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 This is the dysfunctional aspect of gridlock. Studying the reasons behind dysfunction, the implications of this dysfunction, and how it impacts the rest of the nation politically and socially has become one of the best ways to study Congress because it has defined Congress for years. Many of these theories, like Congress itself, disagree with each other and look at different sides of the same coin in many instances. By looking at these theories and what they say it will help everyone better understand how Gridlock has shaped the politics of the nation, and just the nation itself. Political Polarization is one of the most widely accepted causes of political gridlock, as the two sides continue to drift further and further apart. But why does the chasm keep growing? A few different theories call out the masses and the elites as being the principal actors in driving polarization. Fiorina says that the masses, or just average people, are not the ones that are polarizing. In fact she thinks that it is the elites who are driving polarization as they attempt to stay as far away There is a chance that the dysfunction could possibly decline at some point, though right now it doesn’t appear like it will happen any time soon. But when that happens there will be a whole new aspect of dysfunction that we can study since it hasn’t happened that often in the past. While there are a lot of theories out there about how and why and in what way the gridlock has happened, some have more merit than others, and there are still new angles and different approaches that can continue to be studied. But with such a dynamic system to study, continuing to study this area of political science will be a central part of studying Congress for years to
Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government, which results in the election of polarized candidates and policies.
In closing, this book informs us on how the Republicans went crazy and Democrats became useless, and how it’s become a problem. The books unfolds the faults of the Republicans and Democrats “behind the scenes”, and made me more aware of the parties today.
Furthermore, he introduces the idea that popular polarization is different from partisan polarization and that sorting has occurred within the parties. Meaning that “those who affiliate with a party… are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically ‘correct’ party than they were [before]” (Fiorina et al. 61). To illustrate the concept of polarization he uses a figure with marble filled urns. These urns depict red blue and gray marbles with r for republican d for democrat and i for independent. When polarization, all gray independent marbles disappear becoming either red or blue.
Hamilton provides an inside look at how congress really works and clears up popular misconception that make members of congress look like wasteful bickering crooks that support gridlock and are only concerned with the needs of interest groups and lobbyists. Hamilton argues that Congress has changed for the better throughout the years and that they are held at higher standards than they were before. Hamilton states that Congress is not only working at keeping the public happy but that have recently become faced with a lot more issues than before, they are not only more issues but more complicated and technical that are very high risk policies that take a long time to produce a decision (Hamilton, 1988, 65). Hamilton states that Congress is a system in which the viewpoints of everyone are taken into account and make sure there is a consensus when it comes to defining decisions. Even though many of us acknowledge that lobbyist and special interest groups play an essential role in the law making party, Congress is making an effort to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard. Congress is making sure that the balance of power is distributed properly. In recent years, there has been a decline in mega-lobbies and interest groups so that not only the wealthy powerful get their voice heard, but the everyday american people get an opinion in things that affect them as well. In Gary Lee’s article, The NRA Has Lost some Firepower, we can see that interest groups are beginning to have less of an influence on larger political decisions (Hamilton, 1988, 65). For example, the National Rifle Association’s defeat in the battle over the “Brady bill” and their war towards trying to revamp Medicaid was a great loss for lobbyists and
Contrasts in the lawmaking methodology utilized as a part of the House and Senate reflect the distinctive size of the two chambers and individual terms of its parts. In the House, the dominant part gathering is inflexibly in control, stacking advisory groups with lion 's share party parts, and utilizing principles to seek after enactment supported by its parts. In the Senate, singular parts are better ready to hold up the procedure, which prompts lower similarity costs, however higher exchange costs. The complication of the lawmaking procedure gives rivals different chances to murder a bill, making a solid predisposition for the present state of affairs.
In the United States of America, there are a number of national issues that go unresolved and become more of a major issue subsequently. The lack of resolution in some of our nation’s most critical issues is due to the lack of a common ground between opposing political parties. Issues such as healthcare, climate change, abortion, same-sex marriage, taxes and welfare are reoccurring problems in the United States due to congressional gridlock. The cause of congressional gridlock can be attributed to the difference in liberal and conservative views, which can be further examined through some of the nation’s most prominent reoccurring issues such as immigration and gun control.
