American nation from a centralized to a polarized country

Name
Instructor
Date
Course
America has Changed Centralized Nation to a Polarized Country
Part One: Introduction
America has moved from a centralized nation to a country polarized with divisive politics. Today, Americans are trapped in cycles of unending political schism. The patterns of voting in the US Congress tell it all. The two major political parties in the Congress have pulled apart to extents never witnessed in the U.S. before. Moreover, the constant partisan positioning among voters also sends a clear picture of an extremely polarized country. The discontentment and split in the U.S. electorate have hit historic levels of divisiveness. According to Sides and Hopkins, the main reason why polarization has taken root in the U.S. is that political conflicts in America have consistently increased over the past three decades and have been based on partisanism (p.38). The Republicans and the Democrats rise against each other. Accordingly, issues that were initially non-ideological or non-partisan have become bigoted issues today (Sides & Hopkins 22). Look at the contradicting policies propositions revolving around taxes, economy, abortion, the death penalty, climate change, energy, immigration and security, healthcare, euthanasia, and the rest. Virtually every policy proposition has been marred with the maw of the prejudiced steeplechase, leaving nearly zero chance for cross-partisan cooperation in America.
Part Two: Concrete Analysis of Liberals and Conservatives
Analysis
The U.

S is composed of two systems of thinking; the liberal thinking and the conservative approach. Theoretically, these two ideologies represent opposing viewpoints about socio-economic and political issues in the American society. For instance, liberals and conservatives tend to hold divergent opinions about the role of the government, the structure of the U.S. society and the development of the nation. As Gerard puts it, the difference between conservative and liberal ideologies depends largely on how much of present or the present should be kept for the future (Gerard 25). While the liberals are tolerant and believe in change, conservatives, on the other hand, are cautious of traditions and prefer preserving the existing structures to changing them. Consequently, conservatives are highly likely to value socio-political and economic group membership (except labor unions) because groups are often slow to change.
Conservatives and liberals often hold different opinions because of the divergent experiences that they have. Conservatives mainly come from the overriding groups to whom the present conditions are fitting. Liberals, on the other hands, hail from minority groups to whom the present conditions or status quo is unsatisfying and hence, the reason for the change. Therefore, immigrants and minorities are always liberals while those from majority communities are highly likely to remain conservatives. Reasonably, that is why a Mexican is a liberal in America but a conservative in Mexico. Liberals are on the left-leaning side of thinking that is open to change and highly dependent on the government to solve problems. They desire to change presents systems because they believe that sticking to conventional systems not only slows down the society but also impedes progress and development. Within the U.S. system, Democrats are Liberals. Conservatives, on the other hands, are the Republicans.
Conservatives believe in religious values, traditional values, individual liberties, free markets, strong personal responsibility, and strong national defense. They also believe government’s involvement in private sphere should be as limited as possible. Liberals, on the other hands, believe in civil liberties, equality and equal opportunities, change (or progress), and unlimited government’s involvement in private spheres.
Socio-Economic and Political Issues
Just like Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, hold disparate views on most of the strategic issues in the U.S. society. Some of the contemporary issues in the U.S. society include climate change, immigration and security, healthcare, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, taxes, and the international community.
In the international community, conservative thinkers believe that international bodies, such as the NATO and the United Nations impede the national freedom of action and that the U.S. is a sovereign nation. Thus, international organizations do not have the authority to question the sovereignty of a nation. Conversely, liberals, while accepting the national sovereignty, believe that every country should be part and parcel of the international community. Consequently, U.S. should be supportive of the international organizations, as the NATO and the UN.
On taxation, conservatives trust that everyone should be taxed equally and lowly to create investment incentives and that government should not interfere with tax systems. Liberals, on the other hands, believe that having a differential tax system, where high-income individuals pay more in taxes than low-income earners, is the best. They are of the opinion that the tax system should be sensitive to inequality in the society.
