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

The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.

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.

Specifically, it should be noted that under a single party rule, or under a stalemate of political disagreement where neither party would be able to advance their agenda, particular groups represented in the minority or counterculture would be treated at a disadvantage to the current culture or political system in demand. To develop a clear understanding of whether or not a lack of bipartisanship in Congress has an immediate effect on the minority which did not support the majority’s election and rise to power, it must be made evident that various social and judicial reforms do take place in order to support the empowerment of a single party despite the condition of its

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 short, we use our political affiliation as means of identifying our own person; similar to how one identifies as a Christian (religion background) or as someone who is LGBT+ (sexuality). Despite that different social subgroups can be found within the other party, it is party identification that prevails in how partisans will view one another. A study that was discussed during class demonstrates that “inter-group animosity based on partisanship exceeds animosity based on race.” Badger and Choksi revealed that after analyzing a Pew research poll, “Republicans considered members of the opposing party to be more close-minded than other Americans,” and that “Opposing partisans [view each other as] exceptionally immoral, lazy and dishonest...and third of either party viewed the opposition as less intelligent than other

Interest groups are considered fundamental actors in American politics and evidence on interest groups repels the argument that elected officials let interest

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

The United States is built upon a certain set of ideals and values , written seemingly clearly within the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Yet, despite this, there are various disagreements in how political promises to the people of the country play out. The unifying factor of what I believe American politics is, is the development to live up to these ideals and values. It is a nation built on the stifling of true, direct, democracy of the masses, built upon favoring wealth and an elitist system, but despite all this, it takes its Creed very seriously. Though interpretations may differ on how this is accomplished, the basic politics surrounding the United States, combined with a shared national identity and history, demands an attempt, or at least a show of fairness, equality, responsibility, and representation. It may never succeed in living up to the ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but that does not stop the demand of both policymakers and citizens to uphold and defend these rights.

"It's a reflection of the political dynamic in America, where we don't look at America as a whole. We look at it through the red and blue prism” (Taylor, 1). The red and blue prism that Senator Olympia Snowe is referring to is the political parties that function in the United States. The current existence of political parties in America is a hindrance to effective representation of the people. Because of the lack of bipartisanship between the parties in Congress, the absence of compromise leads to gridlock in regards to passing legislations by members of Congress. In this paper, I will argue how the strengthening of political parties’ polarization in America—and the priority of party over constituents—contributed to a lack of effective