Political polarization: Difference between revisions
Alexhobbit (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
In recent times, some Americans, such as ''[[American Demographics]]'' magazine editor [[John McManus]], have seen increasing polarization in the [[Politics of the United States|U.S. political system]]. Some point to [[Jim Jeffords]]' resignation from the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on the 9/18/06 ''[[The Daily Show|Daily Show]]'' that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization. |
In recent times, some Americans, such as ''[[American Demographics]]'' magazine editor [[John McManus]], have seen increasing polarization in the [[Politics of the United States|U.S. political system]]. Some point to [[Jim Jeffords]]' resignation from the [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party]] in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President [[Bill Clinton]] said on the 9/18/06 ''[[The Daily Show|Daily Show]]'' that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization. |
||
Others, such as [[Constitution Party (United States)|Constitution Party]] analyst [[Michael Peroutka]], take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in [[Iraq]] in 2002, and to ban [[partial-birth abortion]] in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President—whether Democratic or Republican—have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "[[centrist]]" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. This can be demonstrated in both the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]] and [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004]] [[President of the United States|Presidential]] elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans. However the two parties do have their differences, such as the recent health care package, which was voted against by every Republican in the [[Senate]], yet had overwhelming |
Others, such as [[Constitution Party (United States)|Constitution Party]] analyst [[Michael Peroutka]], take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in [[Iraq]] in 2002, and to ban [[partial-birth abortion]] in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President—whether Democratic or Republican—have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "[[centrist]]" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. This can be demonstrated in both the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000]] and [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004]] [[President of the United States|Presidential]] elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans. However the two parties do have their differences, such as the recent health care package, which was voted against by every Republican in the [[Senate]], yet had overwhelming Democratic support. |
||
===Canada=== |
===Canada=== |
||
Revision as of 13:19, 4 January 2010
In politics, polarization (or polarisation) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.
Definitions of polarization
The term "polarization" comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,[3] through historical trends or accidents,[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.[4]
Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.[1] Political scientists several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.[6][7]
The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.[3]
Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.
Polarization by country
United States
In recent times, some Americans, such as American Demographics magazine editor John McManus, have seen increasing polarization in the U.S. political system. Some point to Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President Bill Clinton said on the 9/18/06 Daily Show that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization.
Others, such as Constitution Party analyst Michael Peroutka, take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. They say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in Iraq in 2002, and to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President—whether Democratic or Republican—have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the Federal Government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "centrist" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them. This can be demonstrated in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans. However the two parties do have their differences, such as the recent health care package, which was voted against by every Republican in the Senate, yet had overwhelming Democratic support.
Canada
Polarization has had drastic consequences for the centrist Liberal parties in those provinces where the social democratic New Democratic Party has formed government. The Liberals generally portray themselves as a party that ought to appeal to moderate voters, but where provincial elections have become "two way races" between the NDP and the respective Progressive Conservative Party or equivalent, moderate voters have often been persuaded to abandon the Liberals in hopes of preventing one of the two larger parties from winning, often causing a disastrous result for the Liberals. This has most frequently happened in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and (in the past) in British Columbia. The federal Liberal Party has managed to avoid such a fate.
Polarization in other national politics
An example of polarization was in Germany in the early years after the First World War, when there was support for political parties on the extreme left such as the Spartacists, and also the extreme right, such as the Nazi Party.
References
- ^ a b c Hetherington, Marc J. (April 2007). "The Discounted Voter: Polarization at the Congressional District Level" (PDF). University of Wisconsin–Madison Epstein Conference.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter, pp. 7, 9.
- ^ a b c Jacobson, Gary C. (2008). A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People — The 2006 Election and Beyond. Pearson Longman. ISBN 978-0-205-52974-2. pp. 14–15.
- ^ Bernhardt, Dan (January 2008). "Political Polarization and the Electoral Effects of Media Bias". CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1798. Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich/Ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter, pp. 35–36.
- ^ Sulfaro, Valerie A. (2007). "Affective evaluations of first ladies: a comparison of Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush" (Fee or registration required). Presidential Studies Quarterly. 37 (3): 486–514. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02608.x.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Burrell, Barbara (2000). "Hillary Rodham Clinton as first lady: the people's perspective". The Social Science Journal. 37 (4): 529–546. doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(00)00094-X.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)