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
…show more content…
434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization and authority can lead to a bizarre form of "one-upsmanship" in which each group member seeks to gain power and approval by being more extreme than the others. The end result is extremism in the pursuit of authority without any regard to the practicality or
"reasonableness" of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is currently in opposite directions in our two party system, it is almost impossible to find a common ground between them. In addition, the competitive nature of the two party system many times eliminates even the possibility of compromise since failure usually leads to a devastating loss of power.
If both victory and extremism are necessary to retain power within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) stated in his book No Contest: The Case Against Competition, competition is
"mutually exclusive goal attainment" (one side must lose in order for the other to win), then compromise and cooperation are impossible (p. 136). This is especially so if the opponents are dedicated to retaining power "at all costs." That power is an end in itself is made clear by the recent shutdown of the government. It served no logical purpose. Beyond costing a lot of money, it had no discernible effect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights.
According to David
George Washington foresaw a nation led astray by divisive politics. Nearly 219 years since the printing of his “Farewell Address”, Washington’s understanding of an emergent party system, and ideological extremism, could not have been more correct in its projections of instability. The phrase “You’re either with us, or against us” was once used to describe foreign policy on terror, but now presidential candidates rally thousands by encouraging the ideal. As a student at Appalachian State University, I hope to pursue pragmatic solutions to the systemic errors of political polarization. The United States is a nation of tremendous diversity, and if we wish to understand the needs of our fellow Americans, we must work together, not against one other.
The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives is calculated based on a state’s adult population,
The English Civil War in the 1600’s was fought between two parties in the government, the Tories and the Whigs, that either supported the king or disapproved of him. This violent show of political partisanship may have warned the Founding Fathers that political parties had the power to divide governments and lead to tyranny. Aside from the possibility of leading to a violent power struggle, political parties have the potential to draw away politicians’ loyalty from the American population as a whole to the benefit of their political group. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he never wanted to adhere to a group when he was capable of thinking on his own. He called submitting a whole opinion to a party, “the last degradation for a free and moral agent.” (Hatzenbuehler 32) Arduous bipartisanship also leads to a stalemate in Congress. According to a study by the Brookings Institute, in Congress seventy-five percent of salient issues in 2014 were in gridlock. (Binder 2016) Attitudes become increasingly sharp in politics as the political sides compete, each trying to prove the other a radical. If there were no political parties every member would most likely treat their fellow members with civility in the hopes that they would choose to support mutual
“The performance of our federal government could hardly be any worse than it is today” (Douglas). The Land of Liberty’s current government is one of the worst of all its time. How so? According to many professional writers, the United States government has become extremely dysfunctional over the course of the last few years. Those credible writers all agree that polarization and tribalism affect politicians and citizens. Thus, creating a dysfunctional Washington.
The tension caused by the political stalemate of the current two-party system in the United States of America undoubtedly trickles down to the day to day living of the average person. It is, without question, one of the most indecisive eras in the political history of the United States. As a representative democracy, the decisions made by those on Capitol Hill should reflect the wills of the American majority, but to say such might imply that the majority wishes ill happenings onto their less numerous counterparts. Such an assertion can be supported by purported discrimination by law makers, economic disagreement, political indecisiveness, intrepid abuse of power by American law enforcement officers, and social injustices represented by the
“When once the forms of civility are violated, there remains little hope of return to kindness or decency”(Johnson csmonitor.com). Samuel Johnson, English writer and essayist, popular in the 19th century, sums up the reality of modern American politics in such a simple sentence. However, the simple warning, unheeded, has surely stymied and gridlocked American government to such an extent, that even the most diehard believers in democracy are finding the current political environment to be permanently toxic and therefore, hopelessly ineffective. When did it all go wrong? One of the best examples of two political rivals that warred fiercely from 9-5, but liked and respected one another after hours, comes in the friendship of President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill. Reagan and O’Neill disagreed on nearly everything that a politician can include in a platform. Yet
