Polarization In Congress

Polarization in Congress leads to less bills reaching the President for review. While a Congress that passes every bill it meets provides no benefits, Congressmen should not shirk their duties primarily due to polarization. Representatives’ achievements for the term should instead be limited on properly in-depth debate and discussion relating to the legislature they need to pass. However, at an increasing rate, senators drop bills out of the law-generating cycle (Andris, 10). Andris, et al, explains: “The number of bills introduced seems to . . . [correlate] with a decrease in Congressional productivity.” (10). Further, Andris et al also finds that in Congress, “The average number of disagreements on roll call votes between [congressmen] …show more content…
Representatives may vote against a bill primarily due to a squabble they have with a bill supporter, or his party. In “Polarizing Cues,” writer Nicholson explains his research and how he found that “in-party leader cues do not persuade but that out-party leader cues polarize” (1). Further, because they choose these actions, they take polarization to an exceedingly uncooperative level. In other words, instead of agreeing with those who share their ideals, the congressmen improve their credentials by striving to disagree with their opponents. These congressmen commit such acts primarily due to their polarized nature; ideally, polarized leaders should not disagree with another purely based on their credentials. Nicholson also explains that parties serve as tentative psychological in- and out-groups, which influence a voting politician’s decisions (1). While he contends that politicians themselves serve as polarizing cues, he discusses their positions as in- and out-group politicians based on the political parties. Therefore, polarization also stems from political parties. In removing the bipartisan system, perpetrators of such actions also disappear; the removal of political parties also implies a lack of party lines, the main cause of such polarized …show more content…
Wilentz argues for political parties because they provide necessary opportunities for radical change. “[P]artisanship, although often manipulated and abused, has also been Americans' most effective vehicle for democratic social and political reform” (Wilentz, 26). However, radical change requires the prerequisite majority in both buildings in Congress. Voters need not decide between two political parties to determine the course of the nation’s future; they should instead choose an independent candidate. This alternative candidate can also implement desired change, reflecting the views of the constituency, without having a political party to modify his or her