polarization inside the political system essay
Polarization in the Political Program
On Tuesday, November 18, 1995, in what has been regarded as
the many years movement biggest nonevent, the federal government close all
non-essential providers due to the fact that was, for all intents and
purposes, a game of countrywide chicken involving the House Speaker and
the Chief executive. And, in a estimated expense of 200 , 000, 000 dollars a day
this dubious struggle of dueling egos would not come inexpensive (Bradsher
1995, p. 16). So why do political figures find it almost congenitally
not possible to interact personally? What is it about politics and power that appear
to always put them for odds with good government? Indeed, is an
effective, well run government even conceivable given the present
adversarial relationship among our two main politics parties? This
would appear that the physical exercise of electrical power for its individual sake, and a
competitive condition in which one side must always oppose the other
on any kind of issue, is incompatible while using cooperation and compromise
necessary for the federal government to function. Since the United States becomes
more extreme in its beliefs generally speaking, group polarization and
competition, which will requires a mutual exclusivity of goal achievement
will certainly lead to more showdown situations in which the objective of good
government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering.
In this paper I will examine recent personal behavior in terms of two
elements: Group tendencies with an emphasis on polarization, and
competition. Nevertheless , one should remember that these two factors
will be interrelated. Group polarization is likely to exacerbate inter-group
competition by driving any two groups who have initially don’t agree farther
apart within their respective sights. In turn, a competitive scenario in
which one aspect must lose in order for the other to win (and
political conditions are usually competitive), can codify the
differences between groups leading to further extremism by all those
seeking power inside the group and therefore, to further group
polarization.
In the over example, both the main combatants, Bill Clinton
and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to consider uncompromising
disparate views because of the extremely nature of authority within their
respective political groupings. Group polarization refers to the tendency
of groups to gravitate for the extreme of whatever opinion the group
stocks (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p. 498-99). Therefore , in case the extreme
is seen as an appealing characteristic, those who exhibit serious
philosophy will gain authority through referent electricity. In other words
they will have got characteristics that other group members appreciate and
seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this kind of circle of polarization
and specialist can lead to a bizarre type of one-upsmanship in which
each group member seeks to gain power and approval if it is more
extreme than the others. The end result can be extremism inside the pursuit of
power without any regard to the functionality or reasonableness
from the beliefs showcased. Since the direction of polarization is
currently in opposite guidelines in our two party system, it is almost
difficult to find a prevalent ground together. In addition , the
competitive nature with the two get together system frequently eliminates even
the potential of compromise since failure generally leads to a
devastating loss in power.
If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power
in the group, of course, if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book Simply no
Tournament: The Case Against Competition, competition is mutually
unique goal achievement (one aspect must shed in order for the other
to win), then bargain and co-operation are not possible (p. 136). This
is especially therefore if the competitors are dedicated to maintaining power for
all costs. That power is definitely an end by itself is made clear by the the latest
shutdown from the government. That served simply no logical goal. Beyond
charging a lot of money, completely no visible effect other than as a electricity
have difficulty between two political heavyweights. According to David Kipnis
(1976, cited in Baron & Graziano, 1991), one of the unwanted side effects
of power is, in fact , is a tendency to consider it as the own end, and to
ignore the probability of disastrous results from the dangerous use of
power (p. 433). Consequently , it would seem that (at least in this case)
govt policy is established and integrated, not with consider to its
performance as authorities policy, nevertheless only to find its worth
as being a tool intended for accumulating and maintaining power.
Another of Kipniss unwanted effects of electrical power is the trend to
use it for selfish purposes (p. 433). In governmental policies this can be viewed as
the predilection toward making assertions for temporary political
gain that are either non-sensical or contrary to earlier positions
held by candidates themselves. While it’s not always the use of
actual electric power, it is an try to gain personal office (and therefore
power) without regard for the real really worth or significance of a plan
once and for all government.
