Polarization In Congress

Polarization in Congress leads to less bills reaching the President for review. While a Congress that passes every bill it meets provides no benefits, Congressmen should not shirk their duties primarily due to polarization. Representatives’ achievements for the term should instead be limited on properly in-depth debate and discussion relating to the legislature they need to pass. However, at an increasing rate, senators drop bills out of the law-generating cycle (Andris, 10). Andris, et al, explains: “The number of bills introduced seems to . . . [correlate] with a decrease in Congressional productivity.” (10). Further, Andris et al also finds that in Congress, “The average number of disagreements on roll call votes between [congressmen]
is increasing exponentially” (7). Determining to what degree each negative aspect causes the lack of productivity necessitates a much deeper examination of senators’ reasoning. However, the increase in polarization and the decrease in bill evaluation coinciding suggests a strong correlation between the two.
Representatives may vote against a bill primarily due to a squabble they have with a bill supporter, or his party. In “Polarizing Cues,” writer Nicholson explains his research and how he found that “in-party leader cues do not persuade but that out-party leader cues polarize” (1). Further, because they choose these actions, they take polarization to an exceedingly uncooperative level. In other words, instead of agreeing with those who share their ideals, the congressmen improve their credentials by striving to disagree with their opponents. These congressmen commit such acts primarily due to their polarized nature; ideally, polarized leaders should not disagree with another purely based on their credentials. Nicholson also explains that parties serve as tentative psychological in- and out-groups, which influence a voting politician’s decisions (1). While he contends that politicians themselves serve as polarizing cues, he discusses their positions as in- and out-group politicians based on the political parties. Therefore, polarization also stems from political parties. In removing the bipartisan system, perpetrators of such actions also disappear; the removal of political parties also implies a lack of party lines, the main cause of such polarized
behavior. An advocate for political reform, John, acknowledges and discredits an argument: the party system prevents radical change. He argues that America occasionally needs radical change, by noting the “New Deal, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the Great Society” legislation (John, 167). Further, he finds fault in the idea of using polarization in Congress as protection from radical change, especially since “separated powers, combined with divided government, will likely result in a weak government” (John, 168). One cannot deny that Congress generally stifles small radical movements in favor of the broader centrist movement. Congress only supports this if most members remain politically mixed. However, recently, Congress has grown increasingly polarized, thereby reducing the anti-radical change claim. Concerning lawmaking, polarization combined with a majority in the Senate and House actually provides an unchecked opportunity for the majority party to implement radical change. Again, Congress has proven itself even more capable of this than normal, as the mixed buffer needed to prevent radical tides has depleted.
Opponents of removing political parties attribute the gridlock-causing associations with encouraging radical movements.
Wilentz argues for political parties because they provide necessary opportunities for radical change. “[P]artisanship, although often manipulated and abused, has also been Americans' most effective vehicle for democratic social and political reform” (Wilentz, 26). However, radical change requires the prerequisite majority in both buildings in Congress. Voters need not decide between two political parties to determine the course of the nation’s future; they should instead choose an independent candidate. This alternative candidate can also implement desired change, reflecting the views of the constituency, without having a political party to modify his or her
values.
Although American voters primarily support polarization in Congress, elections can remove parties from office. While America and the federal government cannot accept sudden, complete reform, gradual change will likely have a lasting effect. Such a reform starts with a decisive few. Walker argues and motivates voters to avoid the “it doesn’t make any difference” attitude (1). He speaks against the ideal in presidential elections. Constituents believe that either candidate will harm their future aspirations. However, voters can pragmatically deal with the negative outlook by participating more in state congressional elections. Over time, supported candidates may progress up into the national scene. Lund argues that an increase in voter turnout will provide more moderate politicians.
Congress widely supports partisanship. Politicians should not perpetuate such a harmful habit; instead, they should make efforts to increase bill output, promote cooperation, and better legislation. However, Congress currently allows practices which efficiently turn legislating into a trivial affair, a contest. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the Senate in 1835, he saw the Senate as a “model of governance” (Snowe, 22). Congress has since chosen to allow political parties of such a polarized nature as to prevent the proper workings to take place. Some claim divided government supports necessary reform, others claim it prevents excessive radical change. However, divided congressmen do not provide the best medium for change. Further, voters do not often elect large reform movements. America should not resort to partisanship for reform; neither the enaction nor the prevention. Steps should be taken to return American lawmaking to its former glory, and even beyond, in the form of the abolition of political parties.