Question

why has partisanship in american government increased so much in the past few decades?

Answer 1

Largely because TV/radio infrastructure was expensive (limiting the number of people who could make their voice effectively heard), and content regulations were much stronger prior to the end of the Fairness Doctrine in the 1980's. The period roughly c. 1930s-1980's, where political opinion was (or at least appeared to be) more uniform, was more the exception than the rule in our history. (Read political debates c.1800 for instance)

Answer 2

\

Contention 1- Our Legislative Bodies

Christopher Foreman of the University of Marlyand wrote , “Polarization in concert with other forces has influenced[Congressional] leaders [on both sides of the isle] to use their power in way[s][like never before] that undermine deliberation.” The following trends in political dialogue within congress illustrate the subversion of deliberation that is occurring-

- Barbarba Sinclair of UCLA reports in the last 40 years, committee meetings have decreased 60% in the attempt to limit opposition dialogue.
- Sinclair reports conferences between the Senate and House have decreased more than 40% in the last 40 years to prevent minority opposition.
- Between 2005 and 2008, 25% of conferences blocked the minority party from attending said conference so no opposition could be voiced.
- Through the use of special rules, the amount of amendments passed without debate or even votes have risen 10%.
- Norman Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute reports filibusters have increased in use by more than 35% in the last 10 years.
- Professor Gregory of the University of Chicago 60% of all filibusters kill their intended bills or end debate, subverting deliberation all together.
- Sarah Binder of George Washington University reports judicial nominees are 40% less likely to be considered just due to their political party affiliation
- Binder also reports the average amount of laws Congress passes to limit the jurisdiction and deliberation of the Supreme court has risen 80%.

We will further elaborate on all of these holistic assertions with anecdotes further into the debate.

Contention 2- The Mass Media


Stanford Professor Shanto Iyengar wrote in his recent study on political communication, “A further implication [of the new media age] is ‘echo chamber’ effect – basically the news serves to reinforce existing beliefs and attitudes. Our results are consistent with the argument that Internet technology [and new media] will, in practice, narrow rather than widen users’ political horizons. Although an infinite variety of information is available, individuals limit their exposure to news or sources that they expect to find agreeable. Over time, this behavior is likely to become habituated so that users turn to their preferred sources automatically no matter what the subject matter.” Iyengar even finds that when given the same political news-story but from a range of commonly visited news sources only 10% of Americans will choose a source that would traditionally oppose their ideologies. Iyengar argues the mass media has become one sided in reponse to this echo-chamber effect. “The new, more diversified information environment makes it not only more possible for consumers to seek out news they might find agreeable, but also provides a strong economic incentive for news organizations to cater to their viewers’ political preferences. Competition forces newspapers, cables news, and internet sites to cater to the prejudices of their consumers, and greater competition typically results in more aggressive catering to such prejudices as competitors strive to divide the market. Thus, as the audience becomes polarized over matters of politics and public policy, rational media owners stand to gain market share by injecting more rather than less political bias into the news.”

Answer 3

It hasn't. It's just in our face more often.

Answer 4

It hasn't. In fact, I would say that it has DEcreased. Since Clinton the Democratic line is almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric. There has been a sharp shift to the right since Reagan, and we have been inching rightward ever since. The arguments we hear on TV are not so much opposing ideaolgies for all the politicking--but rather arguments about how to go about achieving the same goals. For example Scott Walker is a Republican, and Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat, but both govs are talking about austeriy measures for public sector workers. 40 years ago this would not be happening. Instead there would be a hot debate on whether or not austerity is the correct way forward!