Whether political polarization is good or bad for the nation is still up for debate, but the general consensus is it exists due to a variety of reasons. From the construction of our Constitution, it is clear that the intent of our founding fathers was to create opposition in order to prevent tyranny from prevailing. Polarization is a result of the dividing of a nation into political parties. Though polarization has fluctuated throughout the years, it has caused a great deal of trouble in regards to passing legislation and has resulted in a gridlocked Congress. Even though some fear congressional polarization is destined to get worse, “it is mathematically impossible for congress to get much more polarized” than it is now.
Many Americans in today's society will find it difficult to answer the question of what Congress exactly does and why it exists. Others simply don't care and see Congress as a failed system where nothing gets done. Lee Hamilton, in his book Why Congress Works and Why you Should Care, proves these people wrong and gives an insider's look at what Congress actually does do and how it affects every American each day.
How the legislature is organized is very important to the actual processes of making laws. Seniority is not important at the state level, but the division of power between majority and minority parties is. The speaker of the House is the presiding officer, and is chosen by vote of the whole House. In reality, it is the m...
Political conflicts regarding oversight are becoming a common occurrence in Washington, but have you stepped back and analyzed why this is? These unnecessary strangle hold on the democratic process are due to a few common practices, party politics, a deference to the Executive Branch, and prioritizing voter concerns with wasteful government spending. Some cause more problems than others, but overall these are the three biggest causes. Party politics prevents Congressmen and Senators alike from rearing off the path of their political party stance. We also see voters own ignorance as a big part of the government waste problem. Many like to complain about problems in our laws, but then are supportive of the laws when they go through Congress. This makes it very easy to pass laws with waste because they know the general population most of the time will let it slide. If your party holds the presidency, but that president does something that is unconstitutional that party will most likely stand its ground supporting the president. While the Executive Branch is an office that deserves respect, respect cannot get in the way of the Constitution and the laws of the land. No one is above the law, especially people in high office if anything they should be held more accountable due to their importance in American life. Congressional oversight is a major part of the checks and balances system, and if these major problems continue to occur we will see more and more people abuse the American democratic process.
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.
I find it interesting that the decision of whether or not a bill should be passed and made a law all boils down to which representative gives a better speech. Also, until I was in this position, I didn’t realize that it can be quite difficult to persuade people to agree with you. Overall I feel like it is a fairly productive way of running our government. I feel this way because representatives of each party are given the chance to state their opinions on each bill and describe how it would benefit or hurt our country in the future. This gives the rest of our country an understanding of the many different ways you can look at a certain bill and how it may affect us. One moment during the Mock Congress process that both surprised and frustrated me was when the democrat party filibustered. To filibuster means to delay tactics. The democrat party did this by prolonging their speeches with unimportant information and asking silly questions supporting their party’s representative. Although this did frustrate me, it was quite
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
The Congress of the 1950s, known as the “textbook Congress”, is quite different than the Congress of the today. Our Author notes six legislative folkways that were noted by political scientist Donald Matthews, these folkways include apprenticeship, legislative work, specialization, courtesy, institutional patriotism and reciprocity. In the passage of time and a more partisan division in both the House and Senate the folkway of apprenticeship has disappeared and institutional patriotism has seriously declined along with courtesy in both bodies. A large percentage of the latest generation of legislatures also has limited acceptance of the concept of reciprocity. “Members of Congress may well reflect the declining levels of trust and civility within the public at large.” (Loomis, Schiller p.132) Due to these changes in the folkways past Speakers of the House have determined to hold important legislation until there is enough single party support to pass that legislation, a 2004 example of this was Speaker Hastert holding up legislation on major intelligence reform, a 2010 example may be the health care reform bill. The change in public views on civility and trust as reflected by the memb...
Van, B. S. D., & University of Pittsburgh. (1995). Post-passage politics: Bicameral resolution in Congress. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 6th edition http://digital.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/t/text/text idx?idno=31735057897302;view=toc;c=pittpress