Political partisanship and polarization have influenced most of American politics in over five decades now. The party competitions have become an integral part of ideologies from the Democratic and Republican parties growing farther apart. These divisions are described in the context of polarization, which is derived from the word polarity, which means “a state of having two opposite or contradictory tendencies, opinions, and aspects (McCarty 8). Socially, polarization leads to varying partisan attachments, policy preferences, attitudes towards some subgroups, religion, and cultural beliefs, among others. In the political scene, polarization takes the form of ideological attachments, partisan attachments, and public policies with cultural and social polarization being vital in the formation of political polarization. According to McCarty, polarization differs from partisanship in that the latter refers to party affiliations regardless of one’s polarized attitudes and preferences (12). Among this polarization, lines are the elite who influence policy preferences, voting behavior, and partisan identities, which has shaped modern American politics. This has become an important aspect of news coverage with social media and online outlets disproportionately representing either side, which is a feature of asymmetric polarization. Even though it is still widely disputed, the concept of asymmetric polarization by news outlets has adverse effects on American politics as various actors play various roles to mitigate the problem.
What is the argument about asymmetric polarization in the U.S media ecosystem?
Despite the increasing disparities between the two parties, Hacker and Pierson attribute the asymmetrical polarization as a “primary consequence of the Republican party 35-year march to the right” (59). According to the study, core data by DW-Nominate, a news outlet, suggested that Southern democrats and moderate Republicans were replaced by conservative Republicans with policies moving away from traditional perceptions. The same core data analysis was advanced to the classification of presidents, their vice-presidents, and Supreme Court justices where they are placed on a left-right scale. Asymmetrical polarization was seen where most of the candidates were moderate per modern standards, with only four of current GOP appointees being conservatives (Hacker and Pierson 60). Other illustrations of asymmetrical polarization that are hard to quantify but increasingly hard to quantify are what are termed as constitutional hardballs. These hardballs intensified the debates where asymmetrical polarization manifests itself to violate established norms as parties gain partisan advantages in Congress or with the people.
In the instances where these norms are broken, both sides feel inclined to play hardball using legal ways as demonstrated with the 1995 government shutdown, President Clinton’s impeachment and hostage-taking concerning the debt ceiling increases (Hacker and Pierson 60). The media’s depiction of these events presents some aspects of asymmetrical polarization. Robison and Mullinix assert that most people get their news and information on partisanship and polarization mainly through media reports (262). They approach the challenge by placing media polarization by using Entman theoretical framing lenses, where news coverages tend to highlight four basic elements of the incident. News frames and coverages on elite partisanship facilitate in changing voter behavior as they focus on strategic incentives and policies of the elites, therefore implying that polarization is as a response of the elites in support of their special interests. In this light, developments on asymmetrical polarization in the media negatively impact the public attitudes on American politics since they can hamper and distort the truth.
Effects of Asymmetric Media polarization
One consequence of this is presented with the 2016 Presidential campaigns and elections. In the earlier campaigning days, many Republican candidates thought that Donald Trump would eventually drop out of the race and refrained from attacking him or his ideologies, hoping that his supporters would think of them as better alternatives (McCarty 129). Even then, Trump’s perception of news outlets was negative, with his constant referral of them as “fake news” and being an enemy of the American people. According to Grossmann, Trump capitalized and directly amplified Fox News coverages, websites, and radio talk shows as he hired conservatives into his administration (3). His supporters willingly professed to conform to his conservative media bubble ideologies while adopting an antimedia attitude, which undermines trust in democracy and the government institutions as portrayed by the news outlets.
Strategies to Reduce Asymmetrical polarization
In response to mitigate the risks of asymmetrical polarization, various strategies have been proposed. The first suggested option is to increased voter turnout by reforming congressional primaries. Kamarck proposes that increasing voter turnout will open up possibilities for independent voters to contribute to the primaries, which in turn will dilute the ideological extremes from the other two major parties (97). Further, allowing people to votes beyond party lines will facilitate more moderates getting into office, as seen with the passing of Prop 14 clause in the state of California. Secondly, Hacker and Pierson propose that norms for moderation need to be reestablished so as to reduce incidences of constitutional hardball (66). As much as the media’s influence is substantial, they need to determine accountability on the candidates they endorse, which reestablishes the norms that govern political elite misconduct. Lastly, reformers need to come up with policies that contain “reversion points” that reduce obstruction from the other party (Hacker and Pierson 67). These revisions impose steep costs of failure of consensus on the reform and are not agreed upon, as illustrated by the agreed proposal between Congressional republicans and Obama’s administration.
Conclusion
No single initiative or reformation can completely solve the asymmetrical polarization experienced in American politics. Over the last two decades, Republicans have reinforced their hold in government institutions as well as in extremist media. Despite this, they have brought some major positive reforms on their aggressiveness on deregulation, government spending, and tax reformation. Thus, solutions in revolving polarization require to acknowledge that the parties are not mirrored entities, but rather have to be considered separately since they are not equally responsible for polarization.