Group Polarization And Competition In Political Behavior Essay

On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceive as the yearsbiggest non-event, the nationalpolitical science shut down whole "non-essential" services due to what was, forall intents and purposes, a game of national" chicken" between the House Speaker and the President. And, at anestimated cost of 200 jillion dollars a day, thisdubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995,p.16). wherefore do politicians find it almost congenitallyimpossible to cooperate? What is it about governance and power that take c beto always put them at odds with heftygovernment? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible prone the current adversarial relationshipbetween our twain main political parties? It would seem that the exerciseof power for its own sake, and a competitivesituation in which one side must(prenominal) always oppose the other on any issue,is incompatible with the cooperation andcompromise necessary for the government to function. As the unifyStates becomes more original in its beliefs ingeneral, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutualexclusivity of goal attainment, will lead to more"showdown" situations in which the goal of good government gives way topolitical posturing and power-mongering.In this paper I will analyze recent political fashion in terms of twofactors root behavior with an emphasison polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mind thatthese two factors atomic number 18 interrelated. Grouppolarization tends to exacerbate inter-group competition by driving anytwo groups who initially disagree farther apart intheir respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which oneside must lose in order for the other to win (andpolitical situations argon nearly always competitive), will codify thedifferences between groups - leading to march onextremism by those seeking power at bottom the group - and thus, to furthergroup polarization. In the above ex adeninele, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton and NewtGingrich, were some forced to takeuncompromising, disparate views because of the very nature of authoritywithin their respective political groups. Grouppolarization refers to the tendency of groups to gravitate to theextreme of whatever opinion the group shares (Baron &Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as adesirable characteri... ...roup of extreme, right wing,"constitutionalists" who were apparently trying to turn frustration withthe federal government into open revolution. I do not think these examples are aberrations or flukes, but are,instead, indicative of structural defects in ourpolitical system. If we are not aware of the dangers of extremism andcompetition, we may, in the end, be destroyed bythem.ReferencesBaron, B.M., & Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fort Worth,TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). Country may be losing money withgovernment closed. The New YorkTimes, pp.16Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest The Case Against Competition. Boston,Houghton Mifflin.No Author. (1995, March 24). internet What Wilson has express aboutentering race. San Jose quicksilver News Online.Addresshttp//www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htmThurm, S. (1995, August 29). internet Wilsons announcement moreof an ad California governor kicks off drivefor GOP presidential nomination. San Jose Mercury News Online.Addresshttp//www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htmTurgue, B., & Thomas, E. (1995, November 27). Missing the moment. Newsweek, pp.26-29.