Polarization In The Political System Essay Example For Students

Polarization In The Political System Essay Polarization in the Political SystemOn Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all non-essential services due to what was, for all intents and purposes, a game of national chicken between the House Speaker and the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitallyimpossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seemto always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible given the current adversarial relationship between our two main political parties? It would seem that the exercise of power for its own sake, and a competitive situation in which one side must always oppose the other on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation and compromise necessary for the government to function. As the Un ited States becomes more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment, will lead to more showdown situations in which the goal of good government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering. In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of twofactors: Group behavior with an emphasis on polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mind that these two factors are interrelated. Group polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree farther apart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which one side must lose in order for the other to win (andpolitical situations are nearly always competitive), will codify thedifferences between groups leading to further extremism by those seeking power within the group and thus, to further group polarization. In the above example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to take uncompromising, disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency of groups to gravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group shares (Baron Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme beliefs will gain authority through referent power. In other words, they will have characteristics that other group members admire and seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization and authority can lead to a bizarre form of one-upsmanship in which each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit ofauthority without any regard to the practicality or reasonableness of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of p olarization is currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost impossible to find a common ground between them. In addition, the competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to adevastating loss of power. If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is mutually exclusive goal attainment (one side must lose in order for the other to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power at all costs. That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recentshutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyondcosting a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights. According to David Kipnis (1976, ci ted in Baron Graziano, 1991), one of the negative effects of power is, in fact, the tendency to regard it as its own end, and to ignore the possibility of disastrous results from the reckless use of power (p. 433). Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case) government policy is created and implemented, not with regard to its effectiveness as government policy, but only with regard to its value as a tool for accumulating and maintaining power. Another of Kipniss negative effects of power is the tendency to use it for selfish purposes (p.433). In politics this can be seen as the predilection towards making statements for short term political gain that are either nonsensical or contradictory to past positions held by the candidates themselves. While this may not be the use of actual power, it is an attempt to gain political office (and therefore power) without regard for the real worth or implications of a policy for good government. The Scarlet Pimpernel EssayReferencesBaron, B.M., Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fort Worth,TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). Country may be losing money withgovernment closed. The New York Times, pp.16Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston,Houghton Mifflin. No Author. (1995, March 24). internet What Wilson has said aboutentering race. San Jose Mercury News Online. Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htmThurm, S. (1995, August 29). internet Wilsons announcement moreof an ad: California governor kicks off drive for GOP presidential nomination. San Jose Mercury News Online. Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htmTurgue, B., ; Thomas, E. (1995, November 27). Missing the moment. Newsweek, pp.26-29.