Is Political Polarization Bad or Good for Democracy - Essay Example

Order 488762 Topic: Do you think political polarization is bad or good for democracy in the United s today? Political polarization is neither bad nor good for democracy. The relevant issue is what for the polarization is taking place. The games of the vested interests are part of politics; working for individual gains is also part of the politics. Stray cases of crossing over from one party to another or taking opposite stands within the same party cannot be termed as signs of polarization. Polarization of politics is-- any general or specific move of political leaders from centrist to extreme political positions. Some of the factors that make polarization happen are: ethnic or religious violence and counter attacks resulting in more violence; ideological integrity instead of taking opportunistic positions with the sole purpose of winning the ensuing election; fundamental changes in the electoral system making it inevitable for the candidate to encourage one’s core supporters than to appeal to the median voter; the system of proportional representation is conducive to the last choice. Political polarization is the normal process of democracy, but if it were to take an extreme posture it is bad for United States today, as the country has to tackle many issues at the global level. It is facing severe economic competition from China and the threat from the Muslim fundamentalists to its security is real. The need of the hour is not political polarization but total unity, irrespective of party affiliations. A strong opinion is expressed by the think-tanks and analysts of political situation in USA, that in recent times, increasing polarization is seen. Jim Jeffords’ resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 is one such instance. He felt that the party was increasingly on the verge of polarization and the moderate voices are not allowed say. Ex-President Bill Clinton expressed the view in Daily Show on 9/18/06 that he believes that the Republican Party stands for polarization. Democracy and verbal duals Democracy doesn’t mean that the ruling and the opposition parties need to be permanently at war with each other. The supreme objective is the good of the country, and the responsible parties understand this fact. At times, an ordinary citizen who has no deep understanding of the working styles of the politicians, thinks that some illusion of policy differences, some incidents of cross, are the harbingers of the split in the party. The Senators of the same party who sometimes cross swords in public through newspapers, electronic media, etc often have the hidden agenda. They wish to gauge the moods of the public and wish to please every section of the society, in the overall interest of the party. In the ultimate analysis, they are aware of the benefits of remaining loyal to the policy and the party leadership. The differences are only illusory. Even the different parties take identical approach when issues of national interest and popular appeal are involved. The ultimate goal of every party is to win the next General Elections, and to retain one’s place in the political hierarchy and at the opportune time climb the next few steps of the political ladder. For example, both the parties in Congress voted in favor of tax cuts in 2001; they agreed for use of force in Iraq in 2002; approved the proposal to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Vertical polarization When parties take irreconcilable stands it amounts to vertical polarization which is bad. An average American, whether Democratic or Republican, “loves” both parties. This is reflected in the disposition of the Congress and the President since 1948. They are aware of the duties and responsibilities of the Federal Government and what an average American citizen expects of them. No one is interested in conflicts; everyone looks forward to solutions so that the life can go on smoothly and happily. The wise saying goes, “Have the will to grow and grow you will!” That is true of the Nation, the National politics and its mentors. The average voter takes the centrist position (Such individuals cannot be termed as fence-sitters) The Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 bear testimony to this position. The difference in votes was marginal which indicates that Americans like both. Both have to swim in the same lake, bitter quarrels are out of question. The swimming paths/directions can be different. But remember, the lake has shores on all the sides. The parties are bound to have differences. The case of recent Health Care Package is fresh in the memory of Americans. Every Republican in the Senate voted against the bill, yet it enjoyed the greater Democratic support. On the other hand, many Democrats opposed the bill! New policy disputes about issues with the potential to evoke strong feelings: The changing lifestyles, the advancement of the materialistic civilization to new zeniths, the exposure to colossal information technology by people in all age groups due to internet revolution, have enhanced the reacting capacity of the individuals. Everybody has opinions about everything and the ever-obliging Press and the electronic media are there to fuel the fire. The issues like legality of gay marriages and future of abortion right concern individuals and not the parties as such. People will cut across party lines to form their own opinions and the parties concerned about retaining their “powerful-chairs” (political status), would like to find themselves on the right side of the fence. Nevertheless, “Politics cleaved by a worldview has the potential for fiery disagreements because considerations about the correct way to lead a good life lie in the balance. Specifically, we demonstrate that American public opinion is increasingly divided along a cleavage that things like parenting styles and “manliness” man onto. We will call that cleavage authoritarianism.”