In the book Culture War? The Myth of Polarized America the author Morris P. Fiorina details how the country believes that America is separated into two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans with a few swing voters in between. However, the author states the actuality is that more people are on the inside of the lines rather than extreme liberal ideologies and extreme conservative ideologies. The author discusses controversial topics such as abortion and gay marriage and shows examples as to why polarization on these topics are not seen in America. He goes on to explain how America is actually quite the opposite in that the nation is depolarizing their views on these contentious topics. Americans tend to turn to culture wars when they feel a deep anger and frustration about the state of affairs. An example of Americans caught in a culture war was during the Monica Lewinsky affair or as Fiorina puts it, “The year of angry white males”(2) where in the year 2000 Americans were more angry than ever before. A culture was is when a large number of people from a certain demographic oppose and loathe their …show more content…
Bush and John Kerry that took place in 2004 which Fiorina begged the question Fiorina, What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how you voted for president? (146) A majority of the American people answered saying either taxes, education, or the problems in Iraq. Fiorina precedes to then ask the people, What did you like most about your choice for president? The public then responds with saying that he shared their values. So with this I believe that most Americans have about the same values they may have a slight difference of opinion on different subjects but I don't believe this constitutes our nation as being as polarize has some may believe. Americans definitely debate and discuss the issues but I agree with the author when he states that America is not
In the article, “The Case for Partisanship” by Matthew Yglesias, he explains how in the 1950’s, the American Political Science Association’s Committee strongly presented the idea that polarization is good. Today, many people look down upon political polarization. The mid-20th century appeared united politically but in fact the country was deeply divided over civil rights and politics. Conservatives and liberals could appear in both the Republican and Democratic parties due to foreign policy and racial issues overlapping on traditional conservative and liberal beliefs. The interconnection of political parties in the past has suddenly gone down.
I believe that political polarization is very damaging to our society. As stated in the text book, polarization can lead to no middle ground for Americans. Having people who support a certain political party so strongly can prevent there to ever be a compromise. Tom Davis and Martin Frost, both former US Congressmen have even suggested a law requiring states to appoint representatives that are non-partisan in the hopes of diluting the polarization in Congress in 2008. They believe that too much polarization in Congress is because of the popularity of primary election for the government.
This is depicted when the states turns red if a state votes for the majority Republican, or the turns blue if the state votes primarily Democratic despite if there is a close margin. Fiorina discusses the uses the illustration to present the false illusion of political division and the influence media has on the public. The strengths in the text are Fiorina’s ability to persuade the audience. The persuasiveness is achieved by relating to the people.
The trend in congressional polarization overshadows the trends in public. While congressional moderates dissipate, moderates in the public “in the United States stands at its highest point in more than 75 years” according to polling (Smith). Many moderates ‘lean’ toward the left or right which causes the first problem in many polarization studies. Polarization means that constituents disperse from the center of the line to either or right into political parties, not necessarily radical, but many of these ‘leaners’ continue to vote on an issue to issue basis (Enns and Schuldt). Congressional polarization differs immensely; this trend appears more as sorting where partisans move to more “extreme ideologies” (Hill and Tausanovitch 1060).
Blow explains how over the past years, the country has separated through a widening of the gaps between different types of groups of people in the country which have very different ideas and beliefs that clash against each other. Blow strengthens his evidence by giving specific examples of the gaps seen in modern America such as the occurrence of secessions in both the
Ever since the start of time in America, the country has always been divided because of all the events that have happened. Those events affect everything that happens in America and they always change people. That’s why I believe that America is just too divided to unite for the common good of our society because of the past events that happened, it’s always been too divided, and not anyone in America wants to unite. We will now explore these six sources and discover why America’s too divided to unite.
Americans today are split between sides – one side favors movements such as Black Lives Matter, while the other often makes comments
As has been thoroughly established, the problem in America doesn’t appear to be related to the recent increase in partisanship. If the partisan argument were sufficient, it would suggest gridlock would occur in countries that also possess this same principle. What has been proven though is that this is not the case in other parts of the world, and instead quite the contrary often occurs. A new answer must be formulated to answer the question as to what is causing the consistency in America’s dissent and inefficiency. What appears to be the case is that rather than the actual, tangible partisanship being the problem, it is instead a lower tolerance for partisanship that America possesses.
