Our paper attempts to show that the current American
political climate is complex. It is quite clear that both sides of the American
two-party system are quick to blame the other for all of the current (and past) political dilemmas.
After decades of escalation, and an intense 2020 election, one can reasonable wonder
how the political climate has arrived at such extreme opposition. This question
has long been studied by scholars and researchers, and it is evident that the
answer to the polarization phenomenon is intricate and complex.
In 1950, the
American Political Science Association (APSA) published an article that proposed
increasing the divide between the two majority parties. The APSA believed that
the American electorate did not have a deep ideological divide, and that more
explicitly defined policies and programs would help the voters determine where
they better aligned. Unfortunately, the APSA did not provide any evidence to
support their claim. This is where the larger polarization problem begins. That
being said, it would be unfounded to accuse the APSA of being fully responsible
for the polarization. However, the problem seems to materialize with the
publication.
There are a few key
things that the APSA missed. First, the association did not understand the social
attachment that individuals have to their political parties. Although social
identity theory was not formally recognized until the late 70s, the implications
are obviously noteworthy. Individuals have a desire to be part of a group that
thinks, acts, and participates in similar ways. This is often referred to as
the “ingroup.” Logically, other individuals that are not in this group are part
of the “outgroup.” This creates a distinction between the groups, and a rivalry
or animosity is naturally created.
Unfortunately, this
idea incorporates politics as well. When certain individuals have similar
ideologies, a natural ingroup begins to form. The rivalry between the groups
can create hostility and an “us versus them” mentality. In summary, the APSA did
not understand the effects of social identity theory and the role it plays in
politics.
The second point is
a continuation of the first. The APSA overlooked the effects of forcing
individuals to align themselves solely between two parties. Unfortunately,
assuming that the entire American electorate will be able to align with a total
of two parties is an enormous oversimplification. We can clearly tell that
there are rivalries that occur even within political parties themselves. The Republican
party is great example. Mitt Romney (Utah Senator) was recently speaking at a
party convention in Utah, and people began booing him. In short, there was a
vote to censor Romney for marching with the Black Lives Matter protest and for
his vote to impeach former President Trump. Although the vote failed, it was not
a landslide victory. It is evident that many people that consider themselves “republicans”
are ideologically very different from their senator that considers himself a “republican.”
Another supporting
example is Liz Cheney (representative from Wyoming), and her recent removal
from her leadership position within the Republican party. After former President
Trump outrageously claimed that the 2020 election was “fraudulent” and “rigged”
Rep. Cheney stood up to the lies and deception and determined that she was
going to fight this lie from spreading. Ultimately, Cheney ended up losing her
position within the party a few days later. The party was unhappy that a party
leader would oppose the same-party president and that she would vocalize her
dissatisfaction with the party’s endorsement of the lie. Again, Rep. Cheney is
not a democrat, or even a moderate. She has a pattern of being conservative.
However, it is clear that there is some type of ideological chasm between her
and the party generally.
The relevance of these
two situations can be hard to see. One of the earlier paragraphs outlined
individual ideological polarization and its effects, but the Cheney and Romney
examples show this pattern is observable even within parties. This is called
intra-party conflict. It is not between parties, but between factions within
parties. Inter-party conflict or conflict between parties is easy to identify,
but conflict within parties can be harder to recognize. To summarize, the APSA
did not recognize that restricting American politics to only two parties would
ultimately lead to conflict within parties.
Lastly, the APSA failed
to recognize the voting dynamics that were present in the 50s. At the time, women
and minority groups did not either have adequate access to voting or were
highly discouraged from being involved in politics. Fast forward to 2021,
voting rights and access to political involvement has made significant progress.
It is important to consider that because the political demographics have
changed, it may have had an affect on the political climate. We are not proposing
that gender and race are the only two variables responsible for the change in
the political climate, however, we are proposing that it certainly has
contributed to it.
Ultimately, our
paper does not attempt to persuade readers in one direction or another, or to
suggest that we have a solution to the problem. The purpose of our paper is to
identify some of the flaws in the framework of the original publication that
supported increasing political polarization within the American two-party
system. Had the APSA considered these critiques, perhaps it would not have published the article, or proposed a different pathway to helping voters align with parties.
