Political Polarization During 2017-2021
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v10i3.1817Keywords:
Polarization, Healthcare, Gun control, abortion, climate change, immigrationAbstract
During the Trump era there was a significant rise of hate crimes, racial bullying, and violence against the LGBTQ+ community which can be explained by political polarization. Both major political parties were pushed to the far ends of the spectrum to counteract the influence of the other side. We tested how this polarization occurs at the level of individual political issues, and study the political factors under Trump that contributed to it. We used a survey research method to collect data on peoples’ beliefs over 5 different contentious political topics (abortion, climate change, gun control, healthcare, and immigration). This data was compared to data from studies performed in 2016 (pre-Trump). To ensure standardization of the data, our survey used the same questions as the previous surveys. Along with the questions gauging opinion, we also included an individual question per issue that gauged how the participant formed that opinion. Compared to 2016 there was a shift towards more government involvement and regulation in the areas of healthcare and gun control, respectively. There was a shift towards environmental protection, and less stringent immigration standards. More participants were in favor of abortion. Most participants said they formed ALL of their political opinions individually. However, social media and major news outlets had played a role in shaping opinions about abortion and environment, respectively. Compared to 2016 surveys there was a significant change in public opinion about various issues of contemporary importance, partly influenced by political polarization and by social media and news outlets.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Forgette, R., & Morris, J. (2006). High-Conflict Television News and Public Opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 447-456. Retrieved December 11, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148045
Gallup. (2021, February 11). Abortion. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Gallup. (2021, February 11). Environment. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx
Gallup. (2021, February 18). Immigration. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
MATSUBAYASHI, T. (2013). Do Politicians Shape Public Opinion? British Journal of Political
Science, 43(2), 451-478. Retrieved November 13, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23526236
McDonough, J. (2016, November 07). The 2016 ELECTION reveals the differences on health care are deeper than ever: Health AFFAIRS BLOG. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20161107.057496/full/
Montiel, C., Umel, A., & De Leon, M. (2016). Discursive Construction of Political Categories
and Moral Fields: God Versus Rights and Access in a Reproductive Health Legislative Debate. Political Psychology, 37(6), 853-866. Retrieved November 12, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44132931
Nacos, B., Shapiro, R., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2020). Donald Trump: Aggressive Rhetoric and Political Violence. Perspectives on Terrorism, 14(5), 2-25. doi:10.2307/26940036
Opinions on gun policy and the 2016 campaign. (2020, May 30). Retrieved February 25, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/08/26/opinions-on-gun-policy-and-the-2016-campaign/
Pérez, E. (2015). Xenophobic Rhetoric and Its Political Effects on Immigrants and Their Co-Ethnics. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 549-564. Retrieved November 25, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24583082
Smith, G., & Searles, K. (2013). Fair and Balanced News or a Difference of Opinion? Why Opinion Shows Matter for Media Effects. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 671-684. Retrieved December 11, 2020, from ttp://www.jstor.org/stable/23563173
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 Akshay Padala; Lee Conrad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.