Americans Split Between Red and Blue

According to public opinion polls on the popularity of the candidates for the U.S. presidency– Barack Obama, the Democratic Party candidate and Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate – the race is extremely tight and embodies the fact manifested clearly in American political life in recent years: a great divide between Americans colored in red and blue.

This great divide appeared in the beginning of the race during the 2000 presidential election, contested by George W. Bush and Al Gore – vice president, at the time – who had different opinions about the results. Americans spent weeks looking at maps showing states that voted for the Republican candidate colored red and those who voted for the Democratic candidate colored blue. Since then, the definition of political views as “red” (Republican) or “blue” (Democrat) became common.

This phenomenon often generates what is known as management divide, which is happening now. This phenomenon, however, has many cons and some pros. The problems of divided management include difficulties in solving long-term problems related to domestic policy because of the difficulty of reaching consensual agreements. In addition, a “party polarity” makes it very hard to adopt a sustainable foreign policy. It also hinders the development of a clear international message.

As for the benefits of a divided management – in terms of each party controlling the executive and legislative branches with contradicting attitudes – the congressional oversight on the executive branch becomes limited, which affects the accountability of the government. Moreover, greater contrast between the two parties offers voters clear and distinct choices. In times of political polarity, Americans know that if they elect a Republican, they will receive a different kind of foreign policy and a different focus on social issues than they would if they elect a Democrat.

Among the benefits of partisan division is that politics has become more important for the average American citizen due to the fact that the options are more pronounced. In this context, some U.S. analysts cite studies, made in the last ten years, which have demonstrated better American understanding of politics. In addition, in times of political consensus, the views of those who do not share the majority opinion will often go unnoticed. Only after that certain administration is gone will there be a chance to represent a new political consensus.

There is no doubt that the difficult conditions of the United States, in its divided government, have greater harm than good. In turn, this polarization is reflected in the voters, attracting many of them to its court … There is much controversy about which president has played a pivotal role in increasing U.S. political polarization, where Democrats believe that former President Bush has, to attract a greater number of voters. On the other hand, Republicans and their back bone known as the “Tea Party” believe that Obama is the undisputed master of polarization and that he switched from being a liberal working for a united American public to a polarizing figure contributing to divisions among Americans.