Listen to this NPR segment on the relationship between political ideology and geography and answer the following questions:
1. What is the main idea presented in this segment?
2. Do you agree with the conclusion and implications presented in this study?
3. Do you think political polarization in America is a good thing? Why or why not?
4. What would happen in America if red states become 'redder' and blue states become 'bluer'? Do you think this is a problem America should begin to address or at least recognize? Why?
5. (optional) Did you ever move around growing up? Did you move to a neighborhood you 'fit in' with or a neighborhood where people have different political attitudes?
22 comments:
This broadcast didn’t really have what I would typically call a “main idea” — there was no fundamental argument made but rather the idea of political polarization was explored (i.e. is it real, how much does it happen, what are the current/future effects). I think one thing the segment didn’t mention but that would be a good argument in support of political polarization is college searches (something I think most of the kids in gov right now can understand). On a very superficial level, choosing a college in Denver would not be a great choice if you were incredibly anti-marijuana. I understand that this is exaggerative and overly stereotypical, but it reveals the greater trend that when seeking out education (and later a place to live) people and students alike knowingly filter their search based on their preferences. It seems almost self-evident that political polarization exists.
However, the real issue here is not the existence of political polarization but rather the extent of it and most importantly, whether it has overly adverse side effects. The main critical argument against political polarization is that it would create a political rift in the United States that would in effect make us less of a nation — analogous to the pre-civil war era. This seems, in a word, aggrandized. If blue states get bluer and red states get redder I find it somewhat absurd to think the Union would be in jeopardy. Rather, it seems at the most it would cause stalemate and bitter tension in Congress. I understand the argument that “well yes and then that tension would turn to states defecting” and unfortunately neither my point of view (that this would likely never happen) and others (that the union falling apart is possible) can be supported with clear and certain facts. Thus based solely on personal sentiments (and maybe a salute to the past two hundred years of keeping it together as a nation), I’d air on the side of political polarization voicing no real threat to the United States.
There wasn’t a specific side Shankar Vedantam was taking but explicitly explained what would happen to the U.S. if geography did shape ideology of Americans. Therefore, I do not consider this segment with a main idea however a subject is clarified throughout –shaping geography from personal ideology. I do believe ideology has a role as an influence to move but other factors may be involve such as jobs, families and especially colleges (ranking, interest majors). Like the podcast stated; “the more mobile we get as a society, the more polarized we're going to become” and eventually an un-united nation. I think political polarization could be a good thing if it is kept that way because “people would find health outcomes better, get along with other people and fit well in the community”. If people stay where they're at then it would cause less conflicts unlike the Pre-civil war era because the strong power and unity between each state hold today is stable in the most part. But we should always consider the position of ideology preferences such as the varieties in a single state or two different states. This may stir up problems especially the mid-west and east about popular issues such as abortion, possession of marijuana and gun rights. If red states become 'redder' and blue states become 'bluer' these states would eventually collide but this should be addressed later on because the United States has been through lots of tough problems and made its way through. Because the vast power U.S. hold right now, it is unlikely political polarization would happen tomorrow.
1.People of different political beliefs prefer to live in neighborhoods with people of the same political beliefs as them in order to avoid conflict and feel comfortable.
2. Yes, I agree with the conclusions made because this same incident of people moving out because of differences political political standpoints has happened in my neighborhood 2 years ago.
3. I don’t think that political polarization is a good thing for the United States because there will be more separation which just like one of the speakers said, will make the United states less united.
4. The Unites States will eventually split if the red states become redder and the blue states become bluer. Washington warned us about this. This separation may become so bad that states may eventually break off and become independent. This is just like how the south broke from the union because of their racial belief differences.
5. I have moved but my parents didn’t really care about what other political beliefs people have held. They just care about my safety.
1.There wasn't a specific main idea in this segment, but more of a discussion of whether people moved to different places because of their political ideologies as one of the factors for moving
2.Im half and half. I agree with the fact that people tend to move more when they're in an environment where they feel like they are the enemy and the outcast, but the statements made were kind of oversimplified, since there are tons of other reasons why people move that have nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
3.No, because it does create strife and less unity as the speaker said, but in reality, there is no way some variation of it wouldn't occur (unless we were communist or something). People have different ideas and opinions and they think strongly of them, so political polarization is going to occur no matter what. The problem is that it's so strong that policies cannot be made because conflicting views wont going to an agreement.
