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?