This was for my intro to American government course I took this year. Very shallow analysis, but it was an intro course.
According to
Rasmussen Reports, as of May 2nd, 2013, Barack Obama’s approval
rating sits at forty-seven percent, while his disapproval rate is at fifty-two
percent. This is the lowest his approval rating has been since his reelection.
Further more, only twenty-four percent of the electorate surveyed says that
they strongly approve of his performance, while forty percent strongly
disapprove of his job performance.[1]
This has been blamed on partisan preference, skewed polling results and the
fact that the president gets all of the glory in good times and all of the
blame in bad times. It is of note though that in modern American politics,
substantial portions of the population are always fiercely unhappy with the
President, Congress, parties and interest groups, and there is seemingly
nothing anyone can to about that. This problem is complex, but for the interest
of generality, it should be considered threefold: extreme partisanship,
unparalleled dissemination of information via the Internet to the electorate,
and misrepresentation of constituents by elected officials.
According to Gallup, presidential approval in modern
history peaked with John F Kennedy Jr. with his average approval rating being
seventy-point one percent.[2]
This could be attributable to his not having served a full term and thus the
results of his policies never being fully realized, or it could be directly
correlated to his being the first televised presidency that showcased what is
thought to be the most charismatic United States president. Previously, presidents
had reached out to the masses via print and radio, but never before had a
campaign debate been televised. Despite the fact that by all accounts Nixon won
the debate on merit, Kennedy won by the fact that he was so much better suited
to the camera. From that moment on, public persona came to play a larger role
in presidential elections. While affairs were known to pervade the highest
office in America, they were never seen as definitive of the president’s term
in office. This changed however with the election of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton
came into office after twelve years of republican leadership (and abysmal
democratic leadership the previous four years before that). His presidency was
however marred by scandal when news of his infidelity with a White House intern
broke via the Drudge Report and was
later picked up by the more mainstream, The
Washington Post.[3] This was
really the Internet’s first foray into directly influencing politics.
Officially gone were the days that all Americans received their news from the
same news outlet with one side of the story being presented. This opened the
proverbial Pandora’s box in that the electorate now realized that from the Internet,
they could ascertain more information from more sources and compare the facts
of positions and issues more easily. From there, the Internet exploded. Debates
from the 2012 election were viewed by millions of people the world over live
via Google, YouTube, CNN and more with many offering charts at the bottom of
the screen that showed electorate approval dipping and peaking as the
candidates were speaking. Furthermore, social networks such as Facebook and
Twitter played vital roles in this past election in that people on either coast
were able to instantaneously communicate with one another and debate amongst
themselves. From this, Romney’s “binders of women” and promise to fire Big Bird
took on a life of their own as they became blog fodder for weeks after the
debates.
The internet, as
it relates to politics, is a two edged sword as it allows for the immediate
sharing of information from various sources to people all over the world, not
just within the confines of the United States. However, it also allows off hand
remarks to become overexposed and be ruthlessly torn apart long after they are
made. Additionally, the Internet allows for the dissemination of false
information that has a tendency to go mainstream. An asterisk to how the
Internet has undermined politics must be made to include the sharing of lewd
and/or embarrassing pictures of politicians via the Internet. This has done
incalculable damage to candidates and their respective parties. Essentially,
the proliferation of television, and now the Internet, has allowed the electorate
to see every flaw of politicians and blow them out of proportion.
The cynicism and
disappointment coming from the electorate cannot be solely based upon the Internet
however. Partisanship has been crucial in the devolution of modern politics. In
the mid 19th century, the United States divided into the North (The
Union) and the South (The
Confederates). These were essentially different countries, but were in fact
still one in the same. These factions were divided on the basis of what was at
its basest level, political ideological differences, with elements of racism
and state pride mixed in. Today, democrats and republicans have split off into
two separate factions of their own, with their own respective network news
stations, websites and clubs. This fracture that has split America has led to
violence, racism and class-warfare that has more in common with the Civil War than
most would care to admit. One of the main differences would be that the
Southern states tend to lean Republican this time around, whereas they were
previously largely democratic.
The average voter
has never heard of the delegate, trustee and responsible parties models.
Research suggests that on easier to understand issues (i.e. racial issues,
etc…) voters would prefer that their elected officials acted as delegates,
directly representing the beliefs and wishes of their constituents when voting.
