The following definitions are the interpretation in mind when used in discourse of this blog and are acquired from Wikipedia.
Democracy: A political or social unit that has such a government whereby the common people, considered the primary source of political power, exercised either directly or through elected representatives; majority rule, with the inclusion of the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within the community.
In practice, "democracy" is the extent to which a given system approximates this ideal, and a given political system is referred to as "a democracy" if it allows a certain approximation to ideal democracy. Although no country has ever granted all its citizens (i.e. including minors) the vote, most countries today hold regular elections based on egalitarian principles, at least in theory.
The most common system that is deemed "democratic" in the modern world is parliamentary democracy in which the voting public takes part in elections and chooses politicians to represent them in a Legislative Assembly. The members of the assembly then make decisions with a majority vote. A purer form is direct democracy in which the voting public makes direct decisions or participates directly in the political process. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level and on exceptions on national level in many countries, though these systems coexist with representative assemblies.
Socialism: An economic system of social organization advocating the social ownership and cooperative management of the economy, and the political theory supporting the system. Social ownership may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, or direct public ownership. A socialist economic system would consist of an organization of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs--goods would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities (labor time). Distribution of the output would be based on the principle of individual contribution. The political aspect includes reformist and revolutionists. State socialism advocates for the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange as a means of implementation. Libertarian socialism calls for direct workers' control and oppose state power/control to achieve its goals. Democratic socialism seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. As there exists many varying forms of socialism, each advocating different forms of ownership, no one definition can properly define each variation.
Communism: Is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. In Marxist theory, pure communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals. The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably with socialism.
Fascism: Is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture. Fascists have commonly presented themselves as politically syncretic—opposing firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, and being critical of the left, right, and centre. Fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior, has been noted as being a prominent far-right stance.
Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality. Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system. Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy. Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies. To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.
Libertarian: Refers to political philosophies which emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.
It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States.
Marxism: An economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism.
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie) who own the means of production, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, which leads to a proletarian revolution.
Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).
Federalism: A political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.
In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels.
Confederation: In modern political terms is a permanent union of political units for common action in relation to other units. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.
The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states, the central government and the distribution of powers among them, is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations, while tighter confederations may resemble federations.
Majority Rule: Is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations.
[American] Liberalism: A broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought. The main focus of modern liberalism in the United States includes issues such as voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as: equal education opportunities, access to health care, transportation infrastructure, basic food for the hungry and basic shelter for the homeless.
[American] Conservatism: Respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion", and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments". The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and the legalization of same-sex marriage. Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel. Paleoconservatives, in opposition to multiculturalism, press for restrictions on immigration. Most conservatives prefer Republicans over Democrats, and most factions favor a strong foreign policy, a strong military, and strong support for Israel.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
The Great Experiment
The
Great Experiment
On
a cold February day in Springfield, Illinois, in the heartland of the
United States, a forty-six year old African American man stepped up
to the podium and announced his candidacy for the office of the
President of the United States. For this man to have such a unique
opportunity, two hundred years before his birth, a group of men, born
into the right time, had the courage to give birth to the first
democratic nation. On July 4, 1776, fifty-six colonists from all
across the British colonies in North America assembled in
Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence and by doing
so changed the course of history. The day in which the colonist shed
their British shackles and ascended into the light where they stood
tall and declared to the world; “We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America,” (Jefferson, Preamble) the world was
shaken by such magnitude that it was evident to all that a new era
had begun. Upon the creation of the United States and her citizens,
this country has always and forever shall be one of diversity,
equality, and freedom for the sacrifice of any of these would
undermine the hopes, dreams, and purpose of the Founding Fathers.
In
the early 17th
century after the New World was being settled, the Atlantic Coast was
colonized and had become a fruitful source of resources and wealth
for the British Empire. No enlightened man could have fathomed that
these thirteen colonies would one day rise to become the most
powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world. For those
thirteen original colonies to evolve from a ragged band of farmers
into industry leading technicians and businessmen a great deal of
immigrants left their homes to come to the United States to try and
fulfill the ideals that in America life could be better. Often they
themselves did not succeed in achieving the “American Dream” but
their future generations, seeded by the struggles of their parents,
helped to shape the fundamental structure of the United States. Since
the colonial days, America has always been a land of diversity. From
the Europeans who first claimed the coasts and encountered the Native
Americans, to the Africans who were stolen from their lands and
transported across the sea, and to the Asians who migrated during the
Expansion West, all have come together to form a nation unlike any
other. A nation that has been wrought with civil violence,
segregation, civil war. A nation that has also bounded, burying the
rivalries of their fathers, and matured as a whole to benefit from
the differences and similarities of one another. The United States
has been the only country ever to attempt to be a nation of
immigrants; to be a nation larger than what the color of one's skin
is or the religion they practice, and as is written in the supreme
law of the land, “We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union”.