On security and immigration, conservatives are of the opinion that soft immigration policies and border controls measures put the U.S security at risk. As a result, conservatives support legal immigration only. They have a hunch that illegal immigrants should not be given the same rights as other natives. In fact, in conservatives’ opinion, illegal migrants should be deported back to their home countries since they threaten the national security. Liberals, on the other hands, believe that legal immigration is important, but the government should help illegal migrants to obtain valid residence permits. As such, they support soft immigration policies and border control regulations.
Further, conservatives hold that global warming and climate change result from natural causes and there is no clear evidence to substantiate the supposition that the usage of fossil fuels exacerbates global warming and climate change. On the contrary, liberals believe that conservatives are wrong in this contention and maintains that the fossil fuels usage is a key causative agent of global warming and global warming. Based on this assumption, liberals maintain that companies should reduce their atmospheric carbon emissions.
Part Three: Article Review
This part reviews three articles that exemplify the ideological dissimilarities between liberals and conservatives. The section is structured with subheadings, article 1, article 2, and article 3, to identify the article under review.
Article 1. The first article in this review is one by the social scientist, Hans Noel. In his article dated 17th August 2016, Noel provides an anecdotal account of ideological differences between Democratic and Republican parties. Noel acknowledges that these two parties truly differ in their ideological outlook. However, it inconsequentially practical that there exist sharp divisions within the individual parties. Each of these parties wants to win the office and govern in the long-run, but how they articulate their position on issues that affect voters makes the biggest difference. Noel notes that Republicans and Democrats differ in their approach to issues, such as energy, climate change, international relation, immigration and national security, and role of governments among others (Noel 166). While the Republicans tend to follow conservatives’ ways of thinking (resistive to change), Democrats are often liberal and are sensitive to progress and change.
Ideally, this research article is quite informative. Besides picturing the parity between Republicans and Democrats, the article goes ahead to analyze and quantify the internal differences among the individual parties. In Noel’s endnote, he establishes that Republicans have more internal divisions than the Democrats and this is a good gesture of what may happen in the future.
Article 2. Kristen Parla’s article also looks at the ideological dissimilarities between Democrats and Republicans. After a detailed analysis of key matters of the disparity between these two parties, Parla concludes that beliefs are key differentiators of Democrats and Republicans. While the Democrats believe in equality, equality, government involvement in citizens’ problems, and redistribution of income, Republicans believe in personal responsibility, low taxes, free market economy, and non-inclusion of government in solving citizens’ problems (Parla 12). The article is scholarly, well-structured, and looks at the differences from one issue to another. It is, therefore, commendable from all perspectives.
Article 3. Sean Sullivan’s article in Washington Post also details the differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The writer looks at the ideological differences from the lens of racism and immigration. While Republicans oppose immigration and want tight border rules to promote national security, the Democrats want soft border policies (Sullivan n.p.). Republicans see Black-Americans as threats to national security, Democrats, on the other hands, see non-Whites as part of the American population and deserve equal rights.
This article is extremely informative of the socio-political polarization in the United States. It details the reason why there is differential political alignments in the United States. As some feel the U.S.is their native home and as such, enjoy all the privileges, others feel deprived of such a freedom, suggesting that America is a precariously divided society
Part Four: Evaluation of Conservatism and Liberalism
Regardless of the metric that one uses to assess the best ideology between conservatism or liberalism, one aspect remains for sure is that human conditions and other environmentally operating factors are never constant. Things change every day. So, one would wonder why some people would resist a change for the better. According to Gerard, it is not a wrong idea to preserve the tradition and status quo, but it wrong to stick to the tradition while one knows well that the tradition might not suffice in the long-run (Gerard 29). New and updated problems erupt nearly every day, and as Gerard notes, new problems need updated strategies to solve them. Therefore, the primary question should always ask is whether problems should be solved or preserved. If a solution is necessary, then the liberalism perspective provides the best pathways to solve a new problem. Unlike conservatism, liberalism allows for change. A change in tactic always makes a difference.
