this has become a threat to the religious people living in America. The religious people in America tend to conserve their ideas and opinions to themselves without airing them out. This is incorporated similarly into political parties by issues such as abortion and LGBT rights, which are all based on religion. It would be hard for a religious person to vote for a leader who advocates for abortion for the sole reason that they feel is not right religiously. If people’s values and virtues differ, it will be hard for them to agree on anything since everyone has the right to sharing out their opinion. Racisms and ethnicity have also played a big part in political polarization. People of different races in America tend to join hands with people of their same color, which is also seen in the way they vote for their leaders as well as how they present themselves politically.
The united states judicial system has highly contributed to the increase in political polarization. For instance, in 2012, a confirmation rate for the presidential circuit court appointments was at 50% a rate lower than what was there in the 1980s. Today, it is capable of political parties to hinder nominees who want to be elected or even hinder themselves from any executive meetings or agendas (Yeliang, 2008). It is evident that high rates of on appeal courts, longer case processing as well as caseloads for judges have highly increased political polarization. The increased ideas and opinions from the judicial system have increasingly lead to a division in the legal system, which is then reflected in the political system at the party. Polarization can create strong partisan critiques when it comes to the judges, which will profoundly damage their public perceptions, opinions, and ideas of the justice system. Non-partisans in legal arbitration, for example, the common citizen, will doubt the legitimacy of these courts. This will cause an even bigger rift in the way the citizens see the judicial system, and of course, a judicial system will be useless without the political parties or leaders to come up with various directives for the courts.
Conclusion
There are a lot of causes that bring about political polarization. These causes bring about a politically dived nation. People should result in coming up with better measures on how to change the current state in society. They must focus on more critical issues facing society rather than political drifts and dispatches. One way in which the people can do this, for example, is by looking into what is causing the great division in the country and try to bring back the country in order. This would only be possible if people put their differences away and try to come up with one collective voice without caring for what race are they, the religion, nor even the political party. This will go a long way in fixing the various issues that affect citizens. Problems that have significantly been hidden by the colossal division the country is facing. A united nation will care for the needs of now, tomorrow, and the better future for everyone.
References
Barber, M., & McCarty, N. (2015). Causes and consequences of polarization. Political negotiation: A handbook, 37, 39-43.
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 9, 83-110.
Yeliang, Z. (2008). Polarization” of American Politics: Myth or Reality?[J]. American Studies Quarterly, 3.