Summary of TextsBill Bishop (2008) discusses the idea of sorting. Sorting, he argues, refers to that activity among the populace whereby they determine their political partisanship and ideology, falling into, or “sorting,” into groups of different view points. This activity is demonstrated over the course of the last century, particularly in political movements and elections in the United States. Bishop argues in his first chapter about elites and how they drive sorting among the populace, inspiring and leading people in terms of what they believe and how they vote.
Bishop claims that elites determine how voters vote by taking extreme positions themselves. This is what he demonstrates in his first chapter, as Americans in the top echelons of society become engrained with a certain ideology. The contrasting ideological position is further engrained in their opponents, who in turn cause polarizing responses. The polarization, then, is ongoing and reciprocal, most famously embodied in the Republican and Democratic political parties of the United States.
In his second chapter, Bishop explains the machinery behind this process of sorting. First, he says, the elites form their ideologies and communities. Once these are expressed, the party’s “map” is defined and communicated to the people. The people then see the clarification of party lines and sort themselves based upon these polarities. This is the process of sorting, manifested most clearly in the modern, partisan political system of the United States.
Argument for Party Polarization
I would argue that party polarization is not necessarily a negative aspect of political culture. First, I suggest that party polarization is necessary or at least in evitable. People regularly if not naturally form factions and groups with distinct points of view. Children on the playground socialize with those that they get along with or feel safe around; groups of businessmen congregate with their colleagues based on common interests and not with other groups of people; family members even form smaller scale connections with particular people in their family. We hold preferences and act socially based on our beliefs, and often this becomes a binary opposition. I think this, you think that, and they think otherwise.
If this is true, then party polarization embodies a natural phenomenon on a large scale. And this large scale leads to the second point of support for polarization: that it helps people form opinions that they otherwise would not hold or articulate. Left to their own devices, people would make decisions anyway, but often they might remain apathetic about political issues. If we want a democracy, where the people are represented by officials but also have direct voting power, then we should want a polarizing process to take place. The people then see the country’s leaders who help them form political positions and confidence.
The argument against polarization is better lodged against democracy. I do not actually think that the common person in the United States is willing or capable of making the political decisions that the government asks of them, such as voting on economic policies and foreign relations. These issues exceed the capacities of the masses and require a political body of elected officials; however, the government wants the say of the people, who must therefore be led. This leadership is polarization, which might not show all of the shades of grey in political processes but it does make the government function. Though imperfect, I suggest that certain formers of political polarization are better than non-polarization. Non-polarization would leave the masses in a state of confusion, lacking clarity to make decisions in the political world that they have been asked to make.
- Bishop, Bill. “The Age of Political Segregation.” In The Big Sort. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.
- Bishop, Bill. “Why Voters Sort.” In The Big Sort. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.
