Increase In Party Polarization

Thomas Hobbes once said that “curiosity is the lust of the mind”; that humans naturally gravitate towards knowing more of the unknown out of pure desire. In the context of power, this statement could not be any more truer. In history, we have seen countless examples of power-hungry figures who have only been detrimental to their societies. The Mussolinis and Maos of this world have proven time and time again that the desire to elevate one’s status of power ends more often than not in terrible consequences. The increase in party polarization that the United States sees today can be linked to a power-hungry society. Political parties in the country first began in the late 18th century with the creation of the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican

However, this only serves to further divide American voters. In an already divided country on a number of levels, we see Republicans refusing to pass immigration reform supported by Democrats or our Democratic President vowing to veto a Republican bill banning Syrian refugees. When discussing issues that are not yet solved, politicians often speak in an “us versus them” ideology, so as to pin all of the blame for our issues onto a single political party and its members. This stems from the same party polarization; where people are easily divided along their political standpoints and are taught to stick firmly to their beliefs, leading to nothing but a back and forth power struggle that does not get anywhere. This is unproductive because instead of working together to better the nation, people are disunited which creates animosity and gridlock. One trend can be looked to in order to explain this. Over the past forty or so years, there has been a significant rise in the number of conservative Republican lawmakers. When considering this in the context of party polarization, conservative Republicans are consequently the biggest reason behind it, per Nolan McCarty of the Washington

Nathaniel Persily, author of Solutions to Political Polarization in America, suggests that one solution that would see results quickly would be to implement reforms on Congress. This would include limiting filibusters to make policy-making more efficient and less difficult to pass. Moreover, to prevent the hostility between opposing legislators, there would be a slight change of a law that forces each negotiation to be transparent. This new-found privacy would create a safer environment and each congressman/woman would not feel compelled to make rash and stubborn decisions to display how loyal they are to their respective parties (Persily). This would ultimately prevent gridlock, which is the most detrimental consequence of party