Sabitlenmiş Tweet
With the public bitterly split on challenging problems such as immigration, energy, the economy, and government spending, government and politicians’ failure to reach consensuses feeds frustration with its incapacity.
This frustration stems from and feeds mistrust in institutions. Also, the compromising nature upon which the Constitution was written and ratified is now clashing with increasingly divisive partisanship.
This article looks at some of the causes of this discontent and the collision between the old and the new.
Note: The article leans a bit heavy on blaming Trump for mistrust in institutions and partisan polarization. It glosses over recent left-wing attacks on the US Supreme Court and discounts past aspersions towards local law enforcement agencies.
Those familiar with the Washington Post’s ideological leanings should be well-practiced at filtering through any real or perceived bias.
It cannot be discounted that government officials attacking institutions of which they are a part make effective functioning quite difficult, exacerbating disappointment and mistrust. While attacks have come from the left, Trump has made attacking institutions his calling card since entering politics.
The founding fathers distrusted making the election of the President subject to a popular vote and assigned the selection to electors. They failed to anticipate the rise of a two-party system and believed the House of Representative would often choose the President. During the first two hundred years, the president-elect failed to secure the popular vote three times. It has now happened twice since 2000 and may again in 2024. The apportionment of electors based on total congressional representation and red states tending to be less populated and more numerous, means an election winner who fails to secure the popular vote will tend to be Republican.
Less populated and more numerous red States also results in more Republican Senators representing less of the population. Hence, when Republicans have recently held a majority in the Senate, they did so while representing a minority of the population. Two of the least populated states, West Virginia and Montana, could flip control of the Senate from Democrat to Republican on 2024. This can also impact presidential appointments.
In the House, gerrymandered safe districts have drastically eliminated partisan competition for seats. In districts that lean strongly to the left or right, the primary contest is the true election. This results in races to the extremes, rather than to the middle. This, the partisan gap in the House has tended to widen, reducing opportunities at compromise. It can also result in disfunction if the majority held is slim. Note the numerous votes and intra-party compromises to elect a Speaker or the near-miss on default.
As the federal government has become deadlocked with the great ideological divide combines with narrow majorities, States are observing the opposite. Many states are governed by a single party holding control of the legislature and executive or through a legislative supermajority able to override a veto. This has resulted in cast policy differences among the states, as dominant parties have their way with priorities. For example, one state may have a near complete ban on abortion while its neighboring state may have practically no restrictions. I’m the face of inaction, some states have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants while others have taken to enforce the border themselves. Such polar policies serve to exacerbate the perception of an unbridgeable political rift in the nation.
In the end, public policy matching public opinion suffers. And on the issues Americans care about most: The Economy, Taxation and Spending, Security, Immigration, Guns, Abortion, etc.
Take immigration. A majority favors a secure border with a path to citizenship. Progress on comprehensive immigration reform remains lacking.
Your Thoughts?
English
