Party Politics and Polarization in the United States

I spent a lot of time on this blog discussing partisanship and grouping in certain ways, establishing the negativity of organizing into radical and identity based groups. That is not to say, however, that assembling politically is entirely bad. Political parties allow governments to run smoothly, remain stable, and give the people representation in a democracy.

There are generally three types of party systems governments use worldwide: single-party, two-party, and multi-party. As their names suggest, the type of system determines how many parties are influential to governmental decisions. North Korea is a single party, with an unchallenged group of leaders. The United States is commonly known for its two-party system,  while the United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel are all examples of multi-party systems.

Here in the United States, Republicans and Democrats have won every presidential election since the 1850’s. As 2016 presidential candidate from the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson, quickly found out, this two party orientation is difficult (if not impossible) to break. In fact, some have begun to call into question the fairness of the United States’ two-party system with the general argument being that two parties cannot sufficiently represent the entire country. In fact, an article from NPR claims that Americans identify with eight distinct political ideologies and may need more parties to express themselves. Multi-party advocates, like one writer for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, often complain that the two-party system is broken, undemocratic, and limiting to voters.

As we have seen in the past election, though, a multi-party system is just not feasible because of how our constitution is framed. A writer from the Washington Post reasons that if a third party were to somehow manage a majority vote in a presidential election, it would need to either tear down established political infrastructure to make room for its rising party (which would be incredibly unstable), or work with the two major parties anyway. A Republican versus Democrat system is just too well established for this sort of shift.

With multiple parties all fighting for power, politics can become unstable. When several parties represent more distinct groups, it is harder to win a majority vote. Should three or more candidates run in the United States, all with similar popularity, it is very likely that no candidate would reach the 270 electoral vote majority, sending the decision to the House of Representatives. The House would routinely decide elections with disregard to the popular vote. A two-party system prevents this by making it mathematically easier for a candidate to reach majority. In fact, the electoral system was formed by the founders with the intent of fostering a stable two-party environment.

Something that really puzzles me about the American infatuation with multi-party systems is that people point to parliamentary democracies (like the UK) for proof that they work. This is true… sort of. First of all, our government is not a parliamentary system, so it is difficult to compare the two. Second, parliamentary systems are not necessarily perfect. When there is no majority decision in parliament, often a coalition between two or more parties is formed that rules the majority.

In a sense, though, this is what happens in American primaries. Former speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says that Republicans and Democrats both have sub-parties; obviously, not all Democrats and Republicans think alike, which is why we have primary votes. Voters select a candidate who appeals to most people within the party, and that candidate faces the most popular candidate from the opposing party. This is essentially a coalition, but more stable. Republicans and Democrats can find better common ground within their parties than two completely distinct UK parties trying to form a coalition. Coalitions within American political parties promotes stability, party unity, and a focus on the issues rather than arguing.

Those who want to break the political establishment or the “duopoly” of a two-party system have little to no chance, and may be irrational in doing so. Take Gary Johnson for example: he ran as a Libertarian, but many of his principles line up with Republican beliefs, including fiscal conservatism and a small government mindset. He may have been better off to try to earn support of Republicans in the primaries. In this case, there are already Libertarians who consistently vote Republican because they know their party has no chance on a national stage.

Indeed, America is a huge country with diverse peoples, all of whom have individual sets of values and beliefs. Our two-party system, however, is well established and more democratic when it comes time for presidential elections. The best way to influence a change in politics is to work within a political party that aligns with the proposed views. To follow a third party candidate is nothing more than throwing away a vote.

Finally, here is a great video by Professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton University that explains why our two-party system is here to stay:

 

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559774933/2-party-system-americans-might-be-ready-for-8

https://ssir.org/articles/entry/strengthening_democracy_by_embracing_a_multi_party_system

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/09/09/the-power-of-third-party-campaigns/the-two-party-system-is-imperfect-but-more-effective

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/12/can-we-please-stop-complaining-about-our-two-party-system/?utm_term=.4aee8be86ac6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043002093.html

In my last post, I discussed political polarization and how it is working on campus and around the country. I talked about the rise of radicalism and how we can see it in our every day lives, especially on a college campus. Today, I am writing similarly on how Americans are dividing themselves through identity politics.

