Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Enemies due to beliefs or titles?
Politics are turning into a two-sided battle between Republicans and Democrats, instead of conservative ideas versus those of liberals. GOP members' "views of Deomcrats have soured", and vice versa. There used to exist two sides even within each party, but political parties are now more often than not strictly title against title. The Washington Post explains the height of each party's dislike for the other- a left-sided Republican may have the same beliefs as a conservative Democrat, but the two will never agree to that. This has led to voters casting their ballots because he or she is completely against the Republican candidate, rather than because they support their Democratic runner. A posed question in this article is "whether polarization among politicians or among the public is the more important factor". What do you believe? Is it better (or worse) to have political polarization within the government itself or those who elect our government?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Polarization may be more a hindrance to process of election than a benefit. This metaphorical war between the two parties does nothing but skew voter opinions. A moderate republican candidate may plan on carrying out policies that would be very beneficial in the eyes of a democrat, but the democrat of today cannot see that as it is impeded by the irrational hatred of the other side. All this does is lower the chance of the right person being elected because people are so divided along party lines that they are willing to vote for a less fit candidate just because said candidate is of the same party as the voter. This mentality of rivalry between the parties is silly, this is politics, not high school basketball.
ReplyDeleteI think it's much worse to have politcial polarization within the government itself than among the public. Many Americans identify themselves as belonging strictly to one party without considering that many issues are more complicated than Democrat vs. Republican. However, politicians are even more concerned with party differences than the people are. Politicians are more focused on preventing the opposing party from achieving its objectives than achieving their own. So, they rarely accomplish anything. The public elects many of the government officials, but it's the officials who need to be able to work together and compromise on prevailing issues. And, they're unable to do this because they're more concerned with making the other party look bad.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it's a two way street. However, I think that if the general public was less politically polarized, then politicians would become less polaraized because ultimately the politicians reflect the people. Democrats and Republicans, both the public and the government, need to radically change how they think about each other if any agreements are ever going to be reached in this country.
ReplyDeleteWith the polarization at one of its all time highs, elections and policies being passed are much more troublesome. The opinions of what should be done, whether it is that of a politician or the people, are now a lot more skewed and don't have the needed moderate group. The moderate group allowed decisions in the past to be passed easier than today.
ReplyDeleteThe polarization of the parties occurred largely because it makes the election process simpler. Instead of listing their beliefs, politicians can assign themselves one word and get elected in certain areas. Until the public is more educated on policy making and the candidates themselves, we will continue to see party polarization, because it's easy. In Congress, the polarization is about power and image. Republicans don't want it to appear as though anything is getting done by Obama, and Democrats do not want Republican bills in the House and Senate to pass.
ReplyDeletePolitical polarization has only deteriorated the system. Reasonable laws, programs, and candidates have all been dismissed simply because of their party affiliation. Ideas are no longer ideas, they belong to the parties, and thus the opposite party will instantly disagree with it. Another thing to note is that this polarization has made it practically impossible for third party candidates to have any say in the government process. Fresh, new ideas never even come to surface because they don't come from one of the two major parties. Political polarization has created a terrible deadlock in Congress that severely limits the chances of good ideas being passed.
ReplyDeletePolarization is more harmful then beneficial. Many candidates are overlooked due to their party affiliation. Another harmful effect is that polarization will cause many issues with policy making and other decisions in Washington. Members are so worried about following the beliefs of their party and therefore make it harder for compromise.
ReplyDeletePolitical polarization is a vicious cycle, and the gap between parties will only continue to widen. It has a very negative impact on American politics, because it has deemphasized the individual politicians and their beliefs in favor of the parties as a whole. Even if a politician has views that differ from their party, they're more likely to hide them to gain greater support. As for political polarization amongst politicians and the public... I think it has a bigger impact amongst politicians, and therefore is better in the public. Polarization in the government gums up even simple policy making. Even if American citizens are politically polarized, the government can still function given that there is a healthy amount of debate within parties. But as our politics are right now, politics on every level are polarized.
ReplyDeleteI like the point about, people having the same belief yet they vote differently due to party lines. I think this is seen in goverment a lot like with the TPP bill. In genral, I believe that polarization is bad. The party system works, like it has been for many years, but it needs "wiggle room." Parties are helpful in working together with people of like minded beliefs but using them as battle flags ends in gridlock.
ReplyDeleteThis article raises some good points about partisan support. I've seen it a lot, now more than ever; in our age group, for example, sometimes I see more anti-Trumps sentiments than I see pro-Sanders, and it seems as if people will vote against Trump rather than for Sanders, in a sense.
ReplyDeletePolitical polarization within the government is, in my opinion, worse than that within the American electorate. Too often it seems as if politicians are working more to defuse the other party and gain the majority, which is not the right basis for policy change.
However, political polarization within the American electorate is also a concern. One could argue it is their polarization that exacerbates that of the government, as this is what would tempt campaigning politicians - especially moderates - to inflame the voters of one party and antagonize the opposing candidate of the other party. And it only leads to a perpetual cycle that will not end anytime soon unless some major change comes about.