Further, research shows that conservatism is not an articulate ideology. Rather, it is just the need to maintain the current state of affairs or to retreat to conventional ways that are presumably better than the current ways. In fact, it not different from traditionalism because it opposes progressive changes. Liberalism, on the other hands, is a worldview political ideology based on ideas of equality and liberty. Whereas social liberalism emphasizes the significance of equality, classical liberalism stresses the role of liberty. Liberal thinkers espouse the broad array of propositions based on the how they understand these principles. Be that as it may, liberal supports the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, civil rights, free markets, gender equality, secular governments, democratic engagements, and international cooperation.
Unlike conservatism, liberalism cares about the less fortunate and middle-class populations. This is visible from healthcare reforms to proposition and passing of bills that aim to raise the minimum wage and create middle-class jobs. According to Gerard, the liberalism ideology supports the development and implementation of policies that aim to help at least 98 percent of Americans, and that is what it means to have a functioning nation (p.32).
The idea of ‘making America great again’ would have been interpreted as the betterment of the livelihood of the American populations. A great nation must have a strong and productive education system, quality healthcare system, and robust economy. All these cannot be possible without the desire for development and progress, to which conservatism is opposed. Liberals often care about education. In fact, they normally advocate for free education since not everyone is a position to pay for their education. Therefore, at the very least, liberalism aims to improve the quality of healthcare, quality of education, and quality of everything that directly affects the common citizen. That is what makes liberalism a better ideology than conservatism.
Liberalism is more constitutional than conservatism, especially, on social issues, such as abortion, religion, and climate change. It supports the freedom of worship. Although it does not support abortion, liberalism makes it clear that female gender has the constitutional right to whatever they want with their bodies. Therefore, based on the available research and experience of each of these two ideological perspectives, liberalism appears better than conservatism.
Part Five: Obama Administration’s Policies (2007-2017)
In his time as the 44th president of the U.S, Barrack Obama developed and implemented series of socio-political and economic policies. An evaluation of Obama Administration’s Policies is the primary focus of this section. The first policy to look at is the Obamacare. Obama Care was a healthcare policy enacted during the Obama’s Administration. The policy is largely referred to as the Affordable Care Act. The primary aim of Obamacare was to make sure that nearly all Americans had equitable access to affordable medical insurance. The Obamacare operated on tax credits such that healthcare consumers received discounts on federal healthcare insurance plans. Through this health care policy, Obama’s administration was able to expand the Medicaid program to cover more economically challenged individuals. Therefore, in total, the Obamacare policy was a tremendous reform in the U.S. healthcare system.
On the foreign policy, the Obama administration seems to have both failure and success. The administration took office with sheer confidence that it would better the relationship between the U.S. and other nations. However, eight years down the line, the administration’s foreign policy failures were apparent, and its successes were, similarly, significant. The administration made significant progress on climate change and global and global nuclear security. For instance, the U.S. agreed to with Iran and Cuba on arms control. Obama’s administration came up the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This trade agreement removed trade tariffs between the U.S. and eleven other Pacific nations and facility free trade. This agreement was, however, trashed by trump on 23rd January 2017
Obama administration came into office at the time when the U.S. economy was in a complete state of recession. However, since liberalism was the primary ideology of the administration, the administration instituted economic policies that reverted the U.S. economy to a positive GDP in just seven months. The administration embraced a moderate tax system, whereby the high-income earners paid a bit more taxes than low-income. It also had a policy aimed at cutting down the federal budget deficit while decreasing income inequality. Obama administration used a comprehensive healthcare reform, banking regulation, and economic stimulus policies to save the U.S. economy from an unexpected downturn. Obama administration emphasized the government’s involvement in solving problems of the common citizens. Federal Reserve Policy also came into play during the Obama’s administration. The policy required banks to charge low-interest rates, leading to the steady business expansion and housing recovery in the U.S.
Another policy to look is the clean power plan policy. This policy was put to function in 2015, and it worked in line with the carbon reduction policies to help the administration reduce carbon emissions. This was an immense contribution towards controlling climate change. Power plants signed agreements to this policy, requiring them to increase the production of renewable energy by over 30 percent.
