 |
| Image: Shutterstock.com |
Although there are trends illustrating a generational and partisan divide, there is significant agreement from both parties on a variety of social issues, despite their negative perceptions of each other.
According to surveys by Pew Research Center, there is a 57-point disparity in percentage of Republicans and Democrats who believed the government should do more to help those in poverty in 2016, as opposed to the 20-point disparity in 1994. The data reflects a divergence in views about the fairness of the economic system, which makes sense as the gap between the rich and the poor has also increased significantly. For some, working harder doesn't seem to get them ahead and they begin to believe that the economy is solely shaped in a manner that "favors powerful interests."
Additionally, the negative sentiment members of opposing parties have of each other has grown in the past few decades. In 2016, 70% of Democrats thought Republicans were close-minded and 52% of Republicans felt the same negativity about Democrats, according to the Pew survey.
However, on social issues, Democrats and Republicans tend to agree. Supporters of both parties tend to agree that climate change is occurring and that health care is too expensive. On how Democrats and Republicans feel about other social groups, the majority of both parties no longer view immigrants as burdens. The majority of both parties also support affirmative action and interracial marriage.
Questions to consider:
1. What do you think drives the growing negative sentiment members of each party have of each other?
2. How do you think it exists when, in reality, the majority of members of both parties agree on significant social issues?
3. What other thoughts do you have?
4 comments:
I believe that party polarization has an important role in the continued increase in negativity that the parties have of each other. Party polarization occurs as more people identify with a certain party and since 1972 to 2016, as these parties develop into conservative republicans and liberal democrats, we see less of the liberal republican as their issues now align with their respective party. A main source of votes for both parties is now their alignment with ideology. A major contributor to the negative sentiment is therefore their stubbornness in compromising on major issues such as gun control, abortion, and transgender rights and in the LGBTQ community. Due to the slowness in legislation and the continued debate, members of both parties grow increasingly frustrated. This negativity is not helped by the extreme left and right who ceaselessly attack each other in every budding controversy. There are many centrists, yet even though generations may move the center more to the left, the polarization between parties will obviously remain. There is too much controversy: frankly, it dominates modern media and these debates further increase polarization. Despite agreements on some social issues, many of these centrists are outnumbered by the combined percentages of democrats and republicans.
I think that the media is the main force causing the parties to grow farther apart. Even though the two parties agree on many issues, the media usually reports the more extreme opinions. Additionally, people usually follow/read news sites with the same political stance. They're only exposed to this one side, causing them to believe the other side must be against them and completely blind to the fact that their opinions might actually be similar as people from the other party. This is a complete guess, but maybe the common conception that the two parties are becoming more and more different then causes people in those parties to believe that their opinions are also different.
I like what both Haley and David have said. I agree that both parties are often unwilling to compromise and that the media may be exacerbating polarization. I think it's interesting that both a majority of Democrats and Republicans agree that climate change exists, health care is too expensive, and immigrants aren't a burden. When I think of Republicans and climate change, politicians who don't believe in climate change come to mind. This brings me back to Haley's point because the media may be reporting on more outrageous views of Republicans, rather than more centrist views. At the same time, maybe our Congress representatives aren't accurately representing their constituents' beliefs. Are voters more likely to support a less moderate candidate? This also reminds me of what Mr. Silton brought up the other day. Are members of Congress more of trustees or delegates? Do they vote how they think is best for the people? Or what their constituents actually want?
Another aspect that I found interesting was in the excerpt from the Klosterman reading: “what makes [people] good columnists is their ability to present a version of the truth that somehow seems self-evident ... Most of the time, political columnists and political commentators are trying to persuade you not to think critically about anything.” I think that oversimplification is another important reason for political polarization. When issues are portrayed as black and white or right and wrong, people don’t give them enough thought and are quick to simply take a side. This idea also reminded me of the movie Flags of our Fathers, specifically statements like “What we see and do in war, the cruelty, is unbelievable. But somehow we’ve got to make some sense of it. To do that, we need an easy to understand truth." Because the reasons for fighting were too complicated to appeal to a large audience, the public perception of the war had to be tied to the single iconic image of the six men raising the flag at Iwo Jima. This seems very close to Klosterman's ideas because rather than encouraging the public to discuss and think about complex issues, the war fund people from the movie want to display a blatantly simple and patriotic image to get people to support the war and buy bonds. At this point, the issues become vague and generic ideas about "supporting your country" or "doing what's right" instead of the actual underlying motives for and reasons behind those actions (hmmm sounds like Rights Talk?).
Post a Comment