Despite the intentions of founding father George Washington to create a political system with the absence of dividing political parties, political and civic discourse in the United States has become increasingly aggressive and partisan throughout American history. From the first polarizing election of 1800 between former presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to the unforgettable 2016 election where many independent voters struggled to choose between candidates the political environment in the United States has become increasingly hostile. While it is faulty logic to believe the two-party system alone has led to an upheaval of bipartisanship, it unfortunately is a main cause in the increasing political polarization and civilian disapproval in American politics. However, the current American political attitude could be changed through the application of deidentified politics and the creation of party platforms unique to each particular candidate.
Over the last decade congressional polarization has increased at alarming rates causing Washington insiders and outsiders alike to worry about the future of American politics and democracy. While Democrats and Republicans on The Hill cannot agree on much, they both acknowledge that the increasing level of polarization in Washington is crippling the entire legislative branch, thereby undermining the greatest democracy in the world. Numerous public opinion polls, over the last few years, have shown that the vast majority of the American public, regardless of party affiliation, disapproves of, and feels unrepresented by, the extremely polarized legislature (Gallup, 2016). However, year after year, despite how many Americans become disgruntled
Pratt explains that this intersectionality of cultures produces ideas and perspectives about people of different cultures. In developing a broad course on cultures, Pratt engrossed students of various backgrounds and experiences such as a would soccer team produce. In the United States, there are numerous subcultures that fill the melting pot known as America. The dominant culture is that of white, middle-class, Protestant people of northern European descent. The subdominant cultures of the U.S. include Asian Americans, Jews, African Americans, Latinos, and among others, are seen as facing a choice to oppose, be opposed to assimilation or otherwise react to the dominant culture.
Sydney Winter Professor Nick Banach English 101 10 October 2017 Rhetorical Analysis: Heineken 's Worlds Apart Ad The author uses this text to confront the huge divide in American citizens based on their political beliefs and uses the interviews of the participants as a way to introduce that conflict to see what the participants would do. I am trying to prove that because of the great divide in America right now caused by the political climate; the author is trying to address this problem by opening up people 's eyes. The author of this text uses the interviews in the beginning of the video to 0:59 to establish which participant has which political views and why they believe in what they do. The author also uses the interviews to help the audience understand the contrast in the participant 's views.
Accordingly, the ideals of America used to be we were many ethnicities, all blended into one, but now we are a bunch of discordant ethnicities living in one country under one name just with different groups. Two essays on this topic are A Quilt of a Country by Anna Quindlen and The Immigrant Contribution by John F. Kennedy. JFK regarded that “everybody is an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant” (JFK page 23). Quindlen characterized that “America was held together by a notion that all men are created equal and that America is made up of bits and pieces” (Quindlen page 13-14). America transpired a unique nation made up of different parts.
People were perceptive enough to recognize a common enemy, and unite their strengths in order to abolish unwanted policies and infringements. Thus, they were able to form their nationality bonds through a common effort in expelling matters of dissonance consistency. Like Canada, America Jessi Signal, author of “There are Three Types of American Nationalism”, describes, “adhered to a “form of national self-understanding associated with a set of liberal principles—universalism, democracy, and the rule of law—sometimes referred to as the American creed””(par. 8). This “American creed” has become the center of American patriotism and loyalty to their nation.
In Ruben Navarrette’s opinion piece for the USA Today, “Don’t be a 100 percent-er”, she discusses the partisanship involved in two major American political issues, guns and abortion. The beliefs of most people of these two political debates mostly coincide with their political party, with Democrats being on the side for gun control and be pro-choice, while Republicans being on the side of less gun control and be pro-life. Navarrette argues that this partisanship, these contrasting views with no grey in between, is fracturing the country, and politics is not about absolutes. She goes on to describe that there are people in the United States, including the author herself, that have beliefs in this grey area, and that going more to the fringes