americans love to complain about their polarized politics. and why not? it<u+2019>s the root of congressional stalemates that keep us from dealing with all the important issues of our time, from illegal immigration to bankrupt entitlement programs and government debt <u+2014> not to mention the waves of hot air that blow over us from cable news talk programs.









but is polarization really such a bad thing?









political polarization impedes steps necessary to solve mounting national problems. these problems include rising levels of government debt; illegal immigration; spending on entitlement programs; the deterioration of america<u+2019>s roads, bridges, railways and airports; the impending failure of employee pension systems; and lackluster economic growth, not to mention various pressing international issues.









if the two parties cannot compromise to address these issues, then they will gradually grow to a point of crisis, at which point it may be too late to do very much about them.









political polarization between the two parties has grown to a point that americans have not seen since the 1890s, and perhaps not since the 1850s when the nation was in the process of coming apart over the slavery issue.









scholars have found that republican voters and officeholders have become much more conservative since the 1970s while democrats have grown increasingly liberal. from the late 1930s into the 1960s, roughly half the members of the house and senate were <u+201c>moderates<u+201d> as measured by their voting records. the parties had not yet separated into rival ideological camps.









today less than 10 percent of the members of congress can be called moderates on a liberal-conservative scale.









by the same process, the ideological distance between democrats and republicans has increased year by year. students of public opinion have observed a similar pattern among voters: they are now sharply polarized, express strong dislike for the opposing party and its voters, and do not trust the government to enact policies in the public interest.









there was a time in america when parents feared that a son or daughter might marry someone of a different religious faith; today, they tend to worry more that a child might marry someone of a different political faith.









in addition, the various states in the union have moved in opposite political directions, some becoming havens for democrats and others for republicans. it would be easy to point to other measures of increased polarization. a polarized and distrustful political system will never yield the compromises needed to address the serious problems the country is now facing.









it is true that president barack obama achieved some victories in this polarized environment, but at a high cost to his popularity and the democratic party<u+2019>s standing in congress. in addition, some of his signal achievements <u+2014> such as his health care bill and the nuclear treaty with iran <u+2014> will be reversed as soon as a republican president is elected.









it is hard to know exactly what has caused political polarization. to some extent, people <u+201c>vote with their feet<u+201d> and gradually separate into different jurisdictions based upon political views and lifestyle preferences. this process is aided by technology that allows citizens to communicate only to those already in agreement.









over time in any political system the rival <u+201c>teams<u+201d> will accumulate grievances against one another to the point where they lose any interest in communicating across party lines. this happened in the 1850s: we know what happened as a consequence of that development. things are not going to get that bad in america this time around, but they could get plenty bad if and when we have another serious recession or the stock market loses 30 percent or 40 percent of its value. sadly, it appears that as a nation we are no longer capable of making preparations for such events.









james piereson is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. he wrote this for insidesources.com. reach him at communications@manhattan-institute.org.









three weeks before halloween in 2002, the chambers of congress considered house joint resolution 114.









if it passed, that meant then-president george w. bush would be permitted to <u+201c>use the armed forces of the united states as he determines and appropriate<u+201d> against iraq.









a total of 296 members of the house of representatives voted for the resolution; 77 members of the senate voted yes. that meant 68 percent of the house voted for a u.s. war against iraq, and 77 percent of the senate voted likewise.









the vote also meant hillary clinton and chuck schumer, new york senators, had much in common with mitch mcconnell, a senator from kentucky, and social conservative rick santorum, then a senator from pennsylvania.









two liberal democrats: clinton and schumer. two conservative republicans: mcconnell and santorum.









however on oct. 10 and 11, 2002, that foursome all voted the same.









they answered <u+201c>aye<u+201d> in support of bush<u+2019>s war to eradicate saddam hussein<u+2019>s supposed stash of <u+201c>weapons of mass destruction.<u+201d>









however, suppose that fearsome foursome and other rivals didn<u+2019>t jump into the same bed. then, perhaps the u.s. wouldn<u+2019>t have launched a complicated and protracted war that ultimately became a widely unpopular conflict in a foreign land. a vietnam 2.0, in retrospect.









perhaps, instead of congressional bipartisanship (i.e. legislative kumbaya), political polarization was needed to prevent the loss of 4,486 u.s. soldiers in iraq, 2,345 in afghanistan, with 1 million wounded, all at a cost of potentially $6 trillion.









history has shown us that political polarization can be a positive tool when influencing and assessing the well-being of americans.









said stanford university political science professor david w. brady: <u+201c>the u.s. congress was polarized in the civil war era and in the new deal era and it was via polarized voting that got the 13, 14 and 15 amendments passed. ... in the new deal era, it was polarized voting that passed all of the legislation that makes up the modern welfare state <u+2014> social security, wpa (works progress administration), unemployment compensation. if you believe this was good legislation, then you believe that sometimes polarized voting does good things.<u+201d>









the 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th amendment granted citizenship to <u+201c>all persons born or naturalized in the united states,<u+201d> which included former slaves recently freed, and the 15th amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen<u+2019>s <u+201c>race, color or previous condition of servitude.<u+201d>









most of us assuredly support the positive ramifications of social security and unemployment compensation legislation. just ask anyone who is retired and/or unemployed.









political polarization also is a surefire way to induce passion among the voting ranks. just examine the fan fervor that follows every step taken by bernie sanders and donald trump and hillary clinton and ben carson. that fervor likely will translate into huge numbers at the primaries and polls come 2016.









we see a clear line of demarcation among our republican and democratic and independent presidential candidates, as well as their supporters. no ambiguity. no indifference. no waffling.









but we do see heightened passion and intense debate.









that<u+2019>s political polarization at its best. not its worst.









gregory clay is a washington columnist and a former editor for mcclatchy-tribune news service. he wrote this for insidesources.com. follow him on twitter at @gregory_clay.
point-counterpoint: is political polarization really such a bad thing? | commentary
noauthor