In analyzing whether Obama was an effective or polarizing president, people often based their decisions on their political alignment. Conservative will always rate him as a polarizing. Liberals, on the other hands, would see him as an effective president. During his time, Barack Obama made several accomplishments. He saved the U.S. economy from a dangerous downturn. He expanded health care to cover all Americans. The U.S. state was not with any mentionable crisis during Obama’s time. Obama operation overseas also puts him on the front line. For instance, he initiated a brokering deal that stopped Iran from procuring nuclear weapons. Obama completed the Bush plan to pull out of Iraq successfully. On the other hands, Obama critics say that his foreign policy was a total failure since he did not reshape the role of America in the global. Conservatives also see Obamacare as extremely expensive. Therefore, deciding whether Obama was an effective president is not easy. However, based on the BBC online poll which shows that 56.6% of voters think that Obama’s presidency was great, it is reasonable to state the Obama was an effective president.
Research by Pew Research Center shows the first year of President Trump had more negative assessments than the former president Barrack Obama’s first year. While Trump’s first year was at 62% negative assessments, Obama’s first year had only 20% of negative assessment (Pew Research Center n.p.). This data shows that Obama’s first year in the Whitehouse was better than Trump’s first year. [See the diagram below]

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 1: Assessment of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump’s First Years in Office
Source: (Pew Research Center n.p.)
Part Six: Donald Trump’s Win in the 2016 Election
Why Trump Won
Winning an election requires a strategy, and Trump just had that in the 2016 elections. Political pundits and poll stars hardly expected Donald Trump to win until the final days of the 2016 elections, but Trump performed very well in many of battleground states, such as Noth Carolina, Florida, and Ohio among others. This performance gave him a straight win. Additionally, according to Jacobson, raiding an opponent’s stronghold while securing one’s territory is an effective campaign strategy (p.10). Wisconsin and Pennsylvania states had never supported a Republican presidential candidate for over 30years. They have been die-hard democrats. However, in the 2016 elections, Trump managed to raid and get votes from such states, and that made the difference. Despite the Democrats popularity in these regions, Trump managed to blast through their venerable firewalls and get a substantial number of votes in the long-run.
Furthermore, to win an election one has to be a bit unique, both in propaganda, agenda, and trademark. Like the former president Barrack Obama’s ‘Yes We Can,’ Donald Trump a powerful campaign slogan under the phrase ‘Making America Great Again.’ This slogan resonated well with the White Americans, enabling Trump to rally them behind the Republican Party. This strategy saw Trump garner more votes from White Americans since they are the majority group.
Trump had silent votes that the polls did not capture in their periodic results. Poll consistently placed Clinton ahead with at least points which were inaccurate, probably, because there was a problem with methodologies. Rather, it is practical to infer that most of Trump’s supporters concealed their intentions and downplayed the pollsters. Likewise, the role James Comey, the FBI Director, in Trump’s victory cannot be taken too lightly. He threatened to open Clinton’s secret emails for investigation, and this played well in changing the wind of the presidential campaign.
Trump was a celebrity. His name had been in the public domain for years. Therefore, he did not require name recognition to enter the race. In fact, this made Trump almost at the same level with Clinton, whose name had 100 percent recognition in public. However, the critical tact in his campaign strategy was his ability to motivate the Republican political support-base to ‘Get Out and Vote.’ Trump’s open derision for civility and fundamental principles of decorum together with his populist rhetoric counted positively towards his efforts to connect with the Republicans effectively.  Trump did not go by the regular rules of politics. That is why most of his supporters loved him.
Populists’ uprising against trade and immigration also played big towards Trump’s win in the 2016 election. Trump founded his entire campaign on the notion that popular aggression to Democrats’ free trade and immigration policies would help him get to the Whitehouse.
