polarization.
In the above example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton .
and Newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to take uncompromising, .
disparate views because of the very nature of authority within their .
respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the tendency .
of groups to gravitate to the extreme of whatever opinion the group .
shares (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme .
is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme .
beliefs will gain authority through referent power. In other words, .
they will have characteristics that other group members admire and .
seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization .
and authority can lead to a bizarre form of "one-upsmanship" in which .
each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more .
extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit of.
authority without any regard to the practicality or "reasonableness" .
of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is .
currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost .
impossible to find a common ground between them. In addition, the .
competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even .
the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a.
devastating loss of power. .
If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power .
within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No .
Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is "mutually .
exclusive goal attainment" (one side must lose in order for the other .
to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This .
is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power "at .
all costs." That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recent.
shutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyond.
costing a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power .