Group Polarization And Competition In Political Behavior Essay

On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the agebiggest non-event, the federalgovernment shut down all "non-essential" services due to what was, forall intents and purposes, a game of national"chicken" between the sept Speaker and the Pre placent. And, at anestimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this indistinct battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995,p.16). Why do politicians relegate it almost congenitallyimpossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and advocator that attendto perpetually put them at odds with easilygovernment? Indeed, is an effective, surface run government even possiblegiven the current adversarial alliancebetween our two main governmental parties? It would seem that the exerciseof power for its own sake, and a competitorysituation in which one side must always oppose the other on any issue,is mismated with the cooperation andcompromise necessary for the government to function. As the UnitedStates becomes more organic in its beliefs ingeneral, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutualexclusivity of refinement 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 behavior in impairment of twofactors Group behavior with an emphasison polarization, and competition. However, one should keep back in mind thatthese two factors are interrelated. Grouppolarization tends to aggravate 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 are nearly always competitive), will codify thedifferences between groups - leading to furtherextremism by those seek power within the group - and thus, to furthergroup polarization.In the to a higher place example, the two main combatants, Bill Clinton and NewtGingrich, were virtually forced to studyuncompromising, 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 ruling the group shares (Baron &Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the extreme is seen as adesirable characteri... ...roup of extreme, skilful wing,"constitutionalists" who were apparently trying to turn frustration withthe federal government into blossom out revolution. I do not think these examples are aberrations or flukes, that are,instead, indicative of structural defects in ourpolitical system. If we are not alive(predicate) of the dangers of extremism andcompetition, we may, in the end, be destroyed bythem.ReferencesBaron, B.M., & Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. gather Worth,TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). Count ry 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 said about entrance race. San Jose Mercury News Online. contendhttp//www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htmThurm, S. (1995, August 29). internet Wilsons announcement moreof an ad atomic number 20 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.