American Partisan Politics: Hate, Anger, and Misunderstanding

American partisan politics — that is, the division of American political thinking along lines clearly outlined as “Democratic” or “Republican” — is an integral part of American political culture, and American economics. Speaking in very broad terms, Democrats tend to favor more intrusive, anti-corporate, globalist, and more socialistic roles in governmental—economic relations, while Republicans tend to favor more protectionist, more free-market, pro-corporate, more capitalistic, and more laissez-faire policies. The American political culture is somewhat unique in the world, in that American political thinking is highly bipolar: We tend to refer to things almost exclusively as Republican/Conservative, or Democratic/Liberal, to the point where the words are interchangeable — Republican noting a political party and Conservative noting an affiliated political ideology, and the like with Democrats and Liberals.

This is not the case with most other countries, which have three or more major parties vying for major political control. (The two biggest major “third party” parties in America, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, generally fail to achieve more than localized political success.

) The significance of this is that Americans often find it difficult to work so-called “third option” thinking into their view of the political world, and because of this, both Democratic and Republican parties often stray significantly from their espoused political philosophies in order to earn the gratitude of the most voters possible. For example, Republicans tend to espouse pro-free-market policies, but the party is also very pro—corporate, and when large corporations find the free market to work against them, they’ll often use lobbyists to push the Republican Party towards protectionist policies in favor of their political allies.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified

Proficient in: Globalization

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

As another example, while Democrats tend to be pro—globalization, they also tend to be pro-union-relations, and many American labor unions are anti- globalization, because it results in the exportation of formerly-American jobs overseas. Thus, they may pass into law protectionist policies and provglobalization policies at the same time. As demonstrated, the two parties are not always absolutely faithful to their espoused political philosophies of conservatism and liberalism. The key downside to the bipolar nature of American political culture is that there are very clear “lines in the sand.” Most Americans will think in terms of Republican or Democrat, and especially during economic downturns, such as the recent economic recession, the two parties can become very bitterly divided over economic issues.

This can lead to everything from minor discrimination and judgmental behavior, to outright hatred and violence, such as the midejune riots in Toronto, Canada, in protest of the 620 (Group of Twenty, a meeting of the world’s largest economic powers), which led to the largest massearrest in Canadian history. as well as an outbreak of violence. During the riots, particularly on June 26‘”, many protesters and police officers were injured, as well as millions of dollars in property damage, as protestors vandalized buildings, attacked businesses (particularly American corporate outlets, such as Starbucks, McDonalds, Nike, Subway, and Sears, all famous American multinational corporations), set fire to police cars, and assaulted police officers and private citizens alike. The reason for these protests is that the (320 summit is seen as very pro» multinational» corporation and very pro-capitalism.

Clearly, socioeconomic and political economic issues are extremely, often violently divisive, and thus, if for no other reason, well worth a greater understanding amongst the American population. Because the interaction of the economy and partisan politics, and the socioeconomic peculiarities of the American two-party political system, hate, anger, and misunderstanding arising from these common political issues cannot truly be extinguished. However, this hatred, anger, and misunderstanding does rise and fall with time — while people’s opinions don‘t change, they do become quieter and louder with time. It’s simple: When the economy is strong and healthy, people become less vocal, and when the economy is weak and poor, people become more vocal. When the economy is good, people feel that things are going well, but when they’re bad, people are quick to blame policies of the opposing party as causing the downturn. But for whatever reason, downturns happen 7 we would not have economic upswings without them.

The truth is, economics is a very complex field, one that cannot easily be explained in black-and-white terms such as conservative and liberal. I believe that is a fallacy to say that government should always be active, or that it should always be passive. Both sides are sometimes right, and both sides are sometimes wrong. This isn’t a middle-of-the-road, don’t rock the boat approach; rather, it stems from the belief that both parties are wrong. Not every example of hate, anger, and misunderstanding along political and economic lines results in violent conflict; however, it is much more widespread than isolated extreme examples of violence. According to my research, many conservative and libertarian students feel threatened on college campuses, as college campuses are seen as centers of liberal thought in America.

They feel that they might be the target of discrimination for their political beliefs, such as being graded unfairly for espousing their honest political opinion in required assignments to a biased professor, or being ostracized or even targeted by peers that disagree with them. While there is always more fear of bias than actual bias, these worries are not necessarily incorrect, with many documented cases of political discrimination in economic decisions (such as investing, employment, et cetera) being known. I found in my research that polls at UNC-Chapel Hill found ten professors who described themselves as significantly liberal for everyone one professor that described themselves as significantly conservative. I, personally, in my three semesters of experience at WCU, have been in more than one class in which the professor clearly described themselves as being in favor of one political ideology and then allowed that bias to interfere with their duties as an impartial educator. l was even once told that I should drop a class and take it again with a different professor for having different political beliefs.

While I vocally disagreed with this professor, and stubbornly refused to drop the class, the fact that a professor at an institution of higher learning at all, much less here at WCU, does not see it as exceptionally inappropriate to ask a student to leave the (required) course because of his private, unadvertised beliefs is astounding, and frankly disturbing, and it is easy for me personally to see why hate and anger can arise out of political disagreements (As a side note, the professor in question was not even correct: I’m not a Republican, I’m a libertarian conservative and freely define myself as one.) As stated previously, the major economic and political divide is one of ideology, with smaller issues being directly related to them. Issues such as taxation, social security, welfare, isolationism, protectionism, globalization, copyright enforcement, economic stimulus (so—called “bailout”) spending, healthcare reform, corporate tax reform, income taxes, and others all stem from the basic philosophical divide in American economic philosophy: That is, should government take an active, intrusive role in the economy, or a passive, guiding one?

Personally, I feel that, in a country where congressional approval ratings frequently hover in the single digits and each president seems destined to be more controversial and divisive than the last, the last thing the country needs is a more active government, if the government’s role is to prevent anger and hatred among citizens. I don’t think that the ultimate goal should be the elimination of ideological division, or the anger and misunderstanding it creates. I feel that this is impossible, short of forcing everyone to think in the same manner, which is both impossible and abhorrent. Instead, greater political and economic and social understanding, taught in a fair, nonbiased, and understanding manner, may lead to more informed decisionmaking, in turn in turn leading people to truly understand issues, rather than voting because a politician was in the right party, or had the most money to spend on advertising. An informed, educated, and fairly-treated population, I feel, may ultimately lead to more peaceful economic disputes, rather than downturns erupting in fear, violence, and riots.