Put simply, identity politics is the tendency of people to politically group themselves with those of the same race, background, religion, social standing, et cetera.

Nowadays, no one is safe from the span of identity politics; right and left alike, Americans are organizing themselves once again in the spirit of tribalism. The far right is becoming the twisted and violent white nationalist movement, while the left claims groups like Black Lives Matter, the LGBT and feminist communities, along with several racial minority groups. The divides in certain groups, particularly races, can be seen in the previous election. Here are some statistics from Pew Research that show just how categorized Americans were in the last election:

Notice racial and gender groups were very divided in the last election cycle, with whites and men favoring Trump and blacks, Hispanics, and women favoring Clinton. Much of this might be attributed to the targeting of certain groups by political parties to win votes.

As is the case with every modern political issue, the left and right disagree upon the appropriateness and span of identity politics. According to a left leaning article from Vox.com, identity politics is “a reaction to decades of oppressive policies and inequality, with people now trying to change how US society and politics talk about and handle these issues to hopefully push the country in a more equal direction.”

Many on the left stage similar claims in favor identity politics, using it to the advantage of minority groups to achieve social equality. They also condemn Republicans and Trump for using their own identity politics to win over white voters. Conversely, the far right does the same thing; oftentimes I will hear Republicans claim “reverse discrimination,” condemning the gathering of other groups on the left while turning a blind eye to the white nationalist movement. Each party is going to gather any groups it can for votes, hypocritically judging the opposing party for doing the same, thanks to an unavoidable flaw of democratic elections: appeasement.

For a blatant example of identity politics and name calling in action, look at this exchange between Tucker Carlson of Fox News and a Black Lives Matter supporter to see finger pointing and racial division in action:

 

The current state of the country certainly makes the grip of identity politics seem unfavorable to many, and there are individuals on both ends of the political spectrum that speak against against it; many conservatives disagree with identity politics, but often become covered by outspoken Neo-Nazis who have staked claim in the right. The average conservative hates the alt-right as much as the radical left, as can be seen in this article from this article by The American Conservative, which states “Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and their ilk have to be condemned in no uncertain terms, and marginalized. The president’s coy rhetoric, dancing around these people for fear of alienating them, has to end.” The left, which has just as great, if not a greater infatuation with identity, also sprouts critics. One of the most popular of these is “Real Time” host Bill Maher, who thinks Democrats “obsess about things like Halloween costumes and the name of the Washington Redskins, [while there are] millions of people in this country who are saying, ‘How about a little bit more of  “I’m going to get your job back”?'”

So there is debate both across and within political ideologies over the appropriateness of identity politics, but who is right? This video explains identity politics and has a lot to say about its proper use:

I agree with the main idea of this video, which is that the purpose of gathering as an identity is to remove the identity, and to be seen as equal people. So in a sense, identity politics is good, but only until the deed is done. The video uses the civil rights movement as an example. Its goal was to remove the identity of “black people” and replace it with just “people.” Thanks to identity politics and Black Lives Matter, they are once again seen as “black people.”

Such is happening across America, through the White Nationalist, BLM, LGBT, and Feminist movements. We have halted real social progress by focusing on characteristics with which people are born, instead of the ideas in their heads. As we have seen in the last election, this devalues someone’s opinion without careful consideration of fact. Republicans look down on Democrats and their “Feminazis,” and Democrats look down on Republicans and their “white privilege.” Thus, the divide continues, and the reign of identity politics continues to separate and radicalize the nation.

We need to remember that people are people. People are not black, white, straight, gay, Republican or Democrat. People are people. Of course we all have different backgrounds and ideas, and this is wonderful for the growth and progression of the nation, but people are still people.

What do you think? Should we or should we not try to shake this trend of identity politics? Well, let me ask you this: wouldn’t it be great if our politicians did not have to worry about pleasing a specific group, but the country as a whole? Wouldn’t it be great if Americans focused on facts and statistics and thought for themselves instead of being swayed by the attitude of a certain faction? Wouldn’t it be great if we saw each other as people, and worked for the good of those individuals who need it instead of those of a certain identity? Aren’t we widening the divide between ideologies by building barriers between groups instead of tearing them down?

Let’s start focusing our country on its people, not its groups.

If you still need convincing, here’s one final animation that describes identity politics very well: