In recent years, partisanship has continued to be the dividing line in United States’ political agendas, far exceeding differences by religious affiliations, gender, age, race, ethnicity or educational attainment. The members of Congress and the Senate have gained a popular reputation for their capability to create partisan stalemate and have become ineffective in brokering compromise hence obstructing the political process. Since the 1970s, the ideological distance between the Republicans and the Democrats has grown to the extent that Congress is now more polarized than ever (Desilver). The hatred and bias linked to partisanship have influenced the public’s perceptions of their political opponents as a threat that needs to be eliminated. The proportion of Americans who express consistently liberal or conservative views has risen to 21% (Altmire 8). Nevertheless, reforming the electoral system can considerably improve the number of moderate legislators, bridging the political divide. Although gerrymandering, identity politics, rigid electoral system and polarized media have divided Americans, voting for policies rather than parties, proportional voting, strengthening state parties, and balanced media content can restore unity in the country.
The Contributors of the American Division
Many factors propel polarization and division prevalent in the United States. For example, in chapter one, of Altmire’s book, the author describes the portrait of a partisan. Polarization is strengthened by extremists who typically attend town hall political gatherings (Altmire 3). These groups of Americans are extremely obsessed with politics and what Congress is doing. The partisans are not the majority in the country, but they unquestionably drive polarized culture and decide elections. These party inclinations have made ordinary Americans feel disenfranchised, observing in disgust the political system being controlled by ideological extremists.
The power of a few partisans has been demonstrated through various course contents. The overarching theme of the Handmaid’s Tale explores how a few people in charge of the Gilead state have utterly disenfranchised women to obviate dystopian America’s fertility crisis caused by the consequence of an atomic war. In this case, fertile women are forced to serve as handmaids in high-ranking officials’ homes and are raped to conceive (Pötzsch 31). Social division in America is also portrayed in Fahrenheit 451, which highlights the struggle between people’s desire for knowledge and individuality in an American futuristic society that glorifies conformity and ignorance (“Farenheit 451” 00:56-1:06:15). Some of these extremisms may be a projection of things yet to come since Congress is inhabited by lawmakers who feel obligated not to all their constituents but only to their few ardent supporters (Altmire 4). In this regard, the political influence of those on the ideological extremes can push America to experience some of the events associated with a dystopian society. The division among the populace is magnified because lawmakers and groups with a desire to compromise and consensus are now increasingly unrepresented on Capitol Hill.
In recent years, various trends in America have increased the number of individuals who self-identify as conservative or liberal, indicating a shift in the nation toward the extremes. For example, social media provides many partisans a venue to spread their irrational ideological beliefs and bias. In addition, cable news channels, such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, are widely understood to have political leanings rather than impartially informing their audiences (Kim et al. 2). Another factor that has continued to create division is partisan gerrymandering (Altmire 182). Consequently, this has made far right and far left voting blocs stronger and amplified their political party’s power beyond what they deserve based on their vote share. Lastly, campaign financing influences lawmakers to adopt policies compatible with their financiers or elite with extreme ideological views. These trends contribute to division in America; alongside a relatively low number of moderate politicians, they skew the electorate further toward the extremes, as demonstrated in dystopian societies through the Handmaid’s Tale and Fahrenheit 451.
Social identity theory can help explain the division in America. Through social categorization, people are drawn to the in-groups with which they have a lot in common (Lainez 00: 3:30). In addition, based on social identification, individuals determine how compatible they are with a group, and through social comparison, they discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image or other interests. Socially identifying with a group enables Americans to develop emotional significance and act in ways they believe their members should behave. This is demonstrated in Handmaid’s Tale, where members of the Gileadean State believe it is morally and politically right to control women’s reproductive freedom (Atwood). This dystopian America is portrayed as incredibly segregationist, with women and minorities specifically being targeted. Although it is fictional, most aspects of the book were inspired by political and social events that occurred in the early 1980s (Hollis-Brusky et al. 64). Therefore, partisanship in America has been strengthened through ideological extremity between in-groups versus out-groups in the social and political arena.
