Yanjun Chen: Why Do The Authors Consider

Yanjun Chen COLLAPSE Top of Form 1. Why do the authors consider political

Why do the authors consider political polarization to be a barrier? The reason why the United States has been unable to control COVID-19 is influenced by several factors of politics, money and culture, rooted in a decisive characteristic of American society in the era of coronavirus: extreme political polarization. According to the article, the author makes several points that he believes political polarization is an obstacle: On the one hand, as the article says, "partisans may receive different news because individuals can self-select polarized news sources or partisan ‘echo chambers’" (Bakshy & Adamic, 2015). Extreme political polarization includes not only partisan disputes, but also media, science-related issues such as the hostility of civil servants.

On the other hand, the article also mentioned that “popularity not only highlights the common identity of all people facing the same risks but also may establish a common sense of destiny.” This highlights the importance of race, socioeconomic status, and access to healthcare coverage. Relationship. Polarized politics has put pressure on American families, communities, and social structures. In cases of injustice, hostility may be necessary, and this political culture will become more and more confrontational, making political movements more focused on defeating opponents than supporting their own positions and ideas. The fierce divisions in American politics are weakening American diplomacy.

First, it will affect US diplomacy in many ways and cause damage to the credibility, reliability, and capabilities of the United States. Second, polarization will destroy the non-political function of diplomacy. Successive US secretaries of state have been cautious about excluding domestic politics from foreign policy. The differences in the foreign policy approaches of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are bound to weaken the functions of diplomats, interfere in the internal affairs of the United States, and damage the national interests. The polarization of the United States is an obstacle, deeply entrenched with wide-ranging influence.

Polarization is a mixture of race, ideology and religious divide (Bavel, Baicker, Willer, et al., 2020).

Paper For Above instruction

Political polarization in the United States represents a significant barrier to effective governance, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This polarization reflects deep-seated divisions along partisan lines, ethnicity, ideology, and cultural values that influence not only domestic policy but also international diplomacy. The multifaceted nature of polarization hampers cohesive national responses, undermines public trust, and impairs diplomatic credibility, complicating efforts to address global health crises cooperatively and effectively.

Understanding the roots of political polarization involves examining how media consumption and partisan echo chambers contribute to divergent perceptions of reality among different groups (Bakshy & Adamic, 2015). When citizens self-select news that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, mutual understanding diminishes, making consensus on urgent issues like public health measures difficult to achieve. This fragmentation is particularly problematic during a pandemic, where unified action is critical for controlling disease spread. Misinformation and conspiracy theories are often exacerbated by polarization, further impeding public health efforts.

The influence of polarization extends into social and cultural realms, affecting trust and cooperation among communities. For example, the article highlights that the perception of shared risks can foster a sense of collective responsibility, but polarization often thwarts this by emphasizing identity over commonality. This is evident in the division along racial, socioeconomic, and political lines concerning access to healthcare and economic support during the pandemic (Bavel et al., 2020). Such divisions deepen societal rifts, making coordinated responses more challenging and less effective.

In the context of international diplomacy, polarization diminishes the United States' ability to present a unified front. Diplomatic credibility and reliability are compromised when foreign nations perceive internal discord as a weakness. Historically, successive secretaries of state aimed to insulate foreign policy from domestic partisanship; however, increasing polarization blurs this boundary, leading to inconsistent policies that damage the U.S.'s reputation and influence abroad. For instance, conflicting messages from different administrations can hinder global cooperation on issues like pandemic response, climate change, and security (Christensen et al.).

Furthermore, polarization influences how foreign policy is shaped, with partisan interests often guiding diplomatic decisions rather than national interests. This can lead to decreased diplomatic efficacy, reduced trust from allies, and increased skepticism among global partners. As Bavel et al. (2020) argue, the ideological and religious divides within American society further complicate efforts to maintain a coherent foreign policy stance, especially when domestic politics spill over into international relations.

In conclusion, political polarization functions as a significant barrier to effective governance and international diplomacy in the United States. It fosters division, impairs trust in institutions, and undermines the nation's global standing. To address these challenges, there must be concerted efforts to promote bipartisan dialogue, enhance media literacy, and implement policies that bridge societal divides. Only through reducing polarization can the United States strengthen its capacity to manage crises domestically and maintain its leadership on the world stage.

References

• Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132.
• Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... & Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460-471.
• Christensen, D., Dube, O., Haushofer, J., Siddiqi, B., & Voors, M. (n.d.). Community-based crisis response: Evidence from Sierra Leone’s Ebola outbreak. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings.
• Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018). Tuskegee and the health of Black men. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2), 407-455.
• Willer, R., Bavel, J., Baicker, K., & Vosoughi, S. (2020). Social and behavioural science supports COVID-19 response. Retrieved from Nature, 2020.
• Additional scholarly sources to be included as per research requirements.