Political Polarization:
Positive and Negative Factors and Effects
Positive Factors Leading to Political Polarization and the Positive Effects of Polarization
Polarization, in regards to politics, is defined as “a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factors”. Polarization is evident in today’s political culture and this paper will delve into the factors contributing to this shift in politics as well as the effects of polarization on the political landscape. Is this shift beneficial or harmful to the function of our government and the representation of the American citizens? In the past thirty years Democrats have grown more liberal while Republicans have grown more conservative, even moderates or independents have been shifting to the extreme right or left. First we will take a look at the positive factors of political polarization and the effects on the voter. Competition, voter participation, and political participation are good examples of the positive factors and effects that stem from political polarization. Competition can lead to better representation from the leaders in government, voter participation is paramount in elections which can lead to the importance of more involvement in the process, and there is the social aspect of political participation that can produce a positive outcome in regards to elections.
It can be argued that competition resulting from polarization can produce better representation for the public. According to David C. King’s work on polarization “competition makes the political market more efficient and rewards superior political teams” and, “competition yields parties and policies reflecting the median voter’s preferences”. If this is the case then it seems that polarization is contributing to a more accurate representation for the American voter. I don’t quite agree with this philosophy. I believe that with polarization comes fewer choices stemming from the more efficient and superior political teams. In my opinion this breeds political teams that are excellent fundraisers and run excellent campaigns rather than excellent public leaders. I will cover the subject of lack of representation more when I tackle the opposite side of the argument. Voter participation is crucial in the political process. The argument can be made that the more public involvement in politics the more accountable political leaders will be held. In Dodson’s work on polarization in politics he has found that “party polarization is a key element that connects citizens to the political process”. The major political parties use their fundraising and organizational skills to appeal to the voters and encourage them to get involved in order to gain more votes to win elections. Major parties and their inherent exclusive ways have shut out most third parties and independent parties from even competing with the major parties as elections near the end. In order to have a chance at holding office for the most part third party and independent party candidates must succumb to the views of the major parties as they slide left or right and join one of the major parties that have the resources for a candidate to gain exposure and have a chance at succeeding in gaining office. Political participation should not be confused with voter participation. There is a difference between the two in that voter participation has to do with voting and political participation has to do with anything regarding involvement in politics. Calling into political radio shows, joining in political discussions on blogs or online news outlets, volunteering or donating to a campaign, and voting can all be considered some forms of political participation. Open debate is encouraged in America and it can be argued that polarization of politics has caused more Americans to become involved due to the major social aspect of politics. Bibby and Schaffner discuss the social aspect of political participation noting that “while scholars and commentators have been lamenting the decline in political participation for many years, polarization may at least temporarily, be reversing this trend” and specifically “in 2004,…,nearly half of the American public reported trying to influence another person on how to vote…thus, partisan polarization not only led citizens to participate more in the political process, it also drove them to discuss politics with others, which reinforced the politically charged atmosphere in 2004”. I agree with this analysis however, I feel this is still due to the lack of choices to the voter. By the time voters get involved in the process a majority of the independent and third party candidates have fallen out of the race due to the inability to keep up financially and failing in the ability to gain enough support to be competitive. The voter’s choice is limited throughout most of the process.
In researching the experts and sorting through the facts it is clear that there are two sides to the issue of political polarization, as well as the factors leading to polarization, and the effects of polarization on the voters. Some experts agree that there has been an increase in voter participation and political participation in Americans over the last three decades. These increases in participation is viewed as a positive however, could this increase in participation be that the voter is disappointed with their elected officials and feel that increased participation will fix the situation? We will now take at the other side of the issue of political polarization. How has the last three decades of growing polarization negatively affected politics in America?
Negative Factors Leading to Political Polarization and the Negative Effects of Polarization
One may remember the Coca Cola vs. Pepsi advertisement war and the more recent PC vs. Mac ad campaign, but would one remember what other soft drinks or computers respectively were on the market at that time. It was as if that within the constant lobbying to dink Coke or Pepsi the other soft drink competitors fell by the wayside in an effort to gain more interest in their product creating the inability to compete. In essence the less advertised competitor’s inability to compete created less readily available and easily accessible choice. It is this lack of choice that I feel is the main problem with political polarization. We will now take a look at the negative effects of polarization and the problems that started the process. Representation or lack thereof, voter turnout bias in the primaries, and complete avoidance are all examples of negative factors and effects of political polarization.