Social identity is one of the dominant explanations of rising partisanship levels of affective polarization among the American electorate. The ideological differences are also evident in various course materials, such as Fahrenheit 451 and the Handmaid’s Tale. In this case, the Handmaid’s Tale mirrors America’s embrace of conservatism as demonstrated through the Ronald Reagan regime, as well as the rise of televangelism, increased power of the Christian right through the creation of the Moral Majority coalition linked with the Republican Party (Perlstein 491). However, based on the latest events, it may seem that political polarization may continue to impact the United States.
Convergent and coalition identities drive political engagements in the United States. For example, Democrats and Republicans are more divided on how to cast their ballots along other ideological lines. These differences manifest themselves socially and politically. For example, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade ruling, Joe Biden’s administration and their pro-abortion allies are determined to use the White House to compel the taxpayers to fund the medical procedure and coerce pro-life health personnel to perform abortion (Bustillo). Conversely, pro-life” Republicans have remained focused on passing bills to criminalize abortion. Thus, rather than giving women rights or choices, including their freedom to sexual and reproductive health, partisan politics have created groups strongly supporting their party’s policies and are reluctant to compromise with their opponents. Research shows that over the years, the Republicans’ ideological score moved from 0.25 to nearly 0.51, which is a much bigger increase in the conservative direction. Democrats, by contrast, shifted from about -0.31 to -0.38, implying that over time they have become more liberal on average (Desilver). Thus, supporters of political parties in America have grown more ideologically cohesive, with only a few moderate members.
How to Create Unity in the United States
Political polarization has been linked to growing ideological distance between opposing partisans and, most importantly, the inability to enact critical policies. The Handmaid’s Tale and Fahrenheit 451 film depict the adverse effects of extreme political polarization in society. In the United States, it is evident that the growing partisanship continually thwarts democratic methods of solving societal challenges. Therefore there is a need to implement initiatives that create unity among the political class and the public.
Voting for policies rather than parties can create unity among Americans. In the current American political system, Congress or Senate members are less likely to pass policies that may adversely affect their re-election. These elites are comfortable in their gerrymandered districts because the primary system is set to their advantage. Nevertheless, identity-based political preferences can be solved by holding referendums on critical issues. In this case, the referendum process is driven by citizens’ decisions rather than political ideologies (Werner 312). For example, the use of a referendum to decide on key issues has significantly worked in California and countries such as Switzerland and Australia (De-Wit et al.). A referendum will likely moderate the political elites by moving them toward the center (Altmire 215). This is because the voters in a legislator’s state or region belong to both sides of the divide as well as supporters of other minority parties. Therefore, the politicians are forced to appeal to the majority of those electorates rather than the extremes, making them take a more moderate stance.
Proportional voting can considerably help in bridging the political divide. Political polarization in the United States has been closely linked to gerrymandering (Wang et al. 6). According to Jason Altmire, an increased number of centrists in Congress is pivotal in getting more bills approved and enacting them into law (210). For this reason, proportional voting may be critical in ensuring that moderate Congressional candidates are elected for office. The current voting system in the country is unfair because it leaves moderate citizens on the sidelines and undermines political accountability. Nevertheless, proportional voting guarantees that parties with a significant percentage of the popular vote can gain seats in a particular representative body (De-Wit et al.). This voting system may increase voter turnout, especially for smaller parties, making it challenging for the extreme candidates to continue dominating (De-Wit et al.). The presence of politicians elected as a result of proportional voting may increase the number of centrists in Congress and the Senate, thus helping pass critical policies that unite the country.
Strengthening state parties can mitigate polarization because it creates local independence, making them heterogeneous at the federal level. Research indicates that polarization may be directly connected to the system of private campaign finance common in United States elections (Wang et al. 4). Some legislators may pursue radical policy ideas at the behest of their special-interest financiers. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the money needed to run for Congressional office. The biggest sources of finance for congressional candidates include contributions from political action committees (PACs) and private individuals, some of whom have been perceived as more extreme (Avgouleas and David 132). Therefore overreliance on ideologically extreme individual donors may coerce candidates to engage in radical ideas to raise funds. Conversely, by establishing state party independence, the party finances are more likely to flow to moderate candidates (Wang et al. 4). There is a need to remove limits on state party funding and subsidize them with programs that promote higher in-state donations compared to out-of-state financing. Strengthening state parties may support the elections of moderate candidates, thus bridging the political divide.