Since
the Enlightenment of Europe, great minds have fiddled with the notion
of equality. Even from the ancient ruin cities of Rome and Athens
equality of men was a problem that plagued some of the world's most
impressive philosophers. This idea was transcribed by Thomas
Jefferson as he wrote the Constitution, “The foundation on which
our constitution is built is the natural equality of men.” The
citizens of the United States are granted the right to be equal to
all and that is essential in the American philosophy. Throughout the
nation's turbulent past this right has been infringed upon and
illegally restricted to particular ethnic and religious affiliations,
and by the grace of the descending generations such flaws were
removed from society so that the belief that the United States is
equal and united may survive. The United States cannot hold certain
ideals true and yet not practice them and it has been proven in our
history that the enlightened people will not stand by and watch as
their fellow countrymen are abused and discriminated against. Equality is an
essential part of the American way of life and the American people,
and shall continue to be upheld by the law that governs all
Americans.
Freedom,
as it is often said, is not free. Since the end of the Revolutionary
War, 225 years ago, to the current struggle against terrorism the
American people have always and fiercely believed that freedom is
something worth dying for. Today, it is a luxury shared by scores of
countries and is often taken for granted. The United States was the
first modern country to offer and protect this right; however, the
various ethnic groups have not always been allowed to share this
right despite the word of the Constitution. For the first eighty
years of existence, the southern United States practiced and profited
from slave labor, and until the early and mid 20th
century a large portion of Americans—women and African
Americans—were denied the rights that were the basic theories of
American freedom. “Here is my advice as we begin the century that
will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideals at all costs.
Be alert that dictators have always played the natural human tendency
to blame others and oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a
guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of the
people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression,”
(O'Neill, 2081: A Hopeful View of the
Human Future). Freedom has been a
double edged sword in the case of the United States. In our
constitution, we grant all Americans access to the freedoms protected
by the Bill of Rights, though, in the past as now, strict ethnic,
religious, and sexual orientation groups have been the target by
conservative majorities to ban or restrict their freedoms. These
restrictions have always been found by the descendants of the
majority to be unconstitutional and repelled so that all Americans
may be united under the banner of freedom.
The
United States of America is the privileged home of hundreds of
millions of people who are all, in some shape or form, the embodiment
of what it is to be an American. This great experiment of society has
produced the finest the world has to offer. Everyone who carries the
mantel of their ancestors to live on as Americans has qualities that
are unbeknown to them but shine brightly among those who watch from a
far. An American is not merely being born in this land or migrating
here, it is something more; an American is someone who strives to be
better than who their parents were, someone who has a strong desire
to help their fellow man, and someone who believes that the
challenges we face, we face together. An American is strengthened by
the differences that combine to weave a net of diversity, holds all
men and women with the same esteem that they are by birth equal, and
that cherishes every freedom that is defended by fallen constituents.
“It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get where we are
today, but we have just begun. Today we begin in earnest the work of
making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit
better than the one we inhabit today,” (Barack Obama). This
Nation's strides forward greatly outweigh the demons of our past, and
only through continued acceptance of one another can the United
States hope to survive.
On the Origin of American Partisanship
On the Origin of
American Partisanship
By Means of Socio-environmental Factors
As
2011 came to a close, the Congressional approval rating reached the historic
low of 11 percent, translating in 86 percent of Americans disapproving of the way the 111th Congress conducted its
business in Washington (Newport, 2011). The polling numbers reinforce the
growing frustration many Americans feel towards Congress, but where is the
animosity stemming from? The most popular answer seems to be partisanship. Politicians and pundits
throw the word frequently when discussing Congress and the current state of
American politics as a whole, but what does partisanship
mean, what are the causes of partisanship, and why is it apparently so
pervasive in the present American political scene? If partisanship began
permeating American politics after
1980, then the socio-environmental factors influencing the development of
future politicians began in their youth; therefore, their political attitudes
evolved into ones more polarized, which has had a cascading effect since 1980
on the whole of political culture in the United States.
