On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years
biggest non-event, the federal
government shut down all 'non-essential' services due to what was, for
all intents and purposes, a game of national
'chicken' between the House Speaker and the President. And, at an
estimated cost of 200 million dollars a day, this
dubious battle of dueling egos did not come cheap (Bradsher, 1995,
p.16). Why do politicians find it almost congenitally
impossible to cooperate? What is it about politics and power that seem
to always put them at odds with good
government? Indeed, is an effective, well run government even possible
given the current adversarial relationship
between our two main political parties? It would seem that the exercise
of power for its own sake, and a competitive
situation in which one side must always oppose the other on any issue,
is incompatible with the cooperation and
compromise necessary for the government to function.
Wilson arrv'g. in Wash'n. (LOC)
Wilson leaving Princeton, 10/19/15 (LOC)
Wilson Leaves Hotel (LOC)As the United
States becomes more extreme in its beliefs in
general, group polarization and competition, which requires a mutual
exclusivity of goal attainment, will lead to more
'showdown' situations in which the goal of good government gives way to
political posturing and power-mongering.
In this paper I will analyze recent political behavior in terms of two
factors: Group behavior with an emphasis
on polarization, and competition. However, one should keep in mind that
these two factors are interrelated. Group
polarization tends to exacerbate inter-group competition by driving any
two groups who initially disagree farther apart in
their respective views. In turn, a competitive situation in which one
side must lose in order for the other to win (and
political situations are nearly always competitive), will codify the
differences between groups - leading to further
extremism by those seeking power within the group...