The incentivization of non-extreme views by media outlets can bridge partisanship. The proliferation of media channels through cable televisions and social media has provided an extra impetus for polarization. According to Altmire, partisan voters are more inclined to select media outlets that support and confirm their ideological biases because these cable networks have gained a reputation for inflaming passions instead of providing informative content (120). Most Democrats have shown more inclination towards watching MSNBC, while their Republican counterparts are likely to view Fox News (Jurkowitz et al.). This biased coverage, combined with the closed primary system, leads to extreme voter polarization. Similarly, cable networks offer a platform for extreme activists and elites to continue pushing partisan agendas to a particular subgroup of the public, further fueling societal polarization (123). Alternatively, the non-ideological Americans are more likely to turn to other television programs, such as sports, to avoid watching unbalanced news. Therefore, there is a need to alter the one-sided news covered by cable networks by providing non-partisan information about different political candidates. This may create a more open-minded electorate, thus positively influencing the voters’ decision-making process.
In conclusion, partisanship has greatly divided Americans leading to ineffective governance characterized by constant gridlocks on critical policies. Over the years, the ideological distance between the Democrats and the Republicans has grown to the extent that only a few centrists are willing to compromise and pass critical laws. Gerrymandering, polarized media, campaign finance and a rigid electoral system have been linked as the main contributors to political polarization. In addition, extreme voters who elect legislators based on far-left and far-right ideologies are key drivers of the divide. Even though these extremes represent only a small segment of the American population, they are significantly active in politics and are responsible for determining election outcomes. Nevertheless, reforming the electoral system by voting for policies instead of parties and proportional voting can increase moderate legislators or centrists willing to compromise and effectively enact key policies. Similarly, strengthening state parties and balancing media content can correct political biases leading to a united country.
Works Cited
“Farenheit 451 – Francois Truffaut 1966.” Vimeo, uploaded by Curso Online, Web.
Altmire, Jason. Dead Center: How Political Polarization Divided America and What We Can Do About It. Sunbury Press, 2017.
Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. McClelland & Stewart Publisher, 1885.
Avgouleas, Emilios, and David C. Donald, eds. The Political Economy of Financial Regulation. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
Bustillo, Ximena. “Following Roe’s Reversal, Biden Calls It ‘a Sad Day’ for the Court and the U.S.” NPR, Web.
Desilver, Drew. “The Polarization in Today’s Congress Has Roots That Go Back Decades.” Pew Research. Web.
De-Wit, Lee, et al. “What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?” Greater Good Magazine, Web.
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda, and Joshua C. Wilson. Separate But Faithful: The Christian Right’s Radical Struggle To Transform Law & Legal Culture. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Jurkowitz, Mark, et al. “Americans Are Divided by Party in the Sources They Turn to for Political News.” Pew Research. Web.
Kim, Eunji, et al. “Measuring Dynamic Media Bias.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, no. 32, 2022, pp. 1-3.
Lainez, Pauline. “Social Identity Theory.” YouTube, uploaded by Pauline Lainez, Web.
Perlstein, Rick. Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976-1980. Simon and Schuster, 2020.
Pötzsch, Janelle. “The Handmaid’s Tale: Reproductive Labour and the Social Embeddedness of Markets” Open Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 1, 2022, pp. 31-43.
Wang, Samuel S.-H., et al. “A Systems Framework for Remedying Dysfunction in US Democracy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118, no. 50, 2021, pp. 1-8.
Werner, Hannah. “If I’ll Win It, I Want It: The Role of Instrumental Considerations in Explaining Public Support for Referendums.” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 59, no. 2, 2019, pp. 312–330.