1|Page

Wilson Noah Mazile

PL SC 426: American Political Party and Interest Group
December 8, 2015
DOES POLITICAL POLARIZATION AFFECT THE GOVERNANCE OF
THE US GOVERNMENT BRANCHES?
I.

Introduction

People believe today that American society has entered an era of ideological polarization. This is
known as a period of time when people are at most disagreement and disunity. Polarization is defined as a
state and a process, as a state being the extent to which opinions on an issue are opposed in relation to
some theoretical maximum. A process, polarization is a progressive increase in opposition over time.
Today Congress is politically polarized. Its polarization seems to be affecting the way Congress
represents its constituents. Polarization is like division, amongst many people can lead to anarchy and
chaos. It is theorized by historians that America was the most polarized during the American Civil War. A
war that cost thousands of American lives. Could the current political polarization present in Congress
lead to detrimental effects like another civil war? Today, this nation faces tough issues including growth
in trillion dollar debt, scal or entitlement policies which are exterminating, global economic crisis,
global climate change, and many other issues. Democrats and Republicans cant seem to find common
ground in addressing these issues. Scholars should care about how political polarization has taken over
the true purpose of Congress and its functions.
Understanding the concept of polarization and its effects can help scholars find solutions to
solving the detrimental effects that polarization may bring to this democratic society. Help the larger
public come to higher understanding of what they should expect be expecting from their representatives.
Today representation is no longer in the hands of the congressman/congresswoman placed in charged, but
the radical party elites themselves and their own political ideologies. The public should be aware of the
fact that they are not represented based on their popular views on a particular issue. They are represented
by the views of these political elites, who deem what issues to focus on. This research paper will examine

2|Page
the arguments of eight scholarly works written by political professors and analysts; Sean Theriault,
Frances, and Nathaniel Persily to name a few, who study political polarization and have come together in
ideas in order to stop its potential permanent effects on the US Government; by stating that both parties
must come together to reform the current checks and balances system which is only enabling the current
polarization to evolve.

II.

Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making by Barbara Sinclair

There no set year when the modern political polarization of todays era took place. But it said that
the Civil Rights movement led many southern Democrats to migrate to the Republican Party, A major
party realignment occurred in the South; the region went form almost totally Democratic- in voter
allegiance (party identification), in voter behavior, and in congressional representation- to an increasing
Republican advantage, further showing a movement that led to significant change (Sinclair 2006, 16).
Sincular makes the claim that a political philosophy may be respectable without being widely popular.
For it to become dominant in one of the two adopt the political philosophy, or masses of those holding the
philosophy must flood into the party, showing how political elites get the idea of controlling the party to
address their own concerns and needs (Sinclair 2006, 14). Sinclair believes that party polarization exist
because its a story in which voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant role, a concept
that is widely accepted as the cause of the political polarization (Sinclair 2006, 137). Sinclair identifies
many issues in the current political system including
Party leaders increasingly used restrictive rules to their partys advantage, voting on rules has become
highly partisan, showing that the polarized Congress has been increased because its leaders have
continued to use the system. The policy process has been distorted, with deliberation and compromise
replaced by a partisan steamroller. The policy result is often stalemate, and so pressing national problems
are left unaddressed, (Sinclair 2006, 166)
Signifying that this a consequence the country cannot afford to continue. Her book touches many
bases on political polarization including government functions, media functions, and the roots of
polarization which begin back the 1970s when southern democrats started migrating largely to the

3|Page
Republican Party. She finds that As the parties became increasingly polarized and majority party leaders
increasingly used restrictive rules to their partys advantage, voting on rules has become highly partisan,
showing how representative voting takes place in a polarized Congress (Sinclair 2006, 193). Its more
straight-forward for the party, not so much on the respective members opinion or constituency voice. For
most of the book Sincular explains the political battles that took place during the Reagan & Clinton
Administrations, and how the culture of Democrats vs. Republicans ideologies divide government issues
and increase threat of government shutdowns. This further increases the impact of political polarization in
government. She acknowledged that especially for the Senate, Partisan polarization has made
participation through their parties more attractive to senators than it was the parties were more
heterogeneous and the ideological distance between them was smaller, proving that it started as a party
competition set by party elites and not because ideological difference (Sinclair 2006, 345). But eventually
through the works of party leaders it became a clash of ideologies. Sinclair examines the consequences of
political polarization showing though a democracy is defined by disagreement and compromise, it is also
huge problem in terms of ideology and governance.

III.

