Congressional Polarization

Over the past three decades, parties and partisan organizations have evolved to become key features of today’s House of Representatives; the two are now essential to congressional policy and the member’s careers. In the article “Presentation of Partisanship: Constituency Connections and Partisan Congressional Activity,” published in the Social Science Quarterly (2009), Scott R. Meinke investigates how House members explain and frame their participation in partisan activity to constituency representation. In simpler terms, Meinke examines the role of partisanship in strategic home-style choices. The author uses data from the 107th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, with a focus on the member’s public websites and how they present leadership activity to conclude that Congressional parties have an impact beyond electoral outcomes and the policy process. Meinke discovers that there exists a significant difference in the extent to which members of the House publicize their activity.

Or a remortgage of the past? Looking at the Power of Political Parties might present a contrasting view. This article could argue that the polarization in American politics is not solely due to weak political parties, but rather the opposite: parties that are too strong. Strong party control over candidate selection, fundraising, and policy agendas might limit ideological diversity within parties, leading to a narrowing of perspectives and increased polarization. Additionally, powerful parties may prioritize winning elections over compromise, exacerbating partisan divides.

Party Polarization is a defining feature of contemporary at both the elite and activist levels. Party polarization is defined as “the division between the two major parties on most political issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover” (371). One explanation for party polarization is how the congressional districts are being sorted and how those districts play a role in the congressional elections. The congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party, republican or democrat, over another; in other words, they are “safe districts”. This is done by drawing a district in such a way that there is a clear majority of one party or the other. Lawmakers want to do this because it eliminates the competition within the general election.

The confidence level in congress is as low as 5% in our beloved republic. One of the many complications is the lack of trust we have in the system. Although with all the flaws within

Linkage institutions can be defined as institutions that connect citizens with the government. Examples of linkage institutions include elections, political parties, interest groups, and the media. Elections specifically are supposed to encourage public participation in the selection of governmental officials. Unfortunately, low voter turnout has proved that elections are an imperfect linkage institution. Elections depend on voters to be successful, and some factors that relate to the likelihood of voting include age, education, and race. Although some people underestimate the power of the vote, voter turnout is

1965: The year we lost our trust in government is a newspaper editorial written by Bill Bishop. This article talks about how not just the people of the United States have lost a great amount of trust in their government, but how all industrialized countries have lost trust in their government. Bill Bishop has written various other articles and editorials like In elections, self-identity wins over issues. He has also been mentioned in other articles as a good investigative story writer. One of these articles includes Capitol Chronicle.

If it is fair to assume that social performance and economic conditions cause variations in the degree of trust individuals place in their government, it is also fair to assume that members of the same birth cohort, who have experienced similar economic and social changes at the same lifecycle stages, will then place a similar degree of trust in their government, and on a micro level, the party which they belong to. Therefore, the dramatic historical events experienced by individuals in the youth stage of their life, such as economic depression, war, immigration, and cultural change, have an especially strong impact on their political attitudes, as they are in the formative stage of their political learning (Braungart & Braungart 1986). The attitudes that are formed during a cohort's youth provide the foundation for the way they will interpret the political events that follow, which, in opposition to the theories of lifecycle theorists, suggests that attitudes and behavior do not obviously change over time (Braungart & Braungart 1986). Cohorts that grew up during the economic depressions of the 1930s, and experienced World War II hold different beliefs, and we would argue, different degrees of trust, then the cohorts that grew up during some of the more affluent, post-WWII years. Because of this difference in

Two very important values that affect American people every day is political trust and political efficacy. Political trust is when people entrust the government in making the right decisions for the country. Political efficacy, however, is when an ordinary person believes that they can make a difference and have a say in what the government does (We The People, p. 7-8, 2017). In 1958 the 73 percent of the American people believed that the federal government will do what is right most or some of the time. Today, political trust has declined drastically. In 2014,

Political organization is the framework for a government’s operation. It is generally highly varied between different governments, but often takes one of several standard forms, which tend to be categorized as tending toward democratic or an authoritarian. However, whatever its structure may be, a government must have political legitimacy in order to function and maintain a monopoly over its subjects and affairs. Government is perceived to be legitimate by those it rules when its political organization operates unequivocally within certain parameters deemed appropriate by its subjects, and when punishment and law is executed equitably. Given that the parameters for government affairs are based on public perception, which is built off of societal

Today, more individuals trust their state and local governments than trust the legislature in Washington. Yet, it was not generally that way. A quarter century back individuals were more sure about the government than in those closer to home. From that point forward trust in Washington has dissolved, while confidence in state and local government has really developed. The more extensive issue is the American open's association with its political administration. While trust in government does not specifically connect with that bond, sentiments about political pioneers and the managers of government with unmistakably do. Generally, Americans stay receptive about government. Most think it can improve. One customary clarification of trust underscores the part of history and society.

An important relationship exists between confidence in government and social trust which can be linked to public goods provision (Newton & Norris, Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture or Performance?, 1999). Social trust is broadly defined as trusting in others and can refer to both individuals and higher levels of analysis. Netwon & Norris found that social trust is not strongly associated with measure of public confidence at the individual level and personality types or cultural factors may be more significant at this level. However, at the national level there is a significant relationship between social trust and public confidence. The relationship is that social trust and high public confidence are highly

We do not trust and do not wish to trust who runs our system because we have been hurt in the past by sneaky situations. That is why I believe that we should have an open and transparent government. Transparency reaps authenticity and participation for the people. That allows the public to have a say and participation in the role of government. I believe that this would help to restore the distrust that most of our citizens have toward our leaders. This would help strengthen leaders to make decisions and not have the public question them. How this could be accomplished is having the executive departments and government agencies open opportunities to Americans to participate in the making of new policies. This would also increase jobs and the knowledge of the happenings behind closed doors. Since we are citizens of this country, we should be made aware of what is happening within our

Could “ordinary Americans” accomplish a better a job of solving national problems than government officials? Study polls show that over the course of years the trust that Americans had in the government has slowly diminished. This change is the government’s fault. Someone doesn’t want to install their trust in somebody else who is not truthful. Americans should not trust government officials because they are not always truthful, treat citizens like criminals, and they are not doing anything that truly make America “better”.

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.