Polarized Presidency

Filed Under: Society, Journal.

The nation is polarized, more or less, into two ideological movements. However, the lines of polarization are quite ambiguous. Old notions of political alignment have given way to propositions of political dealignment. What groups inhabit America?

In the early 1900’s, there existed a sharp divide between urban and rural dwellers, and the rich and poor. For instance, a wealthy man (considering the time) living in a city was most likely to vote for republican candidates while a poorer man living in the country tended to vote democratic. Mid-century, we experienced a realignment wherein the democratic party won greater support in the city while the republicans won greater support in the country. Later on, however, the distinction in voting between the rich and poor became more ambiguous.

From what I see (and I am going out on a limb) is that Republican and Democratic parties have both become more centrist (trying to please everyone), but now focus heavily upon wedge issues that don’t always serve specifically the rich or poor.

In addition, during the 20th century, we have seen a massive expansion of power in the federal government. A few factors may have lead to this expansion:

• The depression, under the Roosevelt administration, brought about the notion of a welfare state. Private enterprises, so tightly bound together during the industrial revolution and roaring 20’s, now lost the ability to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.”
• The world wars, while helping to jumpstart the economy (as wars tend to do in the short-term), posited America as an international power. In order for citizens to commit to such a broad war, many efforts were made to unite people under the common flag. America started to come into focus as a single nation.
• Growth of big business on the national level lead the federal government to regulate, drawing a great deal of political and economic power from local government.
• The cold war, and the fear of communism (held by a majority), united the nation further under a clear ideological alternative to the soviet empire.

Overall, I can imagine, people feel a degree of anxiety over the expansion of both government and business. They no longer feel as if they have direct control over their lives.

We have become alienated from both our economic and political contributions. In addition to this, (one could argue) rising inequality has lead to a sharp decline in social capital (which I can explain further once I come across a study done in a small Italian community…) which leaves one alienated from their own communities.

At the same time, however, the desire for security leaves us huddled behind a cohesive national identity. We also look to the national level to regain control over our lives. Depending upon which political alignment one may follow, there has come about a desperation to put one of two dominant parties in office.

As in 2000, there remains a great deal of anxiety over the arrival of Ralph Nader into the presidential race. Many folks are excited that he is running (for both good and ill reasons), but many in the Democratic party fear that he, as in 2000, will draw (otherwise democratic) votes.

America relies upon a winner-take-all system of politics. The candidate who wins the most votes takes full control of the office for which they campaigned. In a voter population that is quite evenly divided among the dominant parties, a third party might bring more diversity, but can easily tip the balance of power towards the section of voters who are most unified. The voters at loss, then, must cope with the alienation of having very little representation in government.

Perhaps the focus should not be in who should run - or refrain from running - for office, but how we can bring about a sense of contribution in our community, political, and economic lives.

Published: 4 years, 3 months ago