Group C

Group C  Polarization​ is a division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of  opinions or beliefs  Article:  Political polarization, dissent are signs of functioning democracy   Before dawn on the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, then President-elect  Donald Trump sauntered up to his Trump/Pence-emblazoned dais as his  fervent disciples waited anxiously below. The victory speech that ensued has  since been cited by some as the fracture point of American political  discourse: Post-Trump it seems that nobody is capable of agreeing about  anything, even American staples that once seemed so immune to  polarization.  Recency bias has a funny way of governing our beliefs. When every  major publication has a vested interest in running above-the-fold stories  underscoring the major disagreement of the day, it becomes easy to lose  sight of reality. Partisanship and vehement disagreement between political  and cultural players of all magnitudes are inextricable facets of American  politics: Nobody agrees on anything, and that’s fine.  Professional athletes are well within their rights to use their platform to  advocate for the inequity they feel is rampant throughout the country.  Consequently, rank-and-file consumers are likewise well within their rights to  protest the actions of these well-compensated superstars by not watching  their games. These beliefs and measures aren’t mutually exclusive, and the  very fact that they can coexist is a sign that though our disagreements are  plentiful, our land is as free as our political architects believed it could be.  Polarization is a natural consequence and hallmark of a functioning  democracy. This may at first sound counterintuitive, but consider this: There is  no better indicator of the interest of citizens in the political affairs of their  country than the volume of disagreements they have over the minutiae of  said affairs.  Political apathy is a far worse fate than political overzealousness,  especially in a country ostensibly concerned with freedom. Our political  forefathers dreamt of a land where all religions, creeds and people could  coexist under the umbrella of decentralized power; the American monicker of  “The Melting Pot” has always been a complimentary catchphrase  emphasizing the expanse of our diversity in race and ideals. A perhaps  unforeseen consequence of this pursuit of diversity is the inevitability of  occasional discord.  As comforting as it may be to believe so, President Trump’s victory was  not the starting gun for political polarization in America. Calamity sells, and  Trump simply serves as a willing scapegoat for all of our uncertainty.  Disagreement is the price of diversity, and our diverse constituency acts as a  sieve through which tyrannical legislation and oppressive regimes may be  identified and removed. Arguments between ethnic and ideological groups, 

Group C  though frustrating, are a mechanism by which we may all better ourselves  and engender in each other a deeper understanding of our fellow citizens.  A country sans disagreement is no utopia; rather, a land without  disagreement is one in which its people go unheard.      Discuss:  1. Do you think polarization is a problem? Why or why not?  2. Do you think there is an increase of polarization, bipartisanship, or  neither in the public?  3. Do you think the depth of the news item sways opinions?