Deadstickwalkinghome.files.wordpress.com



AMERICAN POLITICAL POLARIZATIONCarter NortonEconomics 7001: American Political EconomicsJanuary 23, 2021Introduction: Some events are sufficiently significant to split timelines. They arrive with such gravity that a quantitative, continuous timeline becomes qualitative and discrete. Humans find themselves in a post-[insert event] present, with mere memories of life before the crisis. I write this paper through vain attempts to recall life before the assault on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The darkness of this era may persist until our Lady Liberty turns to illuminate her own land. She stands as a great American symbol of Winthrop’s “shining city upon a hill”…“whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere”. But who guides the light-bearers? What happens when the light of these United States dims? We must restore it. As a nation, it is now imperative that we retrieve the roots of such a tragedy, perceive how it might continue to impact the United States of America, and conceive of potential solutions to the root issue.The root issue is best described as polarization, partisanship, tribalism, factionalism, disunity, etc. Let us settle on naming it “polarization” hereafter. It is the very issue George Washington identified in his 1796 Farewell Address through “warnings of a parting friend who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel”. Washington could not overstate the absolute necessity of “national union” and “brotherly affection” among American citizens. More than 60 years before the Civil War, Washington expressed “serious concern…for characterizing parties by geographic discriminations”. We are currently nearing 90 years of partisan gridlock, a period of political ping pong highlighted more by leftward and rightward shifts than by forward progress. We return to Washington: “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension” now sounds familiar. He predicted parties would “organize faction to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community” and “make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction”. The predictive power of his statements is uncanny. Although the U.S. Senate reads these warnings aloud every year, they appear to fall on deaf ears. In light of the aforementioned Capitol tragedy, please partake in one more slice of Washington’s humble pie. The 45th President is all but called out by name here: “the spirit of party…agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection”, this spirit yields “despotism” and will “incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual;…the chief of some prevailing faction…turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty”. To see The People’s House suffer a mob of American people wielding flags that echoed their devotion to this despot-in-chief through The People’s House, I felt Washington’s words to be a foreboding prognosis. The disease which produces such agitation, animosity, riot, and insurrection among factions of our whole national union, the consummation of which denotes the ruins of public liberty, must be our metastasizing polarization.3 Causes: Let us analyze three primary causes of polarization. As with any complex concept worth exploring, polarization is not lacking in explanatory theories. Some consider rich insights without consensus to develop careful, meaningful conclusions; some read more like a laundry list of grievances and blame-shifting toward convenient scapegoats. I will do my best to work through the weeds of cite-worthy evidence and present a neutral outline of polarization’s causes. I extract these three central themes in explaining what contributes to political polarization in the United States of America: nationalization of politics, one-dimensional partisanship, and media environment. In the spirit of discouraging polarization, it feels most appropriate to set off every reader in one fell swoop. Who is to blame for this polarized nation? Every one of us. I am at fault; you are at fault. There exists a remarkable irony and hypocrisy in which each party disavows polarization by faulting the opposing party. Let us, at the very least, be unified in our culpability, then together proceed toward healing our nation. 1) Nationalization of Politics:If polarization is our root issue, evidence suggests these seeds were sown roughly fifty years ago. Now, it is worth noting this country has experienced significant division beyond this observed period (1970s – 2020s). One cannot ignore its prevalence in many instances since the inception of the United States (i.e., Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, and many divisive wars). However, this most recent iteration of a divided nation shows a sharp increase in polarization with great potential to harm our political system and fellow countrypersons. Based on the fears of George Washington and many of his colleagues, the Framers combined “a large, diverse republic with a separation of powers” to mitigate “hyper-partisanship” and the struggle for a “majority party”. Their theories broke down to an extent, as political parties quickly formed in 1796. The very year in which Washington lent his advice against factionalism is marked as the origin