Rather than working toward a better nation through healthy debate, we simply split ourselves apart as Republicans or Democrats, Traditionalists and Progressives, Liberals and Conservatives, no matter what name the warring sides takes on it is one of the worst proponents of poor communication. Those who are stuck in their traditional ways, in this case Republicans, are generally on the losing side. The others, who have more progressive views, in today’s landscape the Democrats, are generally winning, even if it takes more time. However, both parties are stuck because they are not communicating effectively and politely. The Republicans, who act as the listeners in this case, are uncompromising in their ways and refuse to listen to others. Their bitterness only causes a halt in the flow of government, stagnating the process by which or nation gets things done. The other party, the Democrats are no less to blame, for in each victory or triumph they only stand to gloat over it. Rubbing it in does nothing for them but inflate their egos and make the bittersweet arguments of politics all the more bitter. The bitterness bites at the Republican politicians, and they bite back. Eventually it is a war, waged across radio waves, plastered on television screens and paraded around the District of
“has been branded a ‘do-nothing’ institution, fraught with political conflict and weakened by partisan gridlock” p. 140
Representation is an essential component of a republic, yet moneyed interests often seem to carry more weight in congressional representation than the interests of the average citizen. One avenue in which big money can affect polarization is through election communication. For language and communication is the avenue for political conflict and developing policy outcomes (Grimmer and Stewart, 2013). Moreover, voters have ideological preferences that match with the candidates but do not know who is the closest candidates is to their positions. Electoral communications become a salient venue to highlight the congruence between a candidate’s ideological position and a candidate’s (Krupnikov, 2011). Now Super PACs have become an avenue by which
In this paper I will discuss the matter of the two-party system and the issue of polarization of thought in America. With the system under which we live, political and moral thought is limited by political identity in that individual’s ideas must conform entirely to their thought of their political party otherwise they would be discredited. Non-conformist thought is seen as immoral because to lean too far onto the side of the opposing political party is extremely frowned upon as the other side is seen as immoral. Additionally, each political party is polarized in that the ideals of the party that are presente a the governmental level are extreme, whereas the political ideas of individuals may not be. Because of this, we are only shown the polarized
In the last decade, political polarization has become more relevant in the United States. As controversial topics have become popular issues in our court system, media coverage, and everyday conversation, people’s political ideology on these topics have also changed. First, republicans and democrats are classified under the two main ideologies in America: conservatism and liberalism. As our world, has changed the democratic and republican party ideologies have developed negative views against opposing parties. Recently the American people develop such strong opinions on a topic they have difficulty seeing the others view point which I think is causing more people to become independent. In addition, if the majority in the community, you are
America has been depicted as a blend a territory stacked with contrasts. With that contrasting qualities comes a full extent of pay levels and statuses of its inhabitants, from the, amazingly rich to the edgy. Polarization happens when a development of the rate of people in poverty relates with an extension of the rate of people with higher compensations. Less people are seen as 'desk class', in any case, are either rich or poor. This paper will focus on the dejection stricken youth of America. How is today's poor white and poor non-white youth alike? How might they differentiate? Sociologists and examiners have found affirmation to legitimize both, and I plan to focus on genuine centers for both issues. Whether you're white, African-American,
In a letter to Jonathan Jackson in October, 1789, John Adams wrote, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution”, yet in modern day society, this is exactly the way the government is set up. Political parties, or, similar politically-minded people who work as a group to influence public policy by getting candidates elected to office, are in control of the current government. In the United states political parties compete each other to gain more political power and for the ability to put their policies into effect. As a result of events in history leading up to today, there are now two major political parties in the US. The United States is known to have a variety of political parties within it, but the Republican and Democratic parties have shown through the strongest, disagreeing with each other on most political and social issues, but being able to find some agreement on others. There are minor parties, but none so far have been able to gain the support needed to win a national election.
One of the few democratic governments that are still competitive in today’s race for being a major world power is of course the United States. Both the state level and national level have to work in unison for many issues. Although, some issues are left to be handled by either the national government or state government on their own, but not both. The federal government of the United States thrives off their capability to function on both of these levels, thus increasing productivity of the nation. Occasionally, there is an issue that is brought up and the national government disagrees with the states and vice versa, this is shown in history and current events. When the federal government disagrees with the states viewpoint on something, it
The 2013 U.S. Government shut down demonstrates the powerful and destructive effects of conflicts of interest on groups, nations, and the global community. Notwithstanding press releases to the contrary, it is fairly clear that the repeated refusal to come to agreement on national policy over the last few decades is strongly linked to the interests of Democrats and Republicans to establish favorable positions to benefit their respective organizations for the coming