On issues of economics, discerning a stance can prove too taxing for many
average voters, so they trust that through the trustee model that their
representative will vote how he or she thinks most of the constituents would
vote were they to fully understand the matter at hand. Lastly, many voters
would have their elected official vote with their party alignment on matters of
foreign affairs so as to more easily assign blame and gratitude.[4] However, voters do not and will not
ever understand the nuances of these three models and no entire constituency
will be comfortable with how their elected official chooses to apply them to their
own voting. On some level, yes, the political elites have become too far
removed from the people that they represent, especially in a day in age when
career politicians reign supreme. Votes tend to be cast often times for
political reasons with little to no regard for the stance of their
constituency. Members of congress needing support for a bill may solicit votes
from fellow members in exchange for help with a bill they are spear heading. An
interest group could influence a
member of congress to vote contrary to what the people who elected him or her
would want him to. Whether or not this is an example of failure on the part of
political elites or a testament to the power of interest groups and lobbyists
is up for debate.
Congress tends to
be the most directly linked to the American people, causing this particular
branch to take the majority of the flack. However, the executive office is far
from immune to the sting of the scorned electorate. In short terms, it could
easily be argued that a lot of Americans do not know what the job of the
president entails. If the economy is bad, it is the president’s fault. If the
price of gas increases, it is the president’s fault. If it rains on a picnic,
it is the president’s fault. This is a position with significant power not only
within the United States, but also in the world. This position is not however
God, something people seem to forget. President Obama is inextricably linked too
much of the policy making in this country as he has the power to veto
legislation, influence policy and act as the face of America for foreign
affairs. With his spearheading of the very controversial Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, he is rightly lauded by his fans and raked across the
coals by his opponents. This legislation was the basis of his 2008 campaign and
the finishing of it a substantial portion of his 2012 platform. In this
instance, it is not unreasonable for voters to hold the executive office
accountable. To blame President Bush for the entirety of the recession was not,
but more simplistically minded voters did not understand the abstracts of the
situation and did just that.
Until the American voting pool becomes
more educated, it will continue to demand more from politicians than they can
possibly give. It is completely reasonable to expect congressional members to
vote in the way they were elected to do, but they cannot be held responsible
for pleasing everyone. While the president can have a great effect on many aspects
of policy and legislation, this position is not solely responsible for every
aspect of government, a fact that many Americans should be made aware of.
To put it simply,
the political elites have largely failed. While it can be hard to discern
exactly what constituents want from their elected officials, it can be argued
that the elected officials are not really even trying to figure that out
anymore. Career politician has
become an unofficial job title with, at the federal level, no term limits on
those elected to congress, the body of government supposedly most relatable to
the average person. Sadly, these career politicians care most about reelection
and with Americans reelecting ninety percent of United State House incumbents
and ninety-one percent of United States Senate incumbents, once elected they’re
pretty much set. Americans are so busy bickering in the comments section of
Yahoo articles and buying bumper stickers to reflect their political ideology
that they do not take the time to ensure that the person they are putting into
office adequately reflects their own views. This leads directly into the
problem of partisanship, as Republican voters tend to vote for the Republican
candidate and Democrat voters for the democrat candidate, regardless of their
specific policy preferences. Because politicians realize this, once elected
they tend to do what they want once in Washington, regardless of what their
constituents would want from them. Sure, once they are in office they will go
to a few parades in their district and make everyone feel special because they
got to meet Senator X and he shook their hand and was a real nice guy. Then
they go back up to Washington and fail their constituents again. That same
voter who had the best handshake of his or her life will read about how a bill
that they felt so passionately for was defeated and they will curse congress
and the president and God and everyone, but they won’t check to see how their
elected official voted. They will not see that he was part of the majority that
voted against the bill. So then come the next election they will vote him back
into office and the cycle continues.
While the
founding fathers would have never in their wildest dreams have imagined the
globalization and technological advances that now play an inextricable role in
American politics, they did see partisanship as a great danger. Federalist No.
