Distrust in Political Parties

Political Parties, as shown in Chapter 9 of our textbook are essential to the way America’s democracy functions. The book shows that the party does different things such as, keeping elected officials responsible, stimulating political interest, ensuring accountability, and making the political process easier for the ordinary citizen to understand. All of these are directly related to the government’s role of upholding popular sovereignty, and having two competing parties can make sure they hold each other accountable. The book also talks about the different eras that political parties have been through, and the era the country finds itself in now: The Parties at War. The beginning of this era is highlighted in the mid-90’s when President Clinton was in office and the Republicans took control of Congress. This era is characterized by the two parties separating from one another ideologically.

Something that is interesting to consider in this situation is the idea of political trust and how that has changed dramatically during this era. In the book Why Washington Won’t Work, authors Marc Harrington and Thomas Rudolph speak on the growing political distrust in Washington and the political parties along with the dislike towards one another. For example, while President Barrack Obama was in office a survey was done asking how much trust people had in government, over 50% of Republicans said never, 2% said most of the time, and no Republicans said always. Compare this to when Lyndon B. Johnson was in office and both Republicans and Democrats said they trusted the government almost always or most of time at rates upward towards 70%. Even during the Reagan years Democrats were hovering around 45% and Republicans weren’t far ahead. While there were discrepancies in trust as time went on, nothing compares to the numbers we see in the Bush and Obama presidencies. Another problem is the parties just don’t like each other. While ideologies in the electorate are not as polarized as the media and party leaders make it seem, the feelings towards each other are in fact very cold. It is staggering but true that Democrats hold more favorable views towards fundamental Christians than Republicans, and that Republicans hold more favorable views towards atheists than democrats. This is crazy to think considering that most Republicans and Democrats are closer to each other ideologically than either of those extreme groups.

Unfortunately, there are direct consequences in the government that can be clearly seen. It seems as if bipartisan cooperation is a thing of the past and parties spend more time attacking each other than trying settle differences in Congress. The effectivity of Congress has taken a direct hit by this, considering that the 113^th and 114^th Congresses have been the least productive of all time. So, when we ask is government working, the question remains unanswered. If the population is as diverse ideologically as the political parties make it seem, then maybe the unproductivity of Congress is just a reflection of the people. Or maybe the political distrust in this country has overshadowed the true ideological differences. Regardless, there remains the question if political parties are getting in the way of the government working at its full capacity?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/05/washington-doesnt-work-this-new-book-tells-us-why/?utm_term=.69effebe9a4b

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/311126-gop-congress-ranks-low-in-productivity-analysis

4 Responses to "Distrust in Political Parties"

Matthew Lidz says:

November 30, 2017 at 10:49 am

I agree with you that government cannot work when both parties hate each other. Another consequence of this hatred is policy changes being proposed generally benefit one party’s supporters to the detriment of the other party’s supporters. The tax bill being debated in Congress currently is an example of this. The GOP tax bill cuts rates for top earners and businesses is not unusual for a Republican administration to pursue. What is interesting is other proposed changes would disproportionately hurt groups of people who either vote Democratic or live in blue states. The proposed elimination of the SALT (State and Local Taxes) deduction would mainly hurt states with high local taxes such as California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. All of these states are reliably Democratic. The bill also reduces the mortgage interest deduction to $500,000 from $1,000,000. For homeowners in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco/Bay Area, LA, and D.C/Northern Virginia, mortgage interest can exceed these amounts. As with most cities, all of these areas are heavily Democratic.

Rising Republican mistrust of the American college and university system has consequences as well in the current tax plan. College students and holders of postgraduate degrees, both Democratic leaning groups would see the elimination of the deduction for interest from student loans. Colleges with large endowments would face taxation of said endowment if the tax bill is passed. I am not suggesting that the Republican party is deliberately attempting to hurt Democratic leaning groups to the benefit of their own. What I am implying is that the rising mistrust and hatred between the two parties leads to policy changes being seen as a zero sum game. That means that parties are incentivised to make changes that would hurt the opposing coalition of the other party. This is not healthy for democracy

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-big-blue-losers-in-the-gop-tax-plans/546665/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/
Alyssa Holt says:

December 3, 2017 at 2:13 pm

I find your comment about political distrust overshadowing the populations true feelings or accurately reflecting them particularly interesting. With extreme liberals and extreme conservatives attacking each other with negativity, there has been a huge increase in distaste towards the other political side and it has run down into the more moderate groups. In the 2016 election, both candidates were highlighted in an extremely negative light by the other party, resulting in dissatisfaction from many people with the candidates offered by both parties and a general distrust not only from extremists in the other party, but even some more moderate members of the representing party.

This political distrust may have started as an exaggeration fueled by extremists but it now controls the opinions and actions of both parties against each other and against other party members as well. Does this mean that what started as a misrepresentation has created a culture that now matches that misrepresentation of hate and mistrust?
Brittney Morris says:

December 3, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Omar, you ask a really interesting and difficult question. It is hard to measure the effectiveness of government. Do we measure it by the numbers of bills passed, how well the economy is doing, the number of issues brought up during congressional meetings? There are so many different ways you can define effectiveness it is hard to say that one Congress is better than another. However, one thing certain is the lack of trust in our government. As you said in a two party system each party is supposed to act as a check on the other party ensuring they do not get too powerful or abuse their positions. This does not seem to be the case anymore. The two parties appear to despise each other and do everything in their power to ensure the other fails. There is no longer bipartisanship or the idea of for the betterment of the country. Everything is focused on what each party stands for. This creates a huge divide between the parties and makes it next to impossible to achieve anything without having a majority in congress. While the Republicans do control 55% of the House of Representatives and 52% of the Senate, it is a relatively small window of control and results in a lot of push back from the Democratic Party. The lack of trust is clear with our current government. Our two presidential candidates spent the majority of their time bashing that other candidate and their party. This lead to extreme polarization of beliefs and what each stands for. For example looking at women’s rights issues we had Hillary strongly pro choice and for women’s reproductive rights, while Trump was so strongly against them that he signed a bill banning federal money going toward international organization that aid in abortions. This would be okay if it represented the interests of the American people, however the majority of American people are pro choice and support women’s rights. Having a government make decisions that are contrary to what the majority of Americans want further perpetuates the distrust and divides our control even more than it already is.
Spencer Yacos says:

December 7, 2017 at 12:15 am

There’s an easy correlation to make why people like the government less now compared to Lyndon B. Johnson’s time. The Watergate Scandal, which broke during the Nixon Administration, shattered public faith in leadership. While individual politicians can gain the trust of the American people, the faceless entity known as ‘American government’ has always been a punching bag for the left and right, who rail against broad corruption and cronyism. With the current Trump administration being historically unpopular and surrounded by scandal, it is very possible that the government’s reputation can go even further down. That being said, as we discussed in class skepticism of the government can be healthy for democracy, especially in times where it’s necessary for growth and reform.

Comments are closed.