4.America would be less unified and it could cause some serious problems. I think America should at least recognize it because it is occurring, but I don't think it will cause any serious strife in the United States.
The main idea of this segment was that people prefer to live around other like-minded people and that political orientation is a factor in this decision. So they were saying people are in a sense moving to communities where their political party is the dominant party. I don't agree with this because I think there are greater factors taken into consideration when moving like jobs, education, family, and friends. Political polarization in America isn't necessaryily a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either. People can get narrow minded and not think outside of the box, there's just no compromise. This is shown with our congress, the Senate is made up of a majority of democrats while the House of Representatives are mainly republicans. They never get anything done because they're not willing to comprise. It's healthy to have a good debate but it's bad because nothing seems to get done or get changed. With red states becoming 'redder' and blue states becoming 'bluer' a civil war could potentially break out if they got too consentraited in one area. It's happened once already in this country and currently Iraq has three isolated factions. I did move once growing up. The neighborhood we moved into happened to have more conservatives but that wasn't our reason for moving in here. Empty lots were limited and we just chose the one in the best location for us.
The main idea of the segment was about political ideology changing as you move and sometimes the move is so the person could be around others who have the same political ideas as them. I do agree with the conclusion and implications because if people are not willing to be open-minded to other ideas, more people will move to certain areas which will cause a split. Just like the civil war, the people who felt slavery was best and needed slavery moved south while the others who did not approve of slavery moved north because they did not want to be around the idea of slavery. I do not think that political polarization is a good thing because you could have the views of one party but you are identified under a different name. I think that names/categories should be eliminated and the ideas should be what stand out. With the split coming politically as the red states gets redder and the blue states get bluer, this will cause some problems in elections if there is a close race or maybe people will get violent. Some people take politics very seriously and if you have differing opinions, there may never be a stable ground between the two. The idea needs to looked upon, but as for right now, I don’t think anything needs to be done.
1)There was no main idea in this segment, but he discussed the reasons for why people are spread around in their neighborhoods and seeing if it depended on whether the people in that area live their because others follow their political ideologies.
2)I don’t agree with the conclusion. People can move around for more than just political ideologies. There are more factors for moving and this seems to be making multiple generalizations.
3)No, I don’t think so. Everyone should live around with a community and not rely mostly on political ideologies. Everyone has their own opinions and not having a diversity of people doesn’t help give people much leeway.
4)If people moved to states based on their color, we wouldn’t have a diverse community. This would become a problem because multiple communities would tend to argue with each other because everybody else thinks they are right and aren’t willing to change their views.
5)Never moved growing up, but in my neighborhood nobody really discusses politics with each other. It’s just not something that comes up in a conversation and talks are very small.
The main idea presented in thsi segment is that your geographical location is affected by your politcal ideology. It presented the idea that people tend to live where they feel more comfortable and if people end up moving, they are most likely going to move to a place with people with similair ideologies. I somewhat agree with these conclusions, bcause if you we're an extreme liberal you probably wouldn't move to a smalle conservative town in Georgia, how ever I don't think that poltical ideology is a major determination of where someone moves. If you're researching an area to live in your more likely to look up information on houses, costs, and their school system before you look into the political ideology of the area. I don't necessarily think thatr political polarization is a good thing, because people should not allow politcal ideologies to get in the way of where they live or who they associate with, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing either. America should recognize tat we have polarization and it has a major effect in things such as presidential election, when certain canidates try to win over the states with the most electoral votes, however I don't think polarization is a serious threat. IT has been going on for years and there is nothing we can do to change it. People feel more comfortable living with people who share similair beliefs to them.