of American political parties. His own Vice President, John Adams, represented the Federalist party, and he was opposed by Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republicans. Their theories proved correct in the differing incentives of the President, House of Representatives, and Senate. Despite their introduction, the “state and local parties were stronger than national parties”. These factors frustrated partisan attempts to unify from top to bottom. In addition, much of our history at least had the appearance of a multi-party system. Regional differences (north vs. south) or ideological differences (liberal vs. conservative) within either party contributed to coalescence, bargaining, and bipartisan compromise. The difference between that reality and today’s is the shift toward nationalized, tribalized politics wherein participants operate primarily from an “Us vs. Them” mindset. Jordan Peele’s Us profoundly illustrates this mindset. An American family is attacked by outsiders who turn out to be their doppelg?ngers. Upon that realization, the son says, “It’s us”. The father asks the attackers who they are, and they reply, “We’re Americans”. Under attack and afraid, this family realizes they are, to an extent, the attackers themselves. Put differently, they are forced to perceive themselves as the “Us” and the “Them”, the insiders and the outsiders, simultaneously. Is this not what happened at the Capitol? Millions of American families woke up to an attack on their collective House executed by neither Russia, nor China, nor outsiders, but by “Us”. Republicans, and as a whole, Americans, were confronted with transgressors who looked like (and could easily be) them. It is this tribalism, amplified at a national level, that sharpens the divide in our two-party system. Political parties once approached common goals with differing solutions and worked toward compromise. We see political tribes that believe their brand, culture, and identity should be that of the nation, thus they seek power and majority to make it so. When power swings their way, they spend their time debilitating the opposition to elevate their team. Dr. Jeffrey Milyo paraphrased Joseph Schumpeter’s assessment of this dynamic in a class lecture: “Politicians are not fighting issues with conviction or passion for what’s right, they’re merely fighting for the higher ground which impowers them over their opponents. The issues are a means to the end, that is, political power”. This is possible because national parties are now much stronger than state and local parties, and any appearance of a multi-party system “collapsed into just two parties”; it has also proven impossible (so far) to achieve a “permanent majority”, as the electoral pendulum is ever-swinging “from united Democratic government to divided government to united Republican government and back again”. 2) One-Dimensional Partisanship:Congressional roll call voting illustrates our second primary cause of polarization. In 1997, a group of political scientists developed a measure of political polarization called DW-NOMINATE. They analyzed roll call voting behavior in the House and Senate to estimate polarization between American parties. Their research contributes to evidence that partisan distance increased at the highest slope in the last 40-50 years. Barber & McCarty analyzed DW-NOMINATE to explain what they call the “party-conflict dimension”, an interpretation of roll call voting grounded in partisanship. These data paint a picture: a Congressional playing field where elected Democrats run toward increasingly liberal views while their Republican counterparts run in the opposite direction (increasingly conservative), widening the gulf between each team – think tug of war, except both teams dropped the rope and kept on “tugging”. Poole & Rosenthal said, “elected officials in the United States appear to represent relatively extreme support coalitions rather than the interests of middle-of-the-road voters”. How wide is said gulf? A Gallup poll indicates a rough average of 35% of Americans identified as “Moderate” between January and June of 2020. Without jumping to the normative, the following positive claim must be noted. We might be tempted to think of these political spectrum shifts as Newton would: every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction. However, “the evidence shows that the behavioral changes are far from symmetric and are largely driven by changes in the positioning of the Republican Party”. This claim of asymmetry is limited “to the issues (primarily economic) that dominate the congressional agenda. It may well be the case that on some social issues (e.g., gay marriage), polarization is the result of Democrats moving to the left”. The glaring issue beyond the party-conflict dimension is that, as a whole, roll call voting behavior displays decreasing dimensionality. The DW-NOMINATE data was structured in such a way that “only two dimensions are required” to understand it. First, the distinction between liberal and conservative views when it comes to “the role of the government in the economy” serves as a primary dimension (the party-conflict dimension). In addition, the researchers found a dimension based on “race and region” within each