What the U.S. Government Shut Down Teaches Us About Organizational Corruption

US parties are often described as organisationally weak because they are essentially ‘broad coalitions’. For example they contain moderates like McCain republican) and Obama democrat), while also having a more conservative wing. Therefore stronger party organisation would give parties a narrower appeal and potentially alienate large ‘voting blocs’ or proportions of the electorate. This is a reason why it is argued that having ‘organisationally weak’ parties is a necessity in the US political system. It has therefore been argued that symptoms of weak organisation e.g issue centred or candidate-centered election campaigns are deliberate as parties attempt to gain a maximum

Political parties provide the House of Representatives with organizational structure and discipline. Therefore, they appear to be essential for understanding the relationship between members and constituents. Meinke acknowledges prior literature concerning the influence of parties on representation and in policy-making choices as well as the evolution of extended leadership. However, Meinke suggests that in the representational relationship, parties have a wider scope of influence than previously believed.

Amidst the past eight years of lackluster economic advancement, America’s prowess and respect declining worldwide, increasing government involvement in daily lives, and a President seemingly unwilling to take a solid stance on a the global threat of terrorism, the transfer of power between political parties in the White House is not so stunning. Due to the two-party system, this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. The American people are constantly seeking a political party to garner their attention and adapt to changing times, opinions, demographics, and attitudes (Cohen) and this results in the alternation of power between the two key political parties.

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

Thomas Mann of Brookings Institutions writes that, “in addition to the decline in competition, American politics today is characterized by a growing ideological polarization between the two major parties”. In addition to his opinion, political data has shown that political polarization is increasing and is more readily seen in the way the American government functions in the political sphere. In an article by the University of Rochester’s Campus Times they wrote “In 1950, the American Political Science Association’s Committee on Political Parties wrote a report called “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System.” The report said that party leadership in Congress was far too lenient when it came to dissent within the party ranks, allowing members’ difference in positions to not be as important as they should. They said that in order for there to be a healthier democracy in the US, the country needed cohesive, top-down parties with clear agendas that can be carried out when in the majority. It also needed a cohesive minority party to criticize the majority party and act as an alternative.” While both the Campus Times and Thomas Mann suggest that polarization is somewhat necessary and is increasing, whether or not the necessity or increase is beneficial to American politics and government is debatable. In this paper, I argue that while polarization can be both unbeneficial and beneficial, for the most part is has proven to be unbeneficial for American politics and government.

Our country should have heeded the advice our forefathers gave. They did, of course, write the Constitution which has perpetuated the United States for 240 years. Even in 1796, the first great president of the United States recognized the dangers of the issue that we are plagued with today. At his Farewell Address, George Washington preached, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” He had observed the detriments of factions first hand over the conflict of ratification. The Federalists and Antifederalists each fought for their respective opinions over

The United States Constitution has clearly set out the guidelines that our government should always maintain, and adhere too. But as the United States has progressed throughout history as the leading world nation, so has the internal political landscape that casts a shadow on its very Constitutional premise. Members of Congress have developed a singular outlook

The Constitution was written with one principal issue in mind: factions. This central point of tension within any government has remained a founding principle in the United States, and a strong national government is the answer to this issue. By creating a representative and balanced national core the country is given the best chances to avoid tyranny. While these ideals have worked well in the United States, the Constitution has fallen short of its original goals. Control of the US is now placed in a two party system, and too often in corporate control, both factions inadequately checked by the current system. A document rooted in 200 year old ideology has seen its time come and go, and today the nation needs a new base, founded on the

There is a major divide between two political parties, that has shaped the modern government today. One fights for a strong central government while the other wants a small central government and strong military. These two differences in ideals have always been a powerful movement throughout the American history. Even as the Constitution was ratified on the 21st of June in 1788, federalists, and antifederalists fought against the opponent’s ideals. One side wanted the new country to have a strong centralized government (federalists), and the other side (antifederalists) believed in a smaller central government, and state sovereignty. Many states didn’t ratify the Constitution unless a “Bill of Rights” was added guaranteeing unalienable rights the new federal government cannot take away.

In Badger’s and Choksi article “How We Became Bitter Political Enemies” as published by the New York Times, the authors discuss the matter of the worsening political relations between the Democrat and Republican party. This article presents the sore relations of the two parties as an occurrence that has only “significantly worsened over the last 50 years” due to both sides of the aisle fostering a growing animosity towards the other side. The animosity, however, has evolved from disagreeing over policies and legislation, to outright disliking someone just due to the party they represent. As a result, the Democrat and Republican party tension has become more personal over recent decades, and bipartisanship has suffered due to this.

I think that Nicol Rae’s perspective that parties have in many ways become stronger in the contemporary era is more correct in comparison to Morris Fiorina’s argument. Fiorina contends that American political parties cannot be held accountable because they have become too weak, whereas I support Rae’s perspective more because “contemporary American parties are alliances of interest groups ”. In reference to American Politics Today, an interest group is “an organization of people who share common political interests and aim to influence public policy by electioneering and lobbying .”

In September of 2013, the US government ran out of money and was forced to shutdown. The shutdown cost the government billions of dollars, although it’s promoted effect was to save money. Today, Congressional approval is at 13% and everything from Congressional stalemates to the 2016 presidency is filtered to the public through a partisan lens created by the parties and the media. The most common reason proposed for Washington’s woes is the excessive partisanship stemming from ideological divisions among the political elites in Congress. Both branches of the modern Congress display similar levels of polarization (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal 2006; Theriault 2006, 2008), yet the popular theories of polarization fit the House’s processes far

There is, in this country presently, an ultimate, lingering atmosphere of tension and hostility caused by the political parties. Like static, it makes your hair stand on end and your nerves begin to jitter, afraid to touch anything or anyone in case of that sudden shock. Politics are not spoken of with acquaintances and friends in fear of driving them away with your different opinions. Different opinions are quickly slandered as tyrannical or unconstitutional. This is the prelude to the storm. The Republicans and Democrats have created an identity crisis in the United States, pitting us against them, us against the other party. How? History teacher Michael Blood says “People stick with a party because of their opinion on a singular issue. If their opinion on this issue is supported by the party, then the people will align themselves with that party. Politicians use these single-issue voters to remain in office.” These mercenary voters are victims of an attitude of petty sectionalism, an attitude that is too similar to the party divisions that were so potent in the shattering of our state in the Civil War. It has created a magnetic push away from necessary, healthy discussion. It is the fruit of

Over the past several decades, we as a people have allowed the fundamental principles written in our Constitution to be forgotten, distorted, or completely ignored. This did not happen overnight but rather bit-by-bit over time until we are faced with a system of government that is not, as the founders intended, based on Federalism and individual freedom, but rather a National system far removed from the principles for which

One major disadvantage of instituting a party government is the likelihood that it would further increase conflict in American politics. Many Americans have bipartisan beliefs, such as being fiscally conservative, while also being socially liberal. Legislators would be bound to stringently follow their party’s policy positions, and therefore may not be entirely able to represent their constituency. Thus, it is believed that smaller parties would eventually grow larger and further fragment the atmosphere of American politics in an effort to satisfy the different ideologies of the American