Essay about Extreme Political Polarization

The tactic, filibuster has a long history dating back to the 1800’s; it is used to delay bills being passed. It has been a way to win votes for the people and gives senates time to attain the votes they need or get they’re points across (US Site). Many don’t find this move very appealing because it is used mostly by the minority party to give some-kind of power over the majority. In fact, some senates argue that it should be abolished, there have been actions placed to end debates such as the cloture and the nuclear option. However, it is a lengthy process that does not guarantee an end to a filibuster.

In her essay, “Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled”, author Donna Woolfolk Cross explains the different types of propaganda and how it is used in the United States. The essay was first published in Speaking of Words: A Language Reader (1977). Cross defines propaganda as “simply a means of persuasion and so it can be put to work for good causes as well as bad” (247). In her article she discusses how propaganda works and explains how propaganda is used with thirteen different devices to manipulate people’s thoughts, opinions, and ideas. She uses this essay as an informative piece, giving advice on how not to be manipulated by propaganda.

     In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

Propaganda takes many forms, the most aggressive example in society is political campaigning for powers in office. A prominent

Texas has a controversial way of electing its judges. When Texas became a state in 1845, judges were appointed by the governor with Senate consent, but since 1876, judges at all levels of courts have been elected by the people in partisan elections. The main problem with this system is partisan elections lead to more campaign contributions and increased partisanship among judge which hinders fair and independent judiciary system.

A “Young Guard” of politicians were emerged in Congress. More interested in purifying the Uion rather than patching it up

Today, Supreme Court Nominee’s, Neil Gorsuch, Confirmation hearing came near conclusion on a very confrontational note with the Senate’s Principal Democrat threatening to filibuster. This would complicate the way the senate “conducts its business”. The Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch only have a 52-majority instead of the 60-majority that is necessary. However, they say he will be confirmed anyway, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s decision to filibuster was not unexpected but it will increase tension in the senate. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said. Although the democrats do not have the votes to block this motion, his filibuster will publicize the resistance in the Congress.

In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year's election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

In 2013, the thought of using filibusters to an advantage of a political party’s side in a legislative assembly was removed; therefore, it now takes a majority vote to decide on all Supreme Court nominees and executive appointments. The majority vote is being identified as the “nuclear option”. The ruling of filibuster was voted to be removed by the U.S. Senate, due to the fact that Democrats believed that Republicans unfairly abused filibuster in attempt to veto a nominee by the president (Richardson). Now that a president of the Republican party is in position, the tables have turned. Nevertheless, as the Republican party holds 52 senate seats, Democrats only holding 46, Republicans have the ability to virtually shut down the minority and

Filibuster is defined as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in legislation. Filibusters are a waste of legislation time, which could be put toward more important bills that could and need to be passed.

The filibuster, a result of following Vice President Aaron Burr’s request to clean up the Senate’s rule book in 1805, once used to hold procedure by Senators to allow them time to arrive and debate or vote on legislation has been hijacked by minority Republicans into indefinite vetoes of legislation and administration nominations. While scarcely used by Senators to block legislation - President Woodrow Wilson attempt to prepare the U.S. for WWI found it difficult to pass legislation in preparation of the war introduced the cloture rule to close debate by a two-thirds majority vote that was modified in 1975 to a only three-fifths majority - Republicans have exploited this procedure to where even just the threat of a filibuster can block legislation and nominations creating mass gridlock. It was once required, if a Senator wanted to filibuster a bill, to stand on the Senate floor and speak nonstop in an attempt to coerce his cohorts to alter their stance. The filibuster has given a minority in the Senate the ability to veto legislation even if a majority of legislators in both houses and the president approve of the bill. The filibuster, with no precedent in the U.S. Constitution, has given a small minority of 41 the power to control and sway critical legislation in a way not envisioned by the founding framers as they constructed the United States governmental

The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived

In Senate, both parties, particularly the republicans have been using filibuster to stall or completely

Filibusters are quite the conundrum, a pariah of sorts in the realm of U.S. politics, yet an integral part of our body of government. It is imperative that it remains to be kept alive in a warm embrace with the Senate, lest it is reduced to nothing more than a mere accessory to the House of Representatives. By nature, the filibuster is actually a resourceful tactic that utilizes the ideology of free speech to prolong and create an active dialog over legislation or to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. However, in recent years the most unsettling adversity contemporary legislation faces is Rule XXII of the U.S. Senate. Forty-one senators can veto the lion's share of legislation by refusal of invoking cloture (sixty being the magic number). Due to the malapportionment of the Senate, less than forty-one percent of the population could be over represented, resulting in a conflicting vote against cloture sustaining debate indefinitely.

There are many theories as to how or why political polarization was formed, and the impact it has on government in modern day. Polarization has varied significantly over the years ever since the 1970’s. However, what is the true cause and can it be explained? This paper will discuss some theories on how political polarization came about, and analyzes some accounts of polarization overall. Defining political polarization is vital into developing an understanding of how or why it was initially formed.