Analysis Of Susan Page's Divided We Now Stand

1071 Words 5 Pages
What do people think about when they hear the word politics? To further that, what do they think of when they hear the term polarization? Congress is in a constant battle between parties, and this, in turn, keeps us in an almost constant state of gridlock. Susan Page, Jim Douglas, Brian Resnick, and Norman Ornstein have all written articles explaining political polarization, civil discourse, or the solutions to these problems. In Susan Page’s article “Divided We Now Stand,” she mainly focuses on the citizen aspects of the political polarization argument. Similarly, Jim Douglas in “Beyond Partisanship” focuses on political polarization in congress. Brian Resnick then tells us how our brain is the cause of this polarization in “How Politics Breaks Our Brains and How We Can Put Them Back Together.” Finally, in “What’s Wrong with Washington? Tribalism,” Norman Ornstein discusses “tribalism,” or polarization, in Washington.
The main point these articles revolve around is political polarization. Political polarization, as Ornstein puts it, works like this; “if you are for it, I am reflexively against it- even if I was for it yesterday” (180). Page gives an example in her article
…show more content…
Page feels today’s way of communicating politics makes it hard to find consensus. Douglas says partisan rhetoric is the new civil discourse. He feels that “candidates have tossed aside civility” (Douglas 105), and Page gives an example of this when talking about a verbal/physical fight that broke out during a debate. Resnick says “congressional hearing are… [just] opportunities for politicians to grandstand rather than talk” (1), and Douglas feels “politicians focus more on blaming their opponents than offering actual solutions. According to Douglas congress used to demonstrate compromise and cooperation, but now it’s just a system of procrastination and deadlock. Page agrees with this, stating that there is no compromise only

Related Documents