Representation in our government is important to every American that pays their taxes. Without representation an American may feel that their voice and those like them are not being heard. However, representation as I have mentioned earlier suffers when political polarization is at its strongest. Competition has been the catalyst to polarization all along, forcing some of the third parties and independent party’s candidates and nominees to move from moderate or activist views and standpoints to adopting liberal or conservative views. This view can be reinforced by King when he states “electoral realignment may be partly endogenous, since moderates are more likely to call themselves independents as they see the party faithful moving to extremes, which in the end reinforces polarization”. King calls this “competition polarization” and states that in regards to representation in the United States Congress “the more party competition there is, the more divergence one expects from delegate-type representation”. I definitely agree with this. In a two party system a voter is limited to only two choices for our representatives in the electorate college. Imagine if you went car shopping and all that was available was a truck and a compact car but you are a mother with four kids. In this example there are not enough choices for the mother to even make a decision to purchase a vehicle that suits her needs. Why when one goes to the grocery store there are close to one hundred choices in the breakfast cereal aisle but when it’s time to vote for the leader of the United States there are only two choices? Just listen to the language on any major media news outlet when debating a vote in Congress on a bill. The pundits usually talk about the Republicans agenda and the Democrats agenda and nothing about the “yea” and “nay” votes thus contributing to the us against them attitude in politics with not even acknowledgement of third parties until only recently noticed with the Tea Party’s gain of notoriety. Primaries are a crucial part of the election process that starts the weeding out process of those running campaigns that are inefficient or ineffective. Voter turnout bias can be viewed as a negative effect contributing to political polarization. Bibby and Schaffner describe voter turnout bias as “the tendency of party activists to have higher rates of turnout in primaries and also to have stronger ideological orientations than rank-and-file voters” and goes on to point out that “there is evidence from recent political science research that suggests that because turnout in primaries is low and primary voters in both parties are more extreme in their views than are general election voters on the whole, members of Congress find that to protect their flanks they may have to play to non-centrist elements in their constituencies”. The outcome of voter turnout bias is continued and reinforced political polarization. I agree that there is some bias, as Bibby and Schaffner point out, and that the bias does contribute to polarization. This movement away from the non-centrist elements in primaries can only have one of two outcomes; one of increased voter participation due to the feeling of disenfranchisement, or one of decreased voter participation and complete avoidance due to the feeling that involvement in the process doesn’t matter. Complete avoidance is a negative effect stemming from polarization. The argument can be made that most Americans are moderates caught in between the two major parties. Again, Bibby and Schaffner point out, in regards to avoidance that “as a result, much of the American electorate is uncomfortable with and turned off by such polarizing partisan politics, leading them to avoid politics altogether”. Although disturbing, I do agree with and can identify with the avoidance issue. As stated before, polarization drastically limits choices. If as an American voter I don’t have a nominee to vote for I would not vote. I am a Libertarian and am usually lost around election time because I do not agree with conservative’s view of more government control over our private lives, and I do not agree with liberals stance on more government control over the US economy. Come election time I and many other American voters have to vote for a nominee that we don’t agree with or not vote at all. In conclusion, one can see through today’s media news outlets, politically charged blogs, radio shows, and elections that polarization is evident in politics. Some of the negative aspects of political polarization include lack of representation, voter turnout bias in the primaries, and the complete avoidance of participation by disenfranchised voters. It is my opinion that all of the aforementioned factors and effects can be avoided with a more inclusive process. Third parties need to take advantage of social media outlets, on air advertising, and government subsidies in order to compete with major parties in today’s polarized political landscape. In addition to inclusion, it would be beneficial if stricter legislation were passed regarding campaign finance in order to level the playing field. More exposure would help third party candidates as well as inclusion in debates, thus creating a larger market of choice to the American voter and their representatives in the electorate college. There are positive aspects of political polarization to the voter, but I fear that the negative effects and factors leading to polarization far outweigh the positive.
