Polarization in the Political System.
On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as .
the years biggest non-event, the federal government shut down all .
"non-essential" services due to what was, for all intents and .
purposes, a game of national "chicken" between the House Speaker and .
the President. And, at an estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, .
this dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, .
1995, p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally.
impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seem.
to always put them at odds with good government? Indeed, is an .
effective, well run government even possible given the current .
adversarial relationship between our two main political parties? It .
would seem that the exercise of power for its own sake, and a .
competitive situation in which one side must always oppose the other .
on any issue, is incompatible with the cooperation and compromise .
necessary for the government to function. As the United States becomes .
more extreme in its beliefs in general, group polarization and .
competition, which requires a mutual exclusivity of goal attainment, .
will lead to more "showdown" situations in which the goal of good .
government gives way to political posturing and power-mongering.
In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of two.
factors: Group behavior with an emphasis on polarization, and .
competition. However, one should keep in mind that these two factors .
are interrelated. Group polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group .
competition by driving any two groups who initially disagree farther .
apart in their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in .
which one side must lose in order for the other to win (and.
political situations are nearly always competitive), will codify the.
differences between groups - leading to further extremism by those .
seeking power within the group - and thus, to further group .