The segment features the idea that a persons geographical location in the country, or a persons environment can effect their ideology. A person who moves to the red South from blue Massachusetts could be swayed to change their views if a person lives in the South for a long time.I agree with the implications because I think working in an environment in which people share the same political views,(and usually that means values too)as you can make work and communication easier.Political polarization is a dangerous thing because it allows for high concentrations of one idea or one party to be in one certain area of the country, instead of having diffusion and a variety of ideas in a a region. It's almost like each vote isn't counting for an individuals beliefs. People are just voting based on the influence of their surroundings and where they live. Red states shouldn't become "reder" and blue states shouldn't become "bluer". I think polarization is an issue, but it's an issue the government can solve. Instead the Democrats should hold their national convention in a red state and Republicans should have their convention in a blue state. This would exchange and provide contrast to political perspectives in the state and require citizens to think. I didn't move from Jacksonville growing up and my family doesn't really talk politics with our neighbors.
The focus of the segment was how political ideology is shaped by geography and vice versa. I do agree that our geography may influence our ideology. Most people consider the south to be conservative, and with my experiences, that is mostly true. However, I also know plenty of liberals living in the Bible Belt. Political polarization, I think, is one of America's greatest obstacles. People are so stuck to voting for a particular ideology, that the candidate they're supporting means almost nothing. If red states become 'redder' and blue states become 'bluer', America's polarization will just intensify. This seems reminiscent of the pre-Civil War days when views were so polarized, the only solution was violence and war. While I do not necessarily believe we would resort to war in this day and age, I do think that it would be a massive difficulty and it would become nearly impossible to accomplish anything. Therefore, I think we should try and address the polarization in America and discourage it, although I'm not sure exactly how to go about this.
the whole idea of this segment is political polarization and political segregation. in a way the are like the jim crow laws where whites had certain things and blacks had other things. everything was divided. this segment looks at peoples zip codes and the political ideology that is central in that area. the point of the article is that people will move to places where others think the same as them. i agree to a certain extent that people will want to live in areas where they feel secure and surrounded by similar ideals. but threes always exceptions to these ideas. polarization in America will just lead to another civil war, yes conflicting ideas are good to get the best idea and solution. but with what cost? separation only leads to mutual hate and destruction. if they became more red and more blue nothing will get done and the government would be of no use since no one can agree on anything. George Washington the first president said to avoid political affiliations and parties it will lead to our own demise. America needs to address and recognize that we are digging our own grave with the more separation we have.
1)That there are red and blue states because if you live in a red state area or blue state area then you yourself will because a conservative or liberal. Geography determine Ideology.
2)I do agree with the conclusion that came from this study because I have seen many people not like other people just because of thier ideology. Geography can show that these conclusions are correct because if they weren't, we would not have red and blue states
3)I have no real conclusion for this question. I don't think political polarization is a bad thing but it doesn't do any good either. Out nation has seemed to do fine with political polarization in the past so it does no harm.
4)The united states would get less united. If states becoming redder or bluer then this would cause break off of states and disagreements in our nation that could, in the most extreme situation, turn to civil war.
5) I have only moved twice growing up but it was just from pllace to place inside of jacksonville. We did not move for political reasons.
The main idea of this segment is that your geographical position matters as to your political ideology. I do agree with the conclusions. when it comes to presidential elections some candidates are more favorable in specific regions than others do to their political parties. Political polarization in America in my opinion is not a good idea, yes it does put you in places where you Re most comfortable with, and there is nothing working to that. However. The downside is it will slowly start separation America by states becoming more democrat and more republican. What would happen if this occurs? A lot of disagreements between states possibly and when election time comes around completely separate opinions will form.
(1B)
The main idea presented in the segment was basically that people with the same political ideology mostly live in the same geographical area. I do agree to the implications and conclusions made because it is seen all around us. We see more conservatism in the south and more liberals in the north. Political polarization in America is not the best thing, because it causes separation; and the more people that join one side will add more and more to the separation. If the red states become redder, and the blue states become bluer disputes and war are only to come. Things in government like law-making, and court orders will be harder to pass because of so much disagreement. We already have Republicans disagreeing with Democrats in the government not agreeing on stuff. We have seen it in history back to the civil war times. And America should recognize it because if it gets out of hand there is no stopping trouble.
