User:Lbg02010/sandbox

Effects of Political Polarization
Haha Logan, I can edit yours.

The implications of political polarization “are not entirely clear and may include some beneficial as well as detrimental consequences.” Overall, while the exact effect of political polarization is disputed, it is evident that its implications can alter the character of the political process as well as the political composition of the general public.

On Congress
In the American political system, one of the areas that polarization has most significantly impacted is the legislative branch. Political polarization has several important implications for Congress. First, as polarization increases, gridlock in Congress also increases and limits the amount of significant pieces of legislation that Congress accomplishes. Moreover, polarization lowers the number of moderates in Congress, which are essential for bipartisan collaboration and whose absence can lead to policy inaction. However, polarization contributes less to gridlock in policy domains where members of both parties stand to benefit, such as legislation dealing with agriculture and highway pork barrel spending. Thus, it seems that specific policy areas can generate separate types of polarization that have different consequences for policymaking.

Second, polarization incentivizes members of Congress to use stall tactics and restrictive rules. Polarization has negatively influenced the proceedings of Congress by giving rise to an increase in the use of closed rules on the floor, such as limiting amendments, excluding minority party members from committee deliberations and increased use of the hold on executive and judicial appointments and the filibuster on non-contentious policy issues. Through the minority party’s heightened use of the hold and the filibuster to impede majority party actions, polarization has altered the norms of the Senate to undermine laws and increase dysfunction.

In response, polarization has caused the majority party to try to expedite the legislative process in order to pass its party’s agenda. This leads to less deliberation and cooperation as well as an increase in partisan animosity. The overarching consequence of a legislative process prolonged by polarized strategies is that there is less coordination between political parties as well as between the House of Representatives and the Senate. This limits progress and results in less legislation being passed.

Third, by hampering the policymaking process, polarization lowers the quality of legislation that does get passed. Partisan tactics motivated by polarization decrease transparency and can result in reduced oversight and poor legislation. Additionally, polarization may restrict the ability of the government to deal with long-term domestic issues, especially those that require changing the distribution of benefits. That being said, other aspects of the political environment, such as hurried action after a national emergency or the influence of money and interest groups, can also lead to poor legislation.

Finally, sentiments within Congress have also become more negative. As a result, it is “possible that a highly polarized environment affects civil servants’ feelings of efficacy and/or increases rates of attrition, thereby reducing the quality of government.”

On the Public
The growing polarization in government has directly contributed to political polarization in the electorate. Opinions on the implications of polarization on the public are mixed. On the one hand, some experts argue that polarization can contribute to a decrease in public interest in politics, a decrease in party identification and a decrease in voter turnout. Moreover, polarization can alienate citizens, since it encourages confrontational dynamics between parties that might decrease the public’s trust in government and causes the public to perceive the general political debate as less civil because of the “increasingly strident and partisan nature of political discussion on radio, television, and the Internet.”

On the other hand, although voters say that they disapprove of the increasing coarseness of the political environment, the public seems to respond favorably to polarization. In the United States, it seems that elite polarization has galvanized political participation by the mass public as there have been increases in voting and nonvoting participation, engagement and investment in campaigns and positive attitudes toward government responsiveness. In fact, “much of the most persuasive research suggests that negativity, counter to conventional wisdom, stimulates voter turnout no matter how much Americans complain about it.”

Political polarization may also bolster the strength of parties in the electorate by increasing party identification and the degree to which voters think positively about their party. Additionally, polarization can stimulate an ideological sophistication of the politically engaged public as party identification becomes increasingly influenced by policy differences of political parties. As parties become more ideologically unified, voters become more knowledgeable about policy positions since “awareness of party differences on policy agendas is strongly related to the coherence of party identifiers’ attitudes across those agendas.”

Yet, polarization of the electorate also contributes to dysfunction in government. In the United States, moderate voters tend to elect candidates that cause a divided government, which then magnifies the effect of polarization on policymaking. Therefore, one major broad consequence of political polarization is that more ideologically extreme parties advocate and pass legislation that may not be aligned with the voting public’s desires.

