polarization

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (March 2012)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012)

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case, moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.

Definitions of polarization

The term polarization comes from political science. There, it is a measure of the electorate's response to a political figure or position;^[1] it is not an assessment of, or a value judgment upon, a political figure. It does not mean that a political figure is necessarily unelectable.^[2] Political figures can receive a polarized response from the public through actions of their own,^[3] through historical trends or accidents,^[3] or due to external forces such as media bias.^[4]

In the context of political campaign advertising, negative ads can lead to attitude polarization among voters.

Political scientists principally measure polarization in two ways.^[5] One is "plain" or generic polarization, often referred to as popular polarization,^[1] which happens when opinions diverge towards poles of distribution or intensity.^[1] Political scientists use several kinds of metrics to measure popular polarization, such as the American National Election Studies' "feeling thermometer" polls, which measure the degree of opinion about a political figure.^[6][7]

The other form that political scientists examine is partisan polarization, which happens when support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines.^[3]

Popular media definitions and uses of "polarization" tend to be looser.

Polarization by country

United States

In recent times, some Americans, such as American Demographics magazine editor John McManus, have seen increasing polarization in the U.S. political system. Some point to Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party in 2001 because of his feelings that the party was becoming increasingly polarized and that moderate voices were getting shut out. Former President Bill Clinton said on the 9/18/06 Daily Show that he thinks the Republican Party believes in polarization.

Others, such as Constitution Party analyst Michael Peroutka, take the view that the U.S. political parties themselves are actually quite close in terms of actual policy and party leadership. Former Minnesota governor and pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura stated on the CNN network The Joy Behar Show, "Both of these parties are like pro-wrestling. On the camera, they tell you they hate each other and they're gonna destroy each other. Behind the scenes, they're working together, they're cozying with each other, they go to dinner, and they cut deals. But they want the people to believe, 'Aww...they hate each other. Gotta vote one way or the other.'"

These people say that political rhetoric is polarized in order to create some illusion of policy difference; however, in practice and action, both parties take a similar approach to government. Examples include vast bipartisan and popular support for one side of various supposedly controversial issues; a majority of both major parties in Congress voted to cut taxes in 2001, to authorize use of force in Iraq in 2002, and to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003. Additionally, since 1948, the Congress and the President, whether Democratic or Republican—have shown the same willingness to grow the size of the federal government. Supporters of this theory also say that public opinion has not gone to the extreme; rather, both parties have come closer to the center. Thus, for the average "centrist" voter, it is easier to decide which party/candidate is closest to them.

This can be demonstrated in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, when the vote was virtually half and half between the two sides. Essentially, both parties are equally desirable to average Americans. However, the two parties do have their differences, such as the 2010 health care package. The health care bill was voted against by every Republican in the Senate, yet had greater Democratic support. However, many Democrats also opposed the bill.

While Poole and Rosenthal's NOMINATE scores (which provide a measure of the ideological ideal points of members of Congress) have established a consensus that the parties in Congress have become polarized, there is a more vigorous discussion in the literature about the nature and cause of polarization in the US electorate.^[8] One side (e.g., Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope's "Culture War" in 2005 and their 2008 response in the Journal of Politics) argues that polarization is almost purely an elite, or "top-down" driven.^[9][10]

The other side (such as Abramowitz and Saunders 2008,^[11] also in the Journal of Politics) argue that it is a two-way street but primarily a "bottom-up" phenomenon facilitated by the engaged partisans in the American electorate. Abramowitz has recently released a book that elaborates further on these ideas.^[12]

Canada

Polarization has had drastic consequences for the centrist Liberal parties in those provinces where the social democratic New Democratic Party has formed government. The Liberals generally portray themselves as a party that ought to appeal to moderate voters, but provincial elections have become "two way races" between the NDP and the respective Progressive Conservative Party or equivalent, moderate voters have often been persuaded to abandon the Liberals in hopes of preventing one of the two larger parties from winning, often causing a disastrous result for the Liberals

This has most frequently happened in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and (in the past) in British Columbia. In 2011, it was the fate of the federal Liberal Party; in that election, the split vetween were divided amongst the Liberal Party and the NDP allowing the first Conservative majority government in over 20 years.

Polarization in other national politics

This section requires expansion.

An example of polarization was in Germany in the early years after the First World War, when there was support for political parties on the extreme left (such as the Spartacists) and also the extreme right (such as the Nazi Party). This was around the time of the Great Depression, people were out jobs and food so they turned to communism and fascism. Both promised jobs to the many unemployed people, who were tired of several democratic parties getting into power but keeping a high unemployment rate.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Bipartisanship
• False dilemma
• Left–right politics
• Two-party system

References