One thing I think people do that seems problematic is equate partisanship with polarization. I don't think the former is much of a problem, per se. The latter, however, interferes with the pluses of the former. I'm not sure, exactly, how to define the differences, though. Haha
Yes, those are often conflated. And sometimes they're kind of the same thing. But also, it's possible to have polarization without parties involved. The country was deeply and sometimes violently divided on civil rights, women's rights, the Vietnam War, etc. in the 1960s and 70s, but those divisions mostly didn't fall along party lines.
I would hazard a guess that most "independents" are still pretty heavily polarized but claim that partisanship is the problem. I know some research has shown independent leaners are often more partisan in their behavior. There's a definite disconnect here. Partisanship has been demonized for decades but that doesn't help polarization, it just weakens parties. And that's probably not great.
One thing I think people do that seems problematic is equate partisanship with polarization. I don't think the former is much of a problem, per se. The latter, however, interferes with the pluses of the former. I'm not sure, exactly, how to define the differences, though. Haha
Yes, those are often conflated. And sometimes they're kind of the same thing. But also, it's possible to have polarization without parties involved. The country was deeply and sometimes violently divided on civil rights, women's rights, the Vietnam War, etc. in the 1960s and 70s, but those divisions mostly didn't fall along party lines.
I would hazard a guess that most "independents" are still pretty heavily polarized but claim that partisanship is the problem. I know some research has shown independent leaners are often more partisan in their behavior. There's a definite disconnect here. Partisanship has been demonized for decades but that doesn't help polarization, it just weakens parties. And that's probably not great.