Recently, the debate of whether bipartisanship has completely left this country incapacitated due to the lack of cooperation between Senators and House members with conflicting opinions has grown especially due to the Clinton Impeachment Debates. Many individuals feel that the only reason William Jefferson Clinton was impeached in the House was due to the fact that the majority of the House is republicans. This research proposal will attempt to define if the concept of bipartisanship does exist. If it does exist, what are the contributing factors to it (convincing individuals, convincing corporations, money, the Senators or House member’s families)? These can be considered to be the independent variables. Presently, the Internet consists of numerous, almost uncountable, sources on bipartisanship. Many magazines and newspapers are major contributors to this subject as well. The amount of scandal contributing to this particular issue creates a level of curiosity that intrigues all aspects of this society. When the public seems to want press on a particular issue, they seem to get it.
The most notable feature of the current state of journalism in the U.S. is the total dereliction of duty on the part of national political reporters. More than fifty congress critters, senators, and state governors have announced their retirements in the past year, after they received packets from a group of hackers called the Fifth Column detailing illegal and unreported income from bribes, kickbacks, payoffs, and whatnot. This story of the wholesale sell-out of the U.S. political process should rank as one of the top stories of the decade. But the national media blandly reports the contrived explanations ("I just want to spend more time with my heretofore neglected family") and speculates on the sad loss of Washington country-club camaraderie that used to keep such fine people in public office forever.
There are certain hypotheses in question on this particular issue.
Hypothesis #1: Other than wartime issues, republicans seem to vote with republicans while democrats choose to vote with their fellow democrats on various issues.
Hypothesis #2: Money, big corporations, and fellow party affiliates affect the voting patterns of Senators and House members.
Hypothesis #3: Due to the fact that there are contributions coming in at both sides for different politicians, nothing actually gets accomplished. This can compared to a negative (-1) added to a positive (+1) which eventually comes back to equal 0 (consequently resulting in some aspects of government effectiveness going back to “square one”).
Buying media slots for candidates, which used to be a small business just over half a century ago, has grown so that these companies manage “more than $170 billion of their clients’ campaign funds” (Turow 230). This fact about the growth of such an industry should at a minimum raise an eyebrow, as it characterizes the shift and importance this data analysis has become. It also serves as an important point because it fuels the common fear of corruption in politics, as this data essentially offers a window to the responses and how people think to what politicians say. This could lead to the next phase of the “polished politician” where candidates will say statements that statistically receive favorable responses from the population. This strong pathos is a central pillar of the argument Turow is trying to make, effectively playing the emotion of pity from the hypothetical family situation, and building it into a fear of the system and establishment. Such emotions are strong motivators, and this combination encourages the reader to take action, or at the very least inform someone they know about such issues they weren’t even aware were
8.In order for political success, both sides of the political spectrum must be critically examined in order to omit mistakes and for cultural advancement. Over two hundred years of United States politics have seen many changes. The names of parties may have changed, but the bi-partisan feature of the party-system has not. Republicans and Democrats are our two major partisan groups in present day America. Sometimes there are disagreement amongst party members that lead to dispute and a less concentrated effort. That is the beauty of a democracy, everyone is allowed to put their two cents worth in.
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 there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
In Sinclair’s analysis, voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant roles in creating and enforcing the ideological gap between the two major parties in Congress. This trend of polarization is rooted in the electorate
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
system produces conflicts between the Congress and the President and promotes very outdated beliefs that stem from the Constitution. A vast majority of the American population has the stern belief that the Constitution does not need to be changed in any way, shape, or form. This belief, however, is keeping the country from progressing along with other countries around the world. These single parties are holding control of multiple branches of government at once and monopolizing the power during their respective terms. The government “faces an incapacity to govern since each party works as a majority party” and believes there is no reason for innovation (Dulio & Thurber, 2000). The two parties are seemingly always clashing about one thing or the other, making it difficult for things to get accomplished, and proves the thesis correct that the two-party system is ineffective for a growing country.
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.
In the United States there are only two main political parties to choose from. The two main parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. There are also many other political parties to choose from which are called third parties. Third parties may include political parties such as the Socialist Equality Party and the Peace and Equality party. People can choose to be a part of any party they want but most go with the common two main parties the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans have many similarities and differences. These mainly occur in international, social, economic, and domestic issues.
Everyday citizens often live unaware of their government’s inner workings. The knowing of political espionage is often too heavy of a subject to be inducted in conversation. True, prima facie, modest twists and turns of information may not be considered substantial, but this inconsideration leaves much to be uncontrolled. It is easy for political leaders to become power crazed, to not realize the massive implications that come of their actions. Only after all is said and done do the people actually realize their government is an opaque mask of deception. The Watergate Scandal substantially impacted Americans’ trust in their government.
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
The first is “Bipartisanship” by an unknown source, which highlights the evolution of partisanship in the U.S. and shows how far apart the two parties are on some issues. The second is “On Partisanship” by S.W. of The Economist and this article is about how people are worried about the state of the government as a result of partisanship. Both of these articles reference how the founding fathers, specifically James Madison, did not think that political parties were a good idea for the young nation. Although they do differ on what they think about partisanship, S.W. says “The only way democracy works is for elected officials representing often radically divergent opinions to be forced—through conflicting election results—to hammer out compromises.”(S.W.) Whereas the other article provides information that partisanship is having an extreme negative impact on the compromising process, because they’re so...
Roll call votes, number of bills signed and the numbers of presidential vetoes present an interesting method of measuring success. They are quantitative in nature and present a statistical relationship . As Dr. Whitlock put it: “There is a reason Americans prefer football over soccer – we love score. “ Although focus on success is frequent and relatively easy to measure, some scholars including (Collier 1959) have argued that it fails to capture the full picture surrounding the passage of a piece of legislation. For example, as (Collier 1959) remarked, the passage of a piece of legislation signed by the president may be different than the original bill introduced in the Congress. Yet, the president can still claim political victory after the bill passes. In addition, during divided government, when party control is divided between the branches, success in terms of outcomes measures may fail to capture the full picture of which player was really preventing the objective of the
Americans have become so engrossed with the rhetoric of political parties that many are unable have real discussions about “freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, security, accountability.” (Lakoff p.177) The election of 1828 gave birth to the “professional politician” it demonstrated how “ambivalence” on issues, how image and the right language or narrative can influence voters. Partisanship did increase competition and empower voters to a greater degree, but it has also divided Americans and obstructed communication. As one historian declared the “old hickory” killed the ideal of nonpartisan leadership. (Parsons p.184) For better or for worse American politics were forever be changed in 1828.
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
Sabato, Larry J. Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics. Baltimore: Lanahan Publishers, Inc., 1991.