On Mediating Institutions
Political polarization also has implications for mediating institutions, namely the media, elections and political parties. Political polarization and the proliferation of media sources have “reinforce[d] tribal divisions, while enhancing a climate where facts are no longer driving the debate and deliberation, nor are they shared by the larger public.” Furthermore, the media often supports and provokes the obstruction strategies used to disrupt the regular order of policy procedures. This establishes a cycle where polarization begets more polarization.

Additionally, political polarization forces politicians to take more distinct stances on policy issues. Consequently, in a polarized environment, it is easier for the media and interest groups to inform voters if elected officials are following through on their campaign promises. Thus, polarization can facilitate the elucidation of political actions and then help or harm representatives who do not follow through on their undertakings. This has the positive implication of increasing accountability of politicians to voters, but can also be detrimental since in some circumstances it is more important for politicians to focus on unexpected or long-standing issues instead of their campaign promises. Overall, “it is generally considered healthy for a democracy to hold officials accountable for pledges they make in election campaigns.”

Similarly, a positive consequence of polarization is that it leads to strong and definitive political parties that offer explicit platforms and messages to voters. Consequently, “simpler choices may help citizens understand what is at stake in an election,” which can in turn lead to more participation through voting, working on campaigns, expressing opinions to representatives and giving to candidates or particular causes. Furthermore, as polarization reinforces party affiliation and makes policy positions less ambiguous, voters focus more on the differences in substantive policy views of candidates as opposed to personal attributes. Subsequently, voters are more likely to cast policy-oriented ballots. Therefore, “the rise of polarization is not necessarily a bad thing for the polity overall” as more differentiated political parties can benefit voters.

On Judicial Systems
While it is often viewed as removed from political influences, judicial systems can also be affected by the implications of political polarization. For the United States in particular, as polarization increases, confirmation rates of judges decrease. In 2012, the confirmation rate of presidential circuit court appointments was approximately 50% as opposed to the above 90% rate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As parties in Congress have become more polarized, they have increasingly used tools to hinder the executive agenda and aggressively block nominees. Political scientist Sarah Binder argues, “senatorial intolerance for the opposing party’s nominees is itself a function of polarization.” By blocking judicial nominations, political polarization hinders the implementation of legitimate laws and impedes the confirmation of appellate judges, which results in higher vacancy rates, extended case-processing times and increased caseloads for judges.

In highly polarized periods, nominees have become more reflective of the right or the left and less reflective of the moderate voter as “polarization impacts the appointment and ideological tenor of new federal judges.” Polarization influences the confirmation politics of advice and consent and gives partisan presidents greater ability to place immoderate judges on the federal bench, which obstructs the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Political polarization causes support for nominees to come predominantly from the President’s party, which enables the party controlling the executive branch to pull the judiciary more to the left or right of the political spectrum. Thus, in a polarized environment the ideological implications of approving judges are much greater.

Ultimately, the increasing presence of ideology in a judicial system undermines the credibility of the judiciary. Furthermore, polarization can generate “intense partisan criticism of federal judges,” which may damage the public’s views of the legitimacy of the courts and the justice system. Consequently, polarization causes confirmations to be more controversial, which decreases the public’s confidence that a judiciary and the law are unbiased and independent of politics.

On Foreign Policy
Aside from domestic matters, political polarization can undercut unified agreement on foreign policy and harm a nation’s position in the world. Division on foreign affairs can strengthens enemies, discourage allies and destabilize a nation’s determination.

Polarization is detrimental to specifically the United States’ foreign policy for two reasons. First, when the United States conducts relations abroad and appears divided, allies are less likely to trust its promises and enemies are more likely to predict its weaknesses. Second, elite opinion is very influential on the public’s perspective of foreign policy. In contrast to problems such as unemployment, inflation and crime, where elite viewpoints are “largely irrelevant,” Americans are less informed of overseas engagements. While a difference of viewpoints between political parties is a foundational aspect of a democratic political system, political polarization has exacerbated this divergence as “it was not inevitable that foreign policy would become, as it has, the single most polarizing aspect of American politics.” Subsequently, the United States currently does not have any fundamental agreement on foreign policy and there is a basic discord about the United States’ function in the world.

An additional consequence of elite polarization on foreign policy is a more polarized public. This is due to the fact that the general population cannot easily access as much information on foreign affairs as on domestic matters, so it becomes more reliant upon cues from political elites, which has grown increasingly polarized.