Special Congressional Election
Special Congressional Elections occur when the legislative office becomes vacant. The vacancy can be either as a result of resignation, removal or other issues. Based on the laws of a particular state, the election can either be held in the same year or can wait until the next scheduled election. In total, there were seven special congressional elections held in 2017. One for the Senate position and six for the House. Five of the six seats were initially held the Republican Party, with only one for the Democratic Party. Surprisingly, after the special election, both the Democrats and Republicans retained their Congressional seats (Hershey 23). Based on this outcome, therefore, it is not easy to decide whether the nation is rejecting or embracing Trump. However, since Trump did not lose any Congressional seat to the Democrats, it is evident that the nation is ready to embrace his administration regardless of the unfolding of events.
Part Seven: Congress Control after the Midterm 2018 Congressional Elections
According to Uhrmacher and Schaul, the 2018 midterm Congressional races might auger well with the Democrats. Today, Democrats have 194 out of 435 seats in the Congress. They only need 24 more seats to regain control of the Congress. There are many regions where Clinton won, but the Republicans hold congressional positions. If the Democrats can win these regions in the forthcoming midterm Congressional polls, they are likely to take control of the House. In the 2016 elections, Clinton won in over Republican 23 districts. These districts have a substantial number of Democrats’ votes. The authors predict that Democrat will be keen to defend their 12 districts that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. They largely include districts in Minnesota. Republicans got three seats there.

Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 2: Will Democrats Rule the House in 2018?
Source: (Uhrmacher & Schaul n.p.)
Uhrmacher and Schaul also predict that Democrats are likely to capitalize on Republicans’ retirements to regain control of the house in 2018 midterm. Although this may seem like a fallacy, the truth is that the number of Republicans who have vowed not to vie in the coming congressional elections is more than the number of Democrats who likely to retire. Usually, sitting House Representatives often have a critical chance when they re-run. Evidently, it is ill-starred to note that the Republican Party is likely to lose this opportunity when running for open seats.  Dave Reichert and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen are good examples of districts that Republicans have already vacated. There is a high probability that Democrats will take these seats as well.
Therefore, based on these predictions, Democrats expect more Congressional seats than Republicans, in the upcoming midterm polls. They are strategically positioned for that. However, it is unclear whether or not their strategies will work effectively to help them net 24 extra seats. Based on the available history on the same, it can take one of the biggest waves if a party outside not in the Whitehouse has the majority in the Congress. Nevertheless, U.S. should prepare for that after the midterm polls because there is a possibility.
Part Eight: Primaries
Possible Democrats in 2020 Presidential Poll
Many Democrats stand a high chance of joining the 2020 presidential race to challenge Donald Trump. The list can be long, but persons who are highly likely include but not limited to John Delaney, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Zuckerberg, Kamala Harris, Martin O’Malley, Tim Kaine, and Mitch Landrieu among others (Siddiqui n.p.). John Delaney is a low-profile congressman from Maryland. Delaney declared his interest in the presidential race of 2020 on July 2017. Delaney has thought up a presidential campaign slogan under the phrase “Focus on the Future.” He is in the cards to challenge Trump in 2020.
Regardless of being an independent senator, Bernie Sanders agrees with the Democrats. He is one of the Democrats who look at the 2020 presidential election with the intent to run. Hillary Clinton admitted underrating Sanders’ mutinous candidacy in the Democrat’s primary of 2016. Today, a substantial number of Democratic Party operatives think that Sanders is preparing to run again in the upcoming primaries. The Vermont senator has strong publicity, which can effectively play to his advantage. Joe Biden’s popularity grew rapidly during the time he served as the U.S. vice president. Biden’s regret over failing to vie in the 2016 election is in the public domain. White, business or working-class voters love the former vice president. He is likely to run under the Democratic ticket as well.
Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts-based senator, is also another optimistic Democrat. Her political maneuvers signal a possible run in 2020. Cory Brooker was one of the key contestants for in the Hillary Clinton’s deputy position. As a senator, Booker is always keen to help his constituents and this count positively towards 2020 candidacy. Besides the individuals mentioned above, there are many other Democrats who are likely to vie in the upcoming general election. Siddiqui also predicts that Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jerry Brown, Jason Kander, and Eric Garcetti may also run in 2020 on the Democratic ticket.
