Political polarity has become a much maligned topic. With the constant rise of political and social stratification, people have heeded to ideological groups they feel they must belong to; just to be safe. Unlike politics in other times of former generations, leaders and the public don’t work to the well-being of a state, these days. Instead, they work to remain relevant and feel lofty over the other groups they share a nationality with. Some historians will argue the absence of war among nations and the prevalence of peace, has rendered human being, thirsting for superiority. And since no nation wants to engage in a superiority war, people have resulted to stratifying themselves according to groups just to flex their superiority to their own state men.
The question is, what will happen when this polarization continues? What will happen when people continue contesting on whose ideology stands fit to rule the others? Is there an end to this polarity or will it be the end of nationalism? For starts, how did this polarization come to be so rigid in our nations? With a case study of the United States, these article will seek to justify on the future of political polarity and how it will lead nations to their purposive end.
End of wars as a contributor to political polarization. During the great depression or the world wars, people stuck together to stay safe. They heeded to the common national ideologies that saw to it the rising scales of nationalism. With no trials and public dismays to hold us together, state men have created walls among themselves and this has led to the political polarization.
Religious diversity. The clear definition of freedom and public rights over the past years has led to the political polarization. Example, among the two parties in the United States, the democrats have been said to be neither catholic nor protestant while the republicans have been considered Christians. This in turn has affected many decisions making where religious sensitive issues of gay marriage and abortion have been hotly contested in congress. This’ not because they do it for the well-being of a country but for the ideologies set by their political parties in the name religious principle.
A study in the case of the United States has shown the way people choose to live, is on the bases of their like-mindedness. We have heard places where democrats are a stronghold and other places where republicans are a stronghold. According to Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing’s book, Big Sort (2008), homogeneous way of living is a major contributor to extremism: and being a known adage, extremism either in a political, social, or economic context, is a threat to nationalism.
Our modern world differs in great extent from the old one. With no trying or plague-like factors like the cold war, world wars and the great depression in our midst; we have forgotten the essential values of nationalism. What then happens when the political polarization graduates to extremism that will later be implicated in our social and economic health? Then this will mean that slowly by slowly nations will break away, creating smaller divisions that will also face polarization in their various units.
The remedy comes in appreciating diversity and mix up. Just as Michel Obama stated in her retirement as the first lady speech, we need not see all these diversities as a threat to our national cohesion but as our common definition factor. That is who we are, a mix up of unity.