Polarization In Politics

Polarization in American politics is caused by differences in priorities, and it determines which party and individual is affiliated with politically. Lieske gives an example whereby some politicians may prioritize environmental issues while others may prioritize civil rights issues. On a lower sub-level, political views held in different states are determined by the prevalent cultures in the respective states. Lieske establishes that the major factors of influence are social class, race, religion, ethnicity, and historical settlement patterns. Taking religion for example Frendreis and Tatalovich tried to explain the reason why certain counties within the US continues to restrict the sale of alcohol even in the 21st century. Frendreis and

They present the idea that concentration of party supporters in different regions determines the party’s political dominance over that region. It also influences the kind of campaign method used in certain areas. As such, policies that might work for some states might be a failure to other states; this causes a sharp contrast in policy preferences. If follows that a party that will represent these interests will be the dominant party in the region as concluded by Lieske in his study. He also reveals that culture influences state politics. Gimpel and Schuknecht went further to illustrate that moralistic state subcultures influence lower levels of crime, poverty, female-headed households, and racial inequality in income distribution. On the other hand, pluralistic state subcultures will enhance the prevalence of these factors. These two kinds of subcultures determine the social and economic ways of the state people, hence, they influence the kinds of policies needed for governance. For instance, some states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medicinal purposes or both. Other states allow sale of alcohol while others only allow it partially. Marijuana and alcohol are known to increase crime levels. Therefore, a moralistic society is likely to reject any laws promoting marijuana for recreational purposes. It could also restrict the sale of alcohol. They could then

However, federalism scholars have approached conflict with an underlying assumption that each level of government will work towards eventual uniformity, placing conflict into context as being a momentary disruption in federalism’s longer trajectory towards cohesion. As a result of this view, scholarly questions tend to focus on which level of governance has more leveraging power at particular moments to influence long-term policy change. For example, in analyzing conflicts emerging in federalism, Rose and Cynthia argue that today’s polarized Congress and unified state governments have rerouted policymaking onto states for the policy areas of immigration, health, education, marijuana and same-sex marriage. Moreover, adding fuel to this devolution in policymaking, Rose and Cynthia argue that the executive and judicial governments have opened new pathways for states to pass policy in areas previously closed to them, resulting in a fragmented policy landscape that is outside the norm of a cohesive set of laws. This heightened role of subnational legislation is not viewed as a long-term condition, and the focus is on how conflict gets resolved between each level of