Sean M. Theriault. Party Polarization in the US Congress. Member Replacement and

Member Adaptation

The first important question to ask is how did Congress ended up being polarized? University of
Texas Professor Sean M. Theriault took a peer-reviewed article about part polarization in Congress.
Party Polarization in the US Congress: Member Replacement and Member Adaption speaks about the
political parties today how their ideologies have become more polarized than ever. There are ideological
politicians today, without a doubt, the replacement of moderate members by more ideological members
has driven the parties apart, meaning that political analysts like Theriault have reason to believe where
the polarization is coming from (Theriault 2006, 499). Professor Theriault looks member adaption which
occurs when particular legislators become more conservative or liberal over the course of their career,

4|Page
showing that the ideology of the party has a role in playing in the personal ideology of the candidate
(Theriault 2006, 484). This overall has a huge question to answer since representation is most role of the
legislator and not the ideology of the party. Ideology of the party are set by party elites and party leaders,
so they do not really reflect a homogenous belief of the party. What is interesting about Theriaults review
is that he questions his own his personal struggle with understanding polarization how it effect the future
of politics, Am I (and the other scholars studying polarization) making a mountain out of a molehill? Has
this study contributed to an intense examination of a trend that only appears big when its historical
context is ignored? In other words, are the continuous replacements and adaptations like the grains of
sand comprising a molehill or are they the big boulders comprising a mountain?, presenting evidence of
two periods of Congress and the Senate 27 years apart and how their standard deviations had grown
higher than ever (Theriault 2006, 498).
Theriault also acknowledges the fact that race have no longer become competitive because party
polarization in Congress is real and signicant; it is not likely that we have seen the end of this trend,,
showing the foresight that he sees political polarization getting worse and having a much more profound
impact on the congressional voting and representation in the future (Theriault 2006, 499). In short, this
review proves that polarization is supported by the ideology of the party elite within each party.
Congressional and senate voting does not concern the representation of Americans, only the party elite.

IV.

Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams. Political Polarization in the American Public

On that note, another peer-review work that goes in depth about the effects of polarization is
Political Polarization in the American Public by political scholars Stanford Professor Morris P. Fiorina
and Harvard Professor Samuel J. Abrams. This review highlighted the consequences of elite polarization
would gradually produce popular polarization Participation, trust in government, and other democratic
goods will decline as voters increasingly see politics as ideological self-expression rather than an effort
to solve problems important to them, which proves that the effects of political polarization will lead

5|Page
disunited Congress (Abrams & Fiorina 2008, 582). The review highlighted an experimental study done in
2000 presidential debate where they found the style of political disagreement truly affected the way
Americans would trust their government, People who view ersatz candidate debates in which
disagreement is civil show increased trust in government and Congress, whereas those who view debates
featuring in civil disagreement in which the debaters sigh, roll their eyes, interrupt, and otherwise
behave as Al Gore did in the rst 2000 presidential debateshow lowered trust, which is important
because a successful and efficient government require the trust of its masses (Abrams & Fiorina 2008,
582). If Americans do not trust Congress, anarchy and chaos is likely to follow.

V.

Delia Baldassarri and Andrew Gelman. Partisans without Constraint: Political

Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion

Princeton Professor Delia Baldassarri and Columbia Professor Andrew Gelman, both of
Sociology, performed a study on the effects of political polarization when they wrote Partisans without
Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. This review explained a
similar argument about political polarization as a threat to the extent that it induces alignment along
multiple lines of potential conict and organizes individuals and groups around exclusive identities, thus
crystallizing interests into opposite factions, proving that political polarization only disunities
government and creates anti-government factions that disturbed the establishment (Baldassarri and
Gelman 2008, 409). In order for a government to maintain governance and political stability, they must
affiliate moderate and cross-party voting. Today political elites are more concerned with getting to their
party to follow their own radical initiatives accomplished, rather than allowing its members to have their
own initiatives and perform their own respective functions. In a polarized political party, members
ideological opinions are no longer marginalized, but correlated with each other, which only further the
gap. The review goes to depth on the concept of the political pluralism model explaining that democratic
systems are characterized by crosscutting interests and identities and actual access to political

6|Page
representation for most (if not all) social groups. Results used to evaluate potential deviations from this
model due to alignments of interests that might sharpen divisions in the political arena and group or
partisan sorting that might lead to the systematic underrepresentation, implying that increasing political
polarization will affect the governance of Congress (Baldassarri & Gelman, 2008, 410). It will broaden
interest representation and lead to systematic underrepresentation.

VI.

Jones, David R. Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock.