How Primary Elections Work
Before general elections, parties often hold internal mini-elections to select and determine candidates who will work for them on the ballot during the general election. These kind of elections are the primaries. A presidential party primary gives a particular political party an opportunity to appoint delegates who meet at the national convention to determine their presidential flag bearer. The selection of delegates to the nationwide convention takes place at the state level, meaning that differences from one state to another factor in a primary election.
Like in the general election, only registered voters are legible to vote for their preferred candidates in a primary election. In the U.S., the two main types of primary elections include open and closed primary elections. In an open primary election, registered voters can vote in any party’s nomination. For instance, a Republican voter can vote in a Democratic Party’s primary. Nevertheless, a voter is restricted to take part in only one primary election. In a closed primary election, however, registered voters are allowed to vote in their party primaries only. There is no cross-party voting. A Republican voter cannot vote in a Democratic Party’s primary election, and the same applies to a Democrat voter.
America versus British Political Systems
British and American political systems are different in many aspects. One of such aspects is the constitution. While the United States has a written document as the constitution, Britain does not have a written constitution, but rather constitution provisions, which are scattered within the Acts of Parliament. Further, unlike the British Acts of Parliament, the American constitution is not easy to change. A simple legislative majority can amend the constitutional provisions in Britain. This cannot be possible within the American political system. Again, unlike the British political system, the American political system often refer to the constitution. Republicans always argue that actions of the Democrats are unconstitutional.
In British politics, the strife is between the Labor Party and Conservative Party. In the U.S. politics, the supremacy battle is between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Once more, unlike the U.S. political system which does not have a center party between the Democrats and the Republicans, the British political system has the Liberal Democrat Party as the center party, supporting neither the conservatives nor the liberals. These are just some of the differences between the British and U.S. political systems.
Part Nine: Conclusion
Findings in the research indicate that the U.S. is extremely divided and polarized today. The conservative Republicans are hard on their beliefs. The liberal Democrats, similarly, are not ready to relent. The most likely future conditions in America will be internal conflicts, and that can be awfully retarding to the U.S. society. This research proposes centrism as the best remedy to restore unity in the U.S. Centrism is a state of being non-partisan by taking and implementing tested positive propositions from all the antagonistic ideologies. That is being between liberalism and conservatism.

Works Cited
Gerard, Francois B. Liberalism Versus Conservatism: A Bibliography with Indexes. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publ, 2000. Print.
Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party politics in America. Taylor & Francis, 2017.
Jacobson, Gary C. “The Triumph of polarized partisanship in 2016: Donald Trump’s improbable victory.” Political Science Quarterly 132.1 (2017): 9-42.
Noel, Hans. “Ideological Factions in the Republican and Democratic Parties.” Social Science, the Annals of the American Academy of Political and, Social Science, vol. 667, 01 Sept. 2016, p. 166.
Parla, Kristen. “Democratic versus Republican Perspectives.”
Pew Research Center. “Trump versus Obama’s administration.” Pew Research Center, 18 Jan. 2017, www.pewresearch.org/
Siddiqui, Sabrina. “20 Dems for 2020: who might want the Democrats field next time around?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 Nov. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/03/us-election-2020-democrats-bernie-sanders-oprah-winfreySides, John, and Daniel J. Hopkins. Political Polarization in American Politics. , 2015. Print
Sullivan, Sean. “The differences between Democrats and Republicans over race, in three charts.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 27 Aug. 2013, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/08/27/the-differences-between-democrats-and-republicans-over-race-in-three-charts/?utm_term=.a9fa376118e2.
Uhrmacher, Kevin, and Kevin Schaul. “Analysis | Can Democrats win back the House in 2018? It’ll be tough.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/can-democrats-retake-the-house/.
.