10 is evidence that the founders of this country had no intentions of American
politics being as partisan as it has become. In its very first lines, the
document says that “among the numerous advantages promised by
a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than
its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of
popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and
fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice”.[5]
This is to say that fervent opponent of factionalism and author of this paper,
James Madison, saw it as one of the chief duties of any adequate union to
prevent and/or stop the proliferation of factions, as they would work to weaken
the union. The pessimism towards the government has a great many sources, but
is deeply rooted in the extreme partisanship that has divided states, cities
and even at times families within America.
Every branch of
the political system must work to restore the public’s confidence in the
system, or else it is doomed to further deteriorate. The office of the
president should lead by example in overhauling its own image. Lofty campaign
promises are made, but seldom kept. In President Obama’s first bid for the
White House, he promised an improved economy, a prompt evacuation of American
troops from Middle Eastern countries and transparency throughout. Whether or
not his promises were well intended, they were not put into practice on the timetable
he had given or in some cases, at all. This caused him to lose a rather
substantial number of formerly ardent supporters as the hope and change they
had voted for was slow coming.
Congress bears
what is arguably the brunt of public scorn as these people are more accessible
to the average voter than offices such as the presidency. In order to restore
public confidence in congress, representatives and senators would do well to be
more in tune with and available to their constituency. In a day in which
members of congress vote on whims or to comply with a fellow congress member or
interest group, voters feel that they have no real say in policy, a feeling
that generates extreme apathy.
American politics
has been condensed down to a two party system with various other, smaller
factions that have little power other than to detract votes from the mainstream
parties. These two parties, the GOP and Democratic Party, are accountable for
nearly everything good and bad that their respective members do. Because of
this, when a Republican congressman says something to the effect of rape acting
as its own form of birth control, the entire GOP takes the heat from the media,
democratic elites and inevitably the American people. The same can be said of
scandals within the Democratic Party. These slip-ups seem to be becoming more
and more frequent, but are in large part garnering this level of publicity
because the other party’s incessant attempts to denigrate the opposition and
the media being ever willing to oblige them. Once this reaches the public, the
public finds the party to be more corrupt than they had previously thought and
can become disenfranchised with the party system. If the parties were able to
be less antagonistic of one another, it is possible that bipartisanship of both
government elites and the people would be more easily achieved, but that would
be a long shot.
Interest groups
at their purest form are some of the best-intended aspects of the political
system. Their intent is to represent a group of likeminded individuals to
perpetuate a belief or cause to a level that reaches the government elites and
impacts legislation. However, these groups often distort and corrupt their
initial positions in the name of gaining political and/or cultural prominence.
They also frequently work to sway votes by congressional members and
underhandedly sway policy by all branches of government. Most Americans are
blissfully unaware of the power of interest groups, but these groups tend to
act as one of the chief problems in legislation not reflecting the wishes of
voters. In short, interest groups need more regulation so as to limit their
scope of power.
The media has in
large part in the last several years been considered an extension of the Obama
White House, with Fox News being the glaring exception. Because of this,
liberals tend to hear what they want to from the mainstream media, or MSM,
while conservatives marvel at its one-sidedness. Gone are the days that bias
was said to be the worst quality any reputable news source could have. Today,
there are news stations, newspapers, magazines and websites for literally any
political bias an American could possibly have. Because of this, people tend to
tune into what they consider to be their opinion’s respective news source so
that they can hear what they want to hear and then look down on the opposition.
This has done more to promote partisanship than either political party could
have ever fathomed. While it may be refreshing to hear the news from a like-minded
source, this has caused different factions to have entirely different facts on
issues and created further political discontentment. If possible, a less
polarized media would be one of the best ways to branch the partisan divide in
America.
To ask what is
wrong with American politics is a question bound to be responded to with snorts
of derision. Everyone knows there is a grave problem, but no one is willing to
bend enough to make bipartisanship happen. The elites continue to seek power as
the people sit idly by, convinced that corruption in Washington has reached the
point of no return with the media goading them on in this belief. The problems
in D.C. are many, but the ultimate solution to many of these problems would be to
take sincere steps towards bipartisanship.
[1] "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll -
Rasmussen Reports™." Daily Presidential
Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.
[2] "Presidential Approval Ratings --
Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends." Presidential Approval Ratings. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.
[4] Jillson, Calvin C. American Government: Political Development and Institutional
Change. New York:
Routledge, 2009. Print.
[5] Jillson, Calvin C. American Government: Political Development and Institutional
Change. New York:
Routledge, 2009. Print.
