Culture War The Myth Of A Polarized America Analysis

In addition, the true divide is amongst the political parties, because the voters are of greater moderate and centrist in their opinions. The thesis of the “Culture War” is that the American population is not polarized because of all the misinterpreted data, and the selective coverage of the media. In the next chapter, he explains

Political beliefs and party lines may be the most controversial topic across all of America. As the current Presidential debates and ensuing election draw near, most will make decisions, take sides, and debate across the supper table or in the local coffee shops. The American people will not be able to escape the debates since on most days some form of media is making their ideas and opinions known and open for discussion. Wendell Berry’s article, “Caught in the Middle,” is a select piece from his book Our Only World, which takes a look at his interpretation of politics in America as they currently stand. Controversial topics, such as abortion and homosexual marriages are discusses.

Myth of a Culture War A culture war is defined as a conflict between groups with different ideals, beliefs, and philosophies. At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan said “There is a religious war going on in this country, a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this waris for the soul of America.” Buchanan suggests there is a divide between groups of people. However, Morris P. Fiorina, PhD, a political scientist from Stanford University is in disagreement.

In everyday conversations a subject that frequently tends to arise is American politics. During these conversations a variation of sub topics often occur usually pertaining to the Army’s funding, elections, and the different political parties. One of these topics that tends to cause a lot of feuding is the different political parties. In my family alone, we partake in disputes based on our different political parties, I am a Democrat while my parents are Republican. Often, we participate in quarrels over different events that occur in society.

In Ruben Navarrette’s opinion piece in 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 are 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 is

We hear Democrats blaming Republicans for legislative stagnation and the rise in unemployment. The main effect of these occurrences is known as party polarization, a phenomenon in the United States where the two main political parties are seen as polar opposites of each other and therefore highly discouraged from collaborating or uniting. Party polarization causes a person’s political beliefs and ideals to be defined by the political party they identify with. There are many reasons for this devotion to a party’s political standpoints, such as regional and/or cultural differences, the desire for an increase in each party’s power and influence by special interest groups, and the general narrowing of political parties into the two-party system.

Thus, the belief that the polarisation of congress must have spawned from an increasingly divided electorate is too simplistic. Fiorina, Abrams and Pope (2006) alternately suggest that rather than ideological divisions increasing within the U.S. population, ideological consistency is increasing on a personal level for voters. This belief is supported by a decrease in split-ticket voting in congressional elections as constituents are now more likely consider their political views to be compatible with those of one specific party. In effect, this would cause conservative Democratic voters and liberal Republican voters to switch their allegiances, the likes of which did occur during the southern realignment that began in the

The system of political parties serves to accurately sort Americans into categories based on political views, but this often serves to wage animosity between groups, especially when one group holds more political power than the

(Collinson, Reston 2). These diction filled phrases help the audience understand the state of the Republican Party due to the negative connotation. The negative connotation allows the readers to understand the tiff that is occurring within the party and why many Republicans are worried about its future. The article describes the party as divided and using emotion-charged diction to support the claim allows the audience to connect with the

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

However, Burnham’s definition appears to be the one that fit the case studies above. Although the two examples in 1896 and 1932 were quite similar in the components that have led to critical elections and realignment, not every single factor (high voter intensity, emergence of third parties, ideological polarization, the population shifting its partisan loyalties, and the strain on the nation’s socioeconomic system) existed within each case. Yet, both exhibited a shift within partisan loyalties and both were also experiencing a stress on the socioeconomic system that transpired realignment in which both gained a new voting coalition.

(2007) find that redistricting has significant but “modest” effects on incumbents’ stances. Theriault’s (2006) analysis emphasizes that redistricting, political sorting, and ideological migration only explain close to 25% of polarization in the House and just five percent in the Senate. McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal (2009) find almost no evidence of polarization being caused by gerrymandering. Masket, Winburn, and Wright (2012) conclude that redistricting has minimal

419). When a candidate speaks, the more the candidate has similar rhetoric to the values of the party, the more a voter can identify with the candidate and the party to make a judgment. Doherty’s findings suggest it is easier for candidates who identify with the Republican Party to effectively express their own values as the values of the party. While of the other hand, Democratic candidates are able to effectively educate voters of their own personal values, but have a harder time convincing voters that those are the value of the entire Democratic

Put all these together and they tell the story of political ideology. [1]

The collision of cultures dictates how well a country is able to preserve and provide for a multitude of people that require a delicate balance. The American culture is a prime example of diversity on one side, and the miss handling of diversity on the other side. Very much like that of the Persians, who during their re-stabilization and the implementation on how best to enforce stability within their country’s existing culture was by embracing “the power of customs” while being aware of the dangers associated with over-sharing, in hopes of cutting off the “instability of human happiness and fortune” in an effort to provide the “power of freedom” for anyone to immigrate to the United States. Upon all the challenges on this new nation, that