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”).
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
Goren, Paul. "The Two-Party System." Lecture, POL 4737W, Blegen Hall 425, Minneapolis, January 28, 2010.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Political gridlock and dysfunction is a central aspect of studying Congress because it determines a huge part about how they function and their general effectiveness. When it comes to the political landscape in the United States, law-making and legislation ultimately comes down to what the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on and how they vote. Gridlock has been studied for years because of how it has changed the political landscape essentially from the beginning. The Jacksonian Era in the mid 1800’s shifted the way that political parties operated and from then on a two party system has been a critical part of American politics. The winner-take-all format of elections in the United States, along with the increasing importance of
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
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.
Presidential Influence in Congress." American Journal of Political Science 29.2 (1985): 183-96. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2014.
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.
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...
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
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.
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
...to maintain a more productive form of government and reduce political polarization, obstructionism and slandering must be reduced or eliminated.
The relationship between journalism and politics is a two-way street: though politicians take advantage as best