(3)(e. g. Hetherington et al.2009) Religion has always been a potent force to create partisan cleavages but in the recent years is has attained new dimensions, due to Muslim fundamentalism. The ensuing war with Iraq, though began with unanimity between the contending political parties, has given rise to fresh tensions with war prolonging beyond initial expectations for its conclusion. Clustering towards ideological poles at the elite level, Congress is polarized, with the party members making desperate attempts to cling to their respective poles, but that again will be for a couple of games, not for all time to come.“Evidence that ordinary citizens are truly polarized, however, is less clear. We certainly do not hear many stories about fights breaking but in polling stations or the public square like the one between Congressmen Stark and McInnis. In fact, Morris Fiorina (Fiorina et al. 2004), in his compelling book Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, argues that voters only appear polarized because the political arena offers mainly polarized choices. He argues that voter preferences remain moderate, have generally not moved farther apart over time even when hot-button social issues, and are increasingly tolerant of difference.”(16) Florina’s view is contested by Jacobsen. “Jacobsen (2007) sees polarization in the unprecedented partisan differences in evaluations of George W. Bush, a larger partisan split the war in Iraq than any previous war, and the mental gymnastics that mass partisans apparently engage in new to buttress their opinions even when they are demonstrably false. Importantly, however, most of Jacobsons evidence of polarization hinges on direct evaluations of President Bush or evaluations of policies that he is closely identified with.” (16) “Although Abramowitz and Saunders (2008) see polarization in the increased consistency in liberal and conservative views in the mass public, their measure of polarization is geared to tap consistency of responses rather than their extremity from a midpoint, which most others in this debate is evaluating polarization claims. Elite polarization without mass polarization has the potential to alienate a moderate public. Ideologues might be invigorated but the middle might participate less. In addition, the policy outcomes produced by polarized political elites may not reflect those of a moderate mass public.”(16) Mass polarization cannot be taken for granted by any political party. That too polarization on a single issue will not divide the masses permanently, it may divide the Congress. No standards can be fixed for mass public and that is the beauty of democracy. The heat the political parties are able to generate on a particular issue will not contribute to polarization. The enlightened masses are able to judge the igniting issues like racial attitude in proper perspective and would like to keep the long term issues concerning the nation safe and secure. “Elites are prone to polarization because they know and care about politics. As a consequence, they understand the issues and are more inclined to invest themselves in one side or another. In contrast, most ordinary Americans care little about politics and are, instead, consumed with their work, family, and other nonpolitical pursuits”(17) (e.g., Campbell et al. I960). A number of surveys, seminars, discussions on public platforms, media interviews conducted in the past and recently, indicate that the two sides agree on substance and differ only in degree, even on important issues like the federal role in school integration. The hard-core activists of two parties may have acute disagreements, but not the mass public. Keep aside the traditional issues for a while. They have lost their sheen and punch to divide the American citizens on the party-lines. New lifestyles and economic problems that concern everybody, have taken the centre stage. Issues like how to check immigration, how to combat terrorism, demand more attention and they have contributed to cement a new sense of unity amongst the Americans, cutting across party lines. Conclusion I have tried to highlight the scholarly disagreement whether the lay American citizens are polarized or not; the differences in the arguments of the scholars do not mean much. The moods of the general public are unpredictable. They wish for peace and harmony at the Federal level and the priorities of the younger generations are not the ones that were prevalent in America, a few decades ago. Polarization certainly exists at the highest level, but it is restricted to mutual discussions and debates from the responsible platforms; the ordinary Americans are not polarized, for they have to live happily in their respective communities, they desire social harmony in day to day relationships; they are not living in Washington! “Conditions sometimes cause people with different worldviews to see the world the same way. After 9/11 a large proportion of Americans supported torture, wiretapping, and preemptive war. These were not fringe positions taken only by hard-core authoritarians. Rather, the authors show that reasonable people want to feel safe, too, and will support a strong hand when they feel threatened.”(Hurwitz…) If the Democrats or the Republicans have the cherished desires that have the capacity to divide the Americans on ideological lines, they are grossly mistaken. The common citizen now understands the difference between the vote they cast once in four years, and the life they live for 365x4 days after casting the votes. Works Cited Hetherington, Marc J(Author), Weiler, Jonathan D. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition ,August 24, 2009. Hurwitz, Jon, University of Pittsburgh http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X Read More