1.The main idea presented in this segment was the question of: is there a correlation between geographical location and ones political ideologies?
2. I do agree to a certain extent with the conclusion and implications presented in this study because we see it happening all around us. If one doesn't feel comfortable in the environment that they live in, then they will get up and leave to a place where people accept them. On the other hand, many other factors have a larger role in determining where one lives such as jobs.
3. I do not feel as if political polarization in America is a good thing for the sole reason that we need variety in an area. If society gets too concentrated with the same groups in one area, then the United States will eventually become less united and possibly create significant separation.
4. If the red states become "redder" and the blue states become "bluer" I believe that this would only cause devastation. Think back to the civil war when we had completely divided sides. This could possibly happen again and America should definitely recognize the possible consequences.
5. Growing up as a military child I have moved around the world over 7 times. Two of the more extravagant places that my family and I chose to live were that of Japan and Italy. I didn't necessarily fit in with these people because they for one spoke a different langauge than me. So no, we didn't move to "fit in" but rather to experience and new environment with different people.
The main idea or the suggested idea of the segment is if political ideology effects where people migrate to geographically. I somewhat agree with the conclusion. Naturally, people want to be comfortable where they feel as though people have like mindsets. Political polarization is not good whatsoever. America is meant to be a melting pot with different people, concepts, etc spread across the land. Thus having everyone of like minds in one area will cause a stagnation, and caused us to not progress anymore. If America became more red or blue i think it would set the stage for political warfare. In order to keep this from happening, America should at least recognize this issue to make it more prevalent then it is.
The main idea in this segment is political ideology is affected by the where you are geographically. I in a way do agree that depending on where you are located in the world you are going to think different from someone else located somewhere else.Political polarization is not good in the U.S simply because the U.S is meant to be united sometimes different state laws and different places separate us already which polarization would hinder the unity this nation needs. The red states vs. blue states would become just that states vs. states. Separation is not something that needs to come back, back as in during the civil war there was North vs. South if red becomes "redder" and blue become "bluer" history will repeat itself.
1. The main idea presented in this segment was that people prefer to live around others who share their beliefs. Also, being around people who don't share their beliefs makes them want to relocate.
2. I do not agree with the conclusion presented in this study because I do not feel like people put political beliefs as a top priority when moving from place to place.
3. I do not think that political polarization is a good thing in the US because I feel that it will only result in separation between Americans.
4. If red states were to become 'redder' and blue states became 'bluer', this would cause major separation in America. I believe that the states would eventually desire to become independent which would make it an issue that the government would have to address.
5. I lived in Brooklyn, New York up until age nine when I moved here to Jacksonville. My parents decided to move in search for a better environment than the neighborhood we lived in in New York. Seeing as they also looked at houses in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland; living in a neighborhood where our neighbors shared their political beliefs was not a priority. We moved here because my parents felt Jacksonville would be the safest environment for us.
(1B) The segment’s main idea is that there is a lack of mixing between persons who are Liberal, and those who are Conservative, and goes in depth to explain this phenomenon. To me, all conclusions made by the article are all correct and proven well, and make logical sense on their grounds. However, I do not believe that the occurrence (political polarization) is good for the US, as the end outcome would be a divided United States, as this state would be Liberal, this one Conservative, and so on. That will lead to separation due to conflicting interests, and vaguely reminisces the political and economic issues that led to the American Civil War. Additionally, the concept of full red and blue states goes on the same idea, and that the separation would not bode well for a nation that wants to be united. This is then definitely something to be addressed by America itself, as an integration of ideals would prevent enmity and competition among states. The issue at hand with this however is how to solve it, as the idea of people going to where others feel the same occurs because they feel more accepted there, and form a stronger community through that. Additionally, there is no way to force someone to live in a certain area just to answer political problems. I myself have moved quite frequently; however, only in two different states. I lived in Brooklyn, New York and moved to Jacksonville right before my 10th birthday, so my political platform wasn't necessarily formed at the time. Additionally, my political stance is mainly moderate, so there was never really an issue for me to fit in with others in the community ideally.