A chief example of this kind of behavior show up in the generally
divergent political ezces taken by Governor Pete Pat of
California. Now I should qualify my own politics position.
While I do tend to lean towards the Democratic side of the political
spectrum (this is undoubtedly what brought Pete Wilson to my interest
inside the first place), I take a look at Governor Pat because he is a
primary example of the two polarization and pandering in the competitive
pursuit of power. Accordingly, Let me try to hold my personal biases
in check.
In any case, selfish, power searching for behavior is reflected in
Wilsons lately abandoned plan for President. Although this individual
consistently ruled out working for Director during his second
gubernatorial campaign, immediately after he was re-elected he
declared that he was creating a committee to explore the opportunity.
And, in fact , he did make a great abortive work for the Republican
nomination. In both cases (presidential and gubernatorial elections)
he justified his seemingly contrary positions when it comes to his
duty towards the people(No Creator 1995). This kind of begs problem, was this
the duty that was contrary, or was it Wilsons political
dreams. In either case it seems clear that his decision was
hardly based upon principles of good government. Whether or not Wilson
thought he had a greater duty towards the nation as a whole (and Im being
charitable here), he might consider that ahead of he went for
governor the second time. It might appear more likely that the
greater electricity inherent inside the presidency was your determining force
lurking behind Wilsons decision. Ironically, Wilsons lust pertaining to potential
power could cause him to lose the power he actually features. Since his
decision to run for Chief executive was resoundingly unpopular with
Californians, and since he may be perceived as struggling to compete in
nation-wide politics due to his withdrawal through the presidential race
his political power may be fatally impaired. This behavior displays not
only a disregard for good government, yet also a peculiar inability
to delay gratification. There is absolutely no reason that Pete Wilson couldnt
have operate for Director after his second term as Chief excutive had ended.
His selfish quest for power due to its own sake was so absolute it
inhibited him from seeing the very.. political facts that offered him
power in the first place.
In his make an attempt to gain power, Wilson was able to change his
ezce on virtually every issue he had ever came across. From
immigration to affirmative actions from taxes cuts to abortion rights
this individual has thrown 180 degrees (Thurm, 1995). The point this is not his
inconsistency, but rather the simple fact that it is unlikely that
considerations of effective govt would allow these types of
shots. And, although people may possibly dismiss this behavior as merely the
political game playing that all applicants engage in, is it doesn’t
pervasiveness of this behavior towards the exclusion of any governmental
considerations that make it unpleasant as well as intriguing.
Polarization is also apparent with this example. Seeing that Pete Pat
showed not any inherent dedication toward a certain ideology, it really is
entirely likely that had the Republican party been drifting towards a
centrist position rather than an extreme right-wing position, Pat
would have accordingly recently been more moderate in his politics
pronouncements. The polarization towards a long is what induced him
to make these kinds of radical changes in his philosophy. It is, of course
difficult to ascertain to what level political intransigence is a
conscious strategy, or a great unconscious motivation toward power, but the
result is the same political leadership that is not good
(or even relevant) to great government.
The role of competition within our political product is an innately
contradictory one. We recognize the fact that politicians need to compete
ruthlessly to find office applying whatever tactics are necessary to win.
We in that case, somehow, anticipate them to totally change their very own behavior once
they are really elected. At that time we anticipate cooperation, compromise
and a statesmanlike attitude. Alfie Kohn (1986) points out that the
expectation is completely unrealistic (p. 135). This individual also declares that
Depriving adversaries of people, of looks, of their
subjectivity, can be described as strategy we all automatically take up in order to win
(p. 139). Quite simply, the very characteristics of competition requires that
we treat people as hostile objects rather than as humans. It is
therefore , not likely, once an election is now over and the means of
government should begin, that politicians will be able to
forgive and forget in order to carry on with the organization at hand.