The politicians of
the 1980s were the first generation to bring partisanship to the levels of
government, as their generation, the generation that came of age during the early
days of the Cold War, matured. The members of the 97th Congress
averaged an age of approximately 51 years (Alex Lowe, Kurt
Wilberding, Ana Rivas, 2011). Using that information, the average year
of birth would be 1929, and then the average year of adulthood would be 1947. With
1947 as the beginning of the period for when these individuals would be most
likely have been influenced by external forces, one can predict how the
post-war world would have impacted the future members of the 97th Congress.
The emergence of the United States as a
superpower, the beginning of the Cold War, Korea, the threat of Communism,
McCarthyism, the inception of the modern Civil Rights Movement, it all began in
the 1950’s. When these eventual members of Congress were leaving for college
and making their life their own, the external pressures of the reality of the
world began to bear down upon them.
“It may metaphorically be said
that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world,
the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding
up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its
organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes
in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages” (Charles
Darwin, Origin of Species, 80, 1870)
Darwin
provides a compelling explanation for why partisanship appears to have begun after 1980; it is because the
socio-environmental factors that were born out of the post-war 20th
Century took root within the malleable minds of the youth of the 1950’s. Their
parents’ generation had survived the Great War only to see another looming on
the horizon. Reluctant to face the challenges posed by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini,
their parents’ generation hoped that by appeasement and isolation, the prospect
of another worldwide confrontation would simply fade away.
In
contrast, the generation that came to age during the 1950’s and 1960’s
experienced a new world, one fraught with new challenges and opportunities in
the wake of the devastation of World War II. The war had transmitted to the
sons and daughters of the era the need to be resolute and bold; the seriousness
of the enemies the United States faced created divergent approaches to
combating the problem. The environment of the post-war era gave rise to
political attitudes that grew progressively less compromising as the generation
matured; the evolution was slow but steady, until “ages” had passed before
partisanship came to American politics.
If
this assumption is correct, that socio-environmental factors are responsible for
the increase in partisanship over the past thirty years, then those who
participate in politics (vote) should also have been affected. There appears to
be some support between the political polarization of elected officials and their
constituency. Voters who were parented by the generation born in the 1930’s
(baby boomers) would have been influenced by their parents’ political views,
which themselves had grown more intense. Turnout for voters between 45 and 64
years of age has swayed congressional elections in favor of partisan candidate.
Although voter turnout for this age group has actually decreased from 62.2% in 1982 to 51.1% in 2010, the combined turnout
for 45-64 years old and 65 and older age groups out votes all other age groups
combined (United States Census Bureau, 2011). These voters express more
partisan views because they were raised under parents and in a society that had
already begun to become more partisan. As they continue to age and as the older
population tends to vote in a higher respective percentage, they will further
skew the politicians’ own political attitudes.
Many
voters tend to think of themselves as being moderate,
regardless of how they affiliate with either the Democratic or Republican
parties, and if voters are in fact moderates, and there is only a correlation,
not causation between voter age group turnout and the partisanship of the
elected candidates, then there must be another factor at work. The assumption
is that the majority of American voters are moderates. For this to be the case,
the influence of socio-environmental factors of history and parenting would
have been minimal. In a 1992 Gallup Poll survey, 43% of Americans polled
identified with moderate as their
political ideology. Over the past nineteen years, that number has changed to
36%, falling short of the number of Americans who identify as conservative by five points. The number
of Americans identifying as liberal
has too, increased, albeit only from 17% to 21%. Americans regardless of their
political ideology are beginning to openly associate themselves with a
definitive ideology; Americans are moving away from the center and towards
either the left or right ends of the political spectrum.
But, what could be responsible for the shift
away from the center? Why are Americans becoming more comfortable with the
notion of political identification with liberal or conservative priorities? One
potential source of partisanship that has been identified is the
socio-environmental factors of heightened political and social pressure after
World War II and throughout the Cold War. The other is one that has worked in
accordance with the catalyst to intensify partisanship: The Congressional practice
of redistricting whereby districts have been solidified into Democrat and
Republican safe zones.