party, supporting the notion of identifiable Northern vs. Southern, and other, differences. A multi-dimensional structure means a vote from our elected representatives depends on more than one deciding factor. Voting behavior implies the opposite is true. Any dimension that has been relevant at any point in our history is largely irrelevant now. “Voting in Congress is now almost purely one-dimensional – a single dimension accounts for about 93 percent of roll call voting choices in the 114th House and Senate”. The party-conflict dimension, which inevitably drives polarization, is all that matters to today’s elected representatives. Their decisions on our nation’s most pressing issues are made on a remarkably rudimentary basis. Inversely, we who elect these representatives are doing away with split-ticket voting. For both the House and Senate in the 2020 election, Pew found only 4% of registered voters planned to pair Biden (D) with a Republican legislator or Trump (R) with a Democratic legislator. Thus, both ends of our political system reinforce the devolution toward a singular, polarized party-conflict dimension. 3) Media Environment:This final cause requires diligence. Journalism is absolutely essential for our democracy, despite its endless affliction. Thomas Jefferson declared the press “an evil for which there is no remedy” because “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press”. We must strike a balance between being too gullible and being unreasonably cynical. We must be a responsible audience who can discern facts from opinions and misinformation. Democratic ideals thrive when citizens are well-informed, and it is the duty of responsible journalists to provide reliable information that is free from error. Media’s impact on polarization is predominantly evident in waning journalistic responsibility, growing media bias and echo chambers, and blurring lines between fact and opinion. In September 2020, Fox News successfully defended its primetime segment “Tucker Carlson Tonight” from accusations of slander with the following: “This ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary’”. In other words, a reasonable viewer of Carlson’s show would not perceive his claims as facts, never mind Carlson’s preface: “Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed”. When this show aired (2018), Fox News was decisively “the most-watched basic cable network”, and Tucker Carlson Tonight was their second-most-watched segment and third overall cable news show, averaging 2.8 million viewers per episode. What about the second overall cable news show? Rachel Maddow of MSNBC filled this spot, along with her own defamation case. One America News Network accused Maddow of slander, and again, a judge ruled “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be opinion”. Is this now our benchmark for journalistic responsibility, that the two most popular news sources should be reasonably considered nonfactual? The most dominant sources of information shirk their journalistic responsibilities, resulting in viewers who cannot differentiate fact from opinion, or truth from lies. Unification, empathy, and mutual understanding require access to common ground, but misinformed citizens are led into silos built on untruth. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts”. These silos depend on ‘own facts’, while the common ground’s objective truth vanishes. Fundamental to truth is the reality that every human will find themselves on its bad side at some point. Truth cannot favor one side over another. Humans must take truths as they are given and grow accordingly.However, within each silo, echo chambers protect people from unfavorable truth or manipulate facts to favor insiders. Echo chambers also reinforce the worst of “Us vs. Them” tendencies. They harness fear and our “predisposition for ‘in group favoritism’ and ‘out-group devaluation’” to invoke anger and hatred toward opposing silos, or anyone not entrenched in one’s own silo. Evidence supports this inclination toward populism and extremism. Our mirror neurons, which affect empathy, appear to shut down when we distinguish someone as an outsider, thus “leading us to resist emotional connections”. What’s more, news sources are opting to cover conflict, partisanship, and the political elites who feed this monstrous appetite. This is the recipe for higher ratings, but it fuels disunity. A unified citizenry and responsible journalism must take priority over business success, as journalism must belong to Americans as a public good. Similarly, the most beneficial content for private social media companies is combative, shocking, and provocative clickbait. It is inherently in these companies’ best interest to amplify such content, no matter how false or destructive. It is the aggregation of these aspects of the media environment that drive Americans apart. The power of media will sustain this trend as long as it promotes echo chambers and misinformation under the guise of keeping the public informed.Conclusion: The sharp increase in political polarization since the 1970s poses an existential threat to our national unity and American democracy. Reagan ended his “Shining City on a Hill” speech with this: “And how stands the city on this winter night?”. We do stand, but at a standoff. Lest we forget, “United we stand, but divided we fall”. If each political party is a vehicle driving in the opposite direction, it is the party elites who drive with us, the electorate, in the backseat. We follow their lead or opt for the painful process of jumping from the moving car. In other words, we’re forced to decide whether to personally contribute to polarization or get left behind in a centrist “no man’s land”, never mind the fact that in our representative democracy, these elected officials are meant to represent their constituents. The drivers are meant to obey the will of their passengers. Our predicament can be explained by many more factors than the ones covered here, but these three (nationalization of politics, one-dimensional partisanship, and media environment) stand out as the most consequential. The causes are only one piece of the puzzle. We need leaders to fully understand its corresponding effects, then test potential solutions and act on those that unify. We certainly cannot choose inaction. More specifically, in response to the crisis at the Capitol, I fear we will retreat and seek refuge in our silos. This will only widen the gap, while our solutions remain buried in the common ground. I will, regrettably, hold others in contempt at times. We each have our own journey toward empathy and unity. Still, my eyes remain fixed upon that common ground, digging for solutions. Grab a shovel and find me there.References BIBLIOGRAPHY 2019. Us. Directed by Jordan Peele. Performed by Evan Alex, Winston Duke and Lupita Nyong'o.Al-Rodhan, Nayef. 2016. "Us Versus Them. How Neurophilosophy Explains our Divided Politics." World Economic Forum. October 3. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Michael, Nolan McCarty, and (ed.) Nathaniel Persily. 2015. "Causes and Consequences of Polarization." In Solutions to Political Polarization in America, 20-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bartels, Larry M. 2000. "Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996." American Journal of Political Science 35.City News Service. 2020. San Diego Judge Dismisses OAN's $10 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Rachel Maddow. May 23. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Lee. 2020. "How the Two-Party System Broke the Constitution." The Atlantic. January 2. Accessed January 18, 2021. , Brian. 2018. Fox News finishes 2018 as most-watched cable network, 'Hannity' tops cable news. December 12. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Magda. 2020. "Why We Need Public Journalism." Boston Review. August 20. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Jeffrey B., Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal, Adam Boche, Aaron Rudkin, and Luke Sonnet. 2021. "Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database." NOMINATE. .Maglio, Tony. 2018. 35 Top Cable News Shows of 2018: From 'Hannity to 'The Situation Room'. December 12. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2016. The Polarization of the Congressional Parties - (Archived). University of Georgia, January 30.McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC. 2020. No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (Southern District of New York, September 23).Milyo, Jeffrey. 2020. "Polarization." Class lecture, American Political Economics 7001 from University of Missouri. Columbia, MO.National Archives. 1954. "From Thomas Jefferson to James Currie, 28 January 1786." Founders Online. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Pew Research Center. 2020. Large Shares of Voters Plan to Vote a Straight Party Ticket for President, Senate, and House. October 21. Accessed January 19, 2021. , Keith T, and Howard Rosenthal. 1984. "The Polarization of American Politics." The Journal of Politics 1061.Poole, Keith. 2008. "The Roots of the Polarization of Modern U.S. Politics." SSRN Electronic Journal 4-5.Prior, Markus. 2007. "Introduction." In Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Election, by Markus Prior, 1-2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Reagan, Ronald. 1989. "Transcript of Reagan's Farewell Address to American People." The New York Times. January 12. Accessed January 11, 2021. , Sam. 2018. "Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Anti-Trump of American Politics." The New York Times. October 11. Accessed January 21, 2021. , Lydia. 2020. U.S. Conservatism Down Since Start of 2020. July 27. Accessed January 13, 2021. , Robert. 2020. "Elections 101: The History and State of Current Partisanship in the U.S." U.S. Department of State. February 21. Accessed January 12, 2021. States Senate Historical Office. n.d. Washington's Farewell Address. Accessed January 12, 2021. We Stand. 2021. Motto. Accessed January 22, 2021. . 2021. "Two Parties Emerge." U.S. History Online Textbook. Accessed January 18, 2021. //us/19c.asp.Washington, George. 1796. "Washington's Farewell Address to the People of the United States." United States Senate Historical Office. September 19. Accessed January 12, 2021. , John. 1630. "John Winthrop Dreams of a City on a Hill, 1630." The American Yawp Reader. Accessed January 11, 2021. . ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download