1. The main idea of the argument was not directly indicated, but the host, Steve Inskeep and NPR Shankar Vedantam discuss whether geography influences your ideology and if there are any contributing factors as to what shapes/influences our political ideologies.
2. I am kind of on the fence with the conclusions presented in this study. Yes, I do believe that geography does influence our ideology in some shape or form, and that we tend to live with people who share the same beliefs as we do. However, I do not feel like it is the ONLY factor as to why conservatives live in conservative areas and vice versa for liberals. I don't feel like there is enough statistical evidence to support their theory and whether or not people are more likely to move if they are living within a community that does not share the same ideology as the individual. I feel like the study is not accurately representing the American population, considering the fact they only asked one question, and that they didn't actually conduct a survey to test their theory. There needs to be significant evidence to at least support their claim so that it can leave room for discussion amongst politicians.
3. I believe that American polarization is not beneficial towards the United States because if we continue in this direction, the United States would be less and less unified, causing some areas to get more red and other areas of the country to get more blue, which can divide the nation, as stated by Vedantam. If America keeps going in this direction, one half the US will be too conservative, while another half will be too liberal, dividing the nation in half because the other states cannot coexist with two different political ideologies. No one is saying that one ideology is better than the other, but there needs to be harmony and peace between the two. That is what will keep the US united if both conservatives and liberals learn to coexist and respect each other's beliefs, rather than condemning them, allowing them to polarize one side of the country.
4. Referencing to what I said in Question 3, if red states in America became 'redder' and blue states became 'bluer', we would not be able to live as a unified, civilized nation. One ideology is not superior to another, which is why a good balance of both political ideologies is need to maintain the sanction, peace, and harmony with the US. If that is destroyed, there can be political tension and disruption because there is not an equal balance of both conservatives and liberals. If this sort of thing were to happen, there would be a series of riots and petitions, which could overwhelm the government, as to deciding how to fix the polarization. I think the US government should at least recognize and understand what is going on, so that if it were to escalate into a dangerous situation, the government would know what to do and how to handle it. Soon or later, it needs to be addressed before we start living in political turmoil and have the nation divided into two. American polarization has not done its worse yet, and it will only get worse until someone takes action to fight it to the very end.
Christina Adepoju (1B)
Shankar Vedantam explains that the political ideology of people can influence certain individuals to move to a place in the USA where people have the same ideology as them. I agree with the conclusion that people will move to a place where people have the same political ideology as them since we are becoming more mobile than ever. However, I disagree with Vedantam's implication that the USA will become more divided than ever because of this constant shuffling of people to their ideal political spot. People are constantly tweaking their ideologies based on events and things that happen every single day, and no two people think alike, and people can't pack up and move every two weeks or every time their ideology changes a bit so I believe that the USA will never become divided to the extent which Vedantem explains. Political polarization in America as Vedantem refers to it, has potentially disastrous possibilities, and with our nation already divided over many issues, we can't take many more cracks in our foundation for something terrible to happen. Whether states become even more solidified in their political establishments happens or not, I don't believe the majority of the people would have the desire, or energy to care about it. Our nation is as apathetic as ever towards many issues so if Vedantem's alleged scenario takes place, I think most people would turn a blind eye to the problem.
The main idea of this segment was essentially political ideology is affected by your geographical location. I do agree with the conclusions because where you are located can influence your thoughts about ideology and you are more likely to have different ideas and beliefs than someone located elsewhere. In addition I also believe that people tend to move and live where they feel that they are most comfortable. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable living around people who do have similar views or are perceived to be an outcast, chances are they will move. Political polarization in America would not be a good thing because the only outcome that seems likely is separation throughout America. This would also cause America to become less unified and tension would rise. If red states became ‘redder’ and blue states became ‘bluer’ America would spend more time in fighting then resolving problems as seen today. When I was younger I did move from Ft. Lauderdale to Jacksonville, but not because we felt “out of place.” I feel that the people I live around definitely have different attitudes. On one hand I have neighbors that are considered to be conservative while others tend to be more open-minded/ liberal. (Including my house)
Post a Comment