If one district has at least 50
percent of its constituents from an antecedent district, the two districts are
“linked.” If a district does not have at least 50 percent of its constituents
from an antecedent district, they call it a “new” district. They find that
members from these new districts have more polarized roll call voting records
than members from linked districts. In the 1992 round of redistricting, for
example, they find that the 63 members from new districts were almost 25
percent more ideological than the members who were elected in old districts.
(Sean M. Theriault, 2005).
Once
polarized candidates came to power, they and their increasingly polarized party
leaders used redistricting to create these havens for their respective future
candidates. In such districts, candidates would have to further reinforce their
political views to win an election, particularly any election where their seat was being challenged. Theriault
quotes Bryan Jones’ from the Seattle
Times in summarizing redistricting in practice, “Lawmakers elected from
solidly safe districts have less incentive to compromise…Homogenous districts
add to the polarization of political parties.” Districts that have become
dominated by one political ideology over the other do not demand that their
representatives look to compromise in Congress because their representative
embodies their political desires. Redistricting has also resulted in the rise
of political segregation, increasingly escaping the political arena.
Partisan
politicians used the powers of their office to recreate the districts so as to
favor their party in elections over the other. The effect has been to
consolidate liberals and conservatives into districts that are typically
populated by one political ideology. This was an intentional purposefully perpetrated
by both parties over the last three decades. An unintended side effect has been
to foster a new form of self-identification that has spread beyond the
political arena. Shankar Vedantam argues that partisanship has become the
newest form of discrimination in American, effectively, he says, it has
replaced racism as a means by which people perceive others during first
encounters.
Consider this thought
experiment: I have two neighbors, Jack and Jill. Jill is an African-American
woman and a yoga instructor. Jack is a white man and an evangelical Christian.
I've told you nothing about Jack and Jill's views about abortion, government,
guns, taxes, or foreign policy. Yet most of us would have no trouble guessing
that Jill is a Democrat and Jack is a Republican. How do we know this? Because
social identity—race, gender, religious affiliation, geographical location—play
an outsize (and largely hidden) role in determining our partisan affiliations.
(2011).
As political affiliations have evolved to encompass one’s
social identity, they have come to determine, or largely influence, behavior.
People with more liberal leaning political attitudes are increasingly likely to
migrate to “blue states” or liberal-friendly regions of a city or state, and
the same is true for those of conservative attitudes. The discrimination aspect
of political-social identity was examined in a study that Shankar Vedantam
cites in his article, “Partisanship Is the New Racism,” where he summarizes the
following: Average voters of either party, when reviewing GPAs, SAT test
scores, and recommendation letters, were less likely (from 79% to 44%) to
choose to accept into a university a student if they were aware their political
affiliation differed from their own, even if they had the lower test scores.
Just as in the scenario with Jack and Jill, the race, gender, occupation of a
person has come to reflect their likely
political attitudes. Similarly to racism, it is effecting how one American
interacts with another, going so far as a doctor in Mount Dora, Florida posted
a sign warning supporters of President Obama to “seek care elsewhere” and
“changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years” (Stephen Hudak,
2010).
Not everyone, however is comfortable with the placing the
blame squarely on redistricting or even on the politicians themselves. Anthony
Horvath, a blogger on the website “St. Jonny.com,” believes that the source of
partisanship has sprouted from the voters, specifically moderates, whom he
feels are unable or unwilling to identify with either liberals or
conservatives.
Consider then what
has happened in the span of just THREE YEARS. A bunch of people roundly
rejected the ‘failed policies of George W. Bush,’ voting in uber-liberals
across the country. Then, disgusted with the horrific government intrusion
and massive overspending carried out by Obama and his ilk, just TWO YEARS
LATER, they swept out Dem after dem and replaced them with Republicans, many of
whom were staunch Tea Party types. Then, these Republicans implemented their
policies to the extent that they could, and in outrage the populace lashed out,
going so far in places like Wisconsin to have recall elections of several state
senators (2 GOP senators fell) and arranging for a recall election of Gov. Walker.
(Anthony Horvath, 2012).