Again, in the recent government shutdown we can see this kind of
same sort of problems. House Presenter Newt Gingrich, whose
competitive politics relationship with Bill Clinton has been
rancorous at best, blamed his own (Gingrichs) handling of the budget
negotiations that resulted in the shutdown, in the poor treatment
during an airline flight that he plus the President were on (Turque &
Thomas, 1995, p. 28). One can understand this issue from both sides. Upon
the one palm, shabby treatment on an airplane flight can be hardly a
reason to close the U. T. government. However, if the shabby
treatment occurred, was it an intelligent thing for the Director to do in
mild of the fragile negotiations that were going on during the time? In
both cases, it seems that all concerned were, in effect, blinded by
their competitive hostility.
They both presumably desired to run the us government well (we
presume thats for what reason they ran for business office in the initially place), but
they couldnt overcome their particular hostility very long to run this at all.
If the Presenter is to be assumed (although this individual has seeing that tried to
retract his statements), the whole episode come not by a
legitimate disagreement about how precisely to control well, but from the
competitive desire to dominate govt. Indeed, when ever one examines
the eventual give up that was reached, there will be simply no
significant difference in the positions of the two parties. If this is
therefore , why was it essential to waste vast amounts shutting straight down
the us government and then beginning it up once again a few times later? What is
more, this entire useless instance will be reenacted in mid-December.
Anybody can only expect that Clinton and Gingrich avoid vacationing together
until an agreement is come to. Although people incessantly complain
about government and about the ineffectiveness of politicians, they
almost never examine what causes these problems. While there is of
attention paid out to advertising campaign finance change, lobbying change, PAC
reform, plus the peddling of influence, we all never appear to realize
that, most of the time, politicians are merely offering us what they
believe we want. If they are weak and dominated simply by polls, arent they
really looking for the will from the people to be able to comply
with it? If they are extremist and uncompromising in their personal
ezces, arent they simply reflecting the extremism frequent in our
country today? If politicians compromise, we all call all of them weak, and if
they dont we call these people extremist. Whenever we are miserable with our
government, perhaps it is because all of us expect the folks who run that to
do the impossible. They need to reflect the need of a large, disparate
electorate, however be completely consistent in their ideology.
However , whenever we look at political behavior in terms of our own
polarized, partisan thinking, and if we could find a way to either
reduce the competitive nature of campaigns, or reconcile pre-election
hostility with post-election statesmanship, in that case we may discover a way to
elect politicians on the basis of how they will control rather than just how
they will run. It could be tempting to dismiss all this as only the way
politics is definitely or say that competition is usually human nature, or possibly
feel that these actions are essentially harmless. But consider
these two illustrations. It has been speculated that Leader Lyndon W.
Johnson was reluctant to get out of the Vietnam war as they didnt
want to be appreciated as the first American President to shed a battle.
If this sounds true, it means that thousands of people, both American and
Thai, died to be able to protect 1 mans position. In Oklahoma
City, a federal building was bombed in 1994, eliminating hundreds of men
ladies, and children. The claimed perpetrators had been a group of serious
right wing, constitutionalists who were apparently trying to turn
frustration with the federal government into wide open revolution.
I do not really think these kinds of examples happen to be aberrations or flukes, tend to be
instead, indicative of strength defects inside our political system. If
we are unaware of the dangers of extremism and competition, we might
ultimately, be damaged by all of them.
References
Baron, B. M., & Graziano, W. G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fortification Worth
TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bradsher, T. (1995, The fall of 18). Country may be losing money with
government closed. The newest York Instances, pp. of sixteen
Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The situation Against Competition. Boston
Houghton Mifflin.
Zero Author. (1995, March 24). internet What Wilson reports about
going into race. San Jose Mercury News On-line.
Talk about: http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htm
Thurm, S. (1995, August 29). internet Wilsons announcement even more
of an ad: California chief of the servants kicks off travel for GOP presidential
nomination. San Jose Mercury News Online.
Address: http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htm
Turgue, W., Thomas, Elizabeth. (1995, The fall of 27). Absent the moment.
Newsweek, pp. 26-29.