Professor David R. Jones of Baruch College City University of New York wrote a political
review in 2001 on political polarization entitled Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock. He
acknowledges that though polarization has no correlation with divided government or legislative gridlock.
He mentioned some solutions that have been explored by legislative reformer hoping to alleviate
legislative gridlock have advocated changes in the electoral system designed to promote unified
government Yet the results of this study suggest that adopting such changes may not help to reduce
gridlock, since unified government is not necessarily any less prone to gridlock than divided
government, which implicates a solution that though flawed can create a change toward a more unified
Congress (Jones 2001, 127). He presents another strategy for more activity in government active
government may be to reduce the threat of filibusters by lowering the three-fifths cloture requirement,
which could potentially be a good strategy for changing the checks and balances system in the Senate,
though currently there would be no agreement among both party for such a change (Jones 2001, 137).

VII.

Layman, Geo rey C., Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz. Party
Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.

Five years later three other political writers wrote a review called Party Polarization in American
Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. These authors suggest that party polarization paint

7|Page
a picture of a society that is separated into two Americasthe red one and the blue one with
vastly different religious orientations, values, lifestyles, and economies, each staring the other down in an
increasingly bitter culture war (Layman & Thomas & Horowitz 2006, 93). They reference J.P. Hunter
Author of Culture War. The Struggle to Define America (1991) recognizing that American society has
entered a cultural conict is more relevant and intense for religious and political elites and activists than
for the general public, which leads to the conclusion that Americans no longer view each other as a
unified country and its the fault of the current polarization (Hunter, 1991). They acknowledge this
division exist especially between blacks and whites, men and women, rural and urban residents, and
religious traditionalists and modernists They report sharp religious, cultural, and ideological
differences, which is exactly tearing the society apart (Layman & Thomas & Horowitz 2006, 94). The
mention the divergence of Democratic and Republican identiers is that some party identiers are
moving their own attitudes toward the very liberal or very conservative positions of their partys elites,
which further shows the influence political elites (Layman & Thomas & Horowitz 2006, 94). It is a fact
that the American public has very low knowledge on the countrys politics and this only furthers the
ideological polarization because very Americans are making the efforts develop their opinions. They
rather let the party they most identify with make its decisions.

VIII.

Lee, Frances E. How Party Polarization Affects Governance?

Frances E. Lee, a Professor at the Department of Government and Politics, University of

Maryland wrote How Party Polarization Affects Governance? bringing out the argument that polar
polarization is affecting the representative and governmental purpose of the US Congress. Lee says
governance encompasses the ability to carry out routine functions such as budgeting, appropriations, and
appointments to the executive branch and judiciary, which are functions that control everything in this
country (Lee 2015, 262). All form of extreme gridlock can have destructive affects to the establishment.
Governance include involves questions of systemic sustainability: Are governing institutions gaining or

8|Page
losing power relative to one another, and is the system of checks and balances being maintained?... the
two parties in the United States have grown more sharply differentiated, and each party has become more
cohesive and more likely to come into conict with the other, which isnt great for country at all. Lee
questions whether party polarization promotes extreme policies (Lee 2015, 262). He implies If the
parties have moved substantively farther apart in ideological terms, then it stands to reason that they
would push through more extreme policies on the rare occasions when they have an opportunity to do so
understanding that it is possible for a polarized government to produce radical policies (Lee 2015, 275).
This will not benefit the masses who face social and economic of todays world. Indeed, the effects of
policy can shift dramatically as a result of societal or economic changes even when laws remain the same.
Overall, though it may be tougher to make the argument that party polarization promotes extremism, it
certainly makes a strong argument for how Congresss efficacy will become stagnated and unproductive
with political polarization present.

IX.

Solutions to Political Polarization in America Edited by Nathaniel Persily

Stanford Professor of Law Nathaniel Persily, along with other political scholars, edited a
reference book entitled Solutions to Political Polarization in America about the problems of political
polarization and the solutions to solving the problem. In his work, he makes many profound arguments
about how political polarization has broken the American system and references other political scholars
who present evidence and solutions to how the system will get fixed. Another law professor named
Richard H. Pildes, a Professor at New York University, writes in the Re-empower Party Leadership
chapter of the book arguing how American politics is more fragmented than polarized, by fragmentation,
I mean the external diffusion political power away from the political parties as a whole and the internal
diffusion of power away from the party leadership to individual party members and officeholders,
meaning that its party leadership that is driving this division and not the party ideologies (Pildes 2006,
146). Taking the power away from party elites and creating a stronger party base also helps both parties