In
the following paragraph, Horvath continues in stating that the true liberals
and the true conservatives do not possess the numbers to elect these
increasingly partisan candidates. Candidates work to solidify the support of
their base, those who have openly identified themselves as either liberal or
conservative, and then use much of the campaign season to garner a sufficient
number of moderate supporters to win the election. In American politics, a
narrow victory, even in a contested district, can appear to a candidate as a
mandate from the people to implement his or her partisan policies. That is the
pattern in which American politics has been cycling; candidates campaigning on
sweeping changes are elected, then find their attempts to implement the policies
they campaigned on as a liability in their next election. The moderate voters
hold a tremendous amount of power in American politics; this has been admitted
by every candidate for president for the last thirty years, but the moderates’
attitudes on the direction government seem to change from one election to the
next.
If
the majority of American voters are in fact “middle of the road” moderates, if
they were not as greatly influenced by the events of the world during the
second half of the 20th Century as their elected officials have been
since 1980, and if there has not been a snowball effect of partisanship from
one generation to the next, then the cause for partisanship in America must be
explained through the voting habits of moderates. Redistricting produced
Democratic and Republican safe seats in Congressional elections, and has also
had the effect of consolidating more politically ideological voters. Moderates
would appear then to be caught in the crossfire of the political battle; giving
their support to the opposing sides, perhaps in an effort to bring politics
back to the center, but which has apparently had the opposite effect. But, the
cause for partisanship cannot be leveled at moderates, the perpetuating of
partisanship, conceivably, but not the cause.
The
cause is rooted in the history of both the world and the evolution of the
United States since 1945. The rise of the United States as one of the world’s
two most powerful nations, the growth of prosperity in America, the racial
tension and demand for civil liberties, the rampant fear of nuclear war and
Communist subversives, political scandals and assassinations, the waging of
unpopular war, all of these socio-environmental factors influenced the
generations that lived through them. Hardline stances had to be taken more than
once during the last fifty years of the 20th Century by American
presidents and politicians for the sake and survival of their principles. These
attitudes that followed the deadliest conflict in human history were transmitted
to the youth of America that witnessed the changing mechanics of politics, and
could not help but be imparted with similar perspectives that eventually were
no longer aimed at America’s enemies, but fellow Americans.
The
United States has become more polarized and partisan in its politics. There is
no one single cause for the increase partisanship: The fault can be placed upon
human nature in a changing society—and responding to potential nuclear
proliferation—the redistricting that party leaders used to strengthen the power
of their party, and development of political identification, and the balancing
act in which moderates seem to play. It is a living organism that will grow and
evolve as the attitudes governing politics and human interaction change with
each generation, but although I have identified the post-war era as the
catalyst for the rise of partisanship in which we experience today, it has
always existed. There is not a single civilization that has not been plagued by
it; some, such as various European systems thrive from diverse political
parties with partisan agendas. There has been an evolutionary jump in the
American political system with regards to partisanship and polarization, but
eventually, the American people, politicians, and political system will adapt.
Bibliography
Anders,
Gary. “Partisanship Is Here to Stay.” The
Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard LLC. 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 7 April 2012. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/partisanship-here-stay
Furman,
Jonah. “The Senate Since 1980.” The Awl.
The Awl. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 4 April 2012. http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/the-senate-since-1980
Hudah,
Stephen. “Mount dora doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere.” Orlando Sentinel. Tribune Newspaper. 1
April 2010. Print. 4 April 2012. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-04-01/news/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401_1_health-care-obama-supporters-doctor
Horvath,
Anthony. “Contrarian View: The Real Cause of Hyper-Partisanship: Moderates et.
al.” St. Jonny.com. Athanatos
Christian Apologetic Ministry. 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 2 April. 2012. http://sntjohnny.com/front/contrarian-view-the-real-cause-of-the-partisan-divide-in-the-united-states-moderates-et-al/1850.html
Lowe,
Alex and Kurt Wilberding and Ana Rivas. “The Capitol’s Age Pyramid: A Graying
Congress.” The Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal. Web. 11 April. 2012. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-CONGRESS_AGES_1009.html
Newport,
Frank. “Congress Ends 2011 With Record-Low 11% Approval.” Gallup Politics. Gallup. 11 April. 2012. Web. 11 April. 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/151628/congress-ends-2011-record-low-approval.aspx
Saad,
Lydia. “U.S. Ideology Stable With Conservatives Leading.” Gallup Politics. Gallup. 1 Aug. 2011. Web. 11 April 