9|Page
see some similarities and create a willingness to work together. There is profound influence happening
among ideological extremists to their ability to influence the public in two different ways of life. That
added to social factors like the countrys economic inequality, immigration, and foreign policy. There is
also what Pildes calls the white backlash against Americas first African-American President (Pildes
2006, 154). The foundation of the solution lies in reforming Congress and its electoral process in
partisanship. Bipartisanship is the key ending this division and promoting a stronger government.
Congressional negotiations should be encouraged with incentives for compromising together. Political
leaders from both parties must have the willingness to come together and set aside different, instead of
looking at each as adversaries. Negotiations should be more privatized to the public and less known to the
media so that popular and social polarization can be minimized.
The book also cites theory political scientist and author Alan Abramowitz, who has 5 suggestions
on how Congress can depolarize. He first suggests redistricting reform to ensure that the results of the
house elections reflect the preference of a majority of the American electorate. The minority does not
need more protection against the will of the majority in the Senate, understanding there needs to be a
change in the change in the checks and balance system (Abramowitz 2015, 205). He writes that
undemocratic filibusters must be eliminated. Second he believes in abolishing the debt ceiling to
remove the temptation for the minority party to engage in political extortion, potentially undermining the
full faith and credit of the United States, a situation happening in Congress today between the President
and House Republicans (Abramowitz 2015, 205). Third, Abramowitz writes that America should have
concurrent election of members of Congress and the president to decrease the likelihood of divided
government, increase the sense of shared fate among members of both the majority and minority parties,
and allow enough time for the policies of a newly elected majority party to be fairly evaluated. Electing
all members of Congress in presidential election years would also ensure that they are chosen by the
larger, more diverse, and more representative electorate than that which turns in midterm years
(Abramowitz 2015, 206).
Overall this should diminish the power of the extreme wings of both parties. A Professor of
Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth named Russell Muirhead contributes to the book writing the
Finding the Center chapter about how Congress is no longer committed to its purpose and function, the

10 | P a g e
fundamental normative purposes of partisanship are corresponding betrayed: rather than serving a large
and definite purpose, the parties aim for the petty purpose of blocking the other side, showing that this
practically a competition and not a government focused on strengthening the countrys democracy and
unity (Muirhead 2015, 238).

X.

Conclusion

This country has entered one of the most critical times of human civilization. The country is faced
with a dysfunctional government that seem to look at each other as enemies of the state while ignoring the
growing social problems that hurt millions of Americans. There is continuing high unemployment,
growing economic inequality, an aging population looking to enroll in an expiring retirement plans, the
growing issue of climate change, deteriorating infrastructure, poorly performing schools, lack of access to
affordable health care, and high gun violence and terrorism. All these issues present a crisis for the public
which this country cannot continue to evolve in. This is why political polarization has detrimental effects
to the governance of the US Government. Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency continue
unproductively functioning for their own benefits and not the benefit of the public. If there is no
immediate bipartisan reform of the checks and balance system, the country will continue to grow further
polarized to point of no return. These times are critical for this change as times get closer to mid-century
and on forth.

11 | P a g e

Reference Page
Baldassarri, Delia and Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Partisans without Constraint: Political
Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion. American Journal of Sociology. 114(2):
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/B&G_PartisansWithoutConstraint_fi
nal.pdf. December 7, 2015
Fiorina, Morris P. and Abrams, Samuel J. 2008. Political Polarization in the American Public
Annual Review of Political Science. 11
http://anthro.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836. December
7, 2015
Jones, David R. 2001. Party Polarization and Legislative Gridlock. Political Research
Quarterly 54(1).
http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/documents/Jones2001PRQc.pdf
December 7, 2015
Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas, Casey M., and Horowitz, Juliana M. 2006. Party Polarization in
American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences. Annual Review of Political
Science 9 http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/LaymanCarseyReview2006.pdf
December 7, 2015
Lee, Frances E. 2015 How Party Polarization Affects Governance. Annual Review of Political
Science. 18. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113747 December
7, 2015
Persily, Nathaniel. ed. 2015. Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press.
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=om0aCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en
&pg=GBS.PR2. December 7, 2015
Sinclair, Barbara. ed. 2006. Party Wars: Polarization and the Politics of National Policy Making.
University of Oklahoma Press.
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=_thJ8X1ZR0QC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&
pg=GBS.PR12. December 7, 2015

Theriault, Sean M., Party Polarization In The US Congress. Member Replacement and Member
Adaptation. SAGE Publications. 12. http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/12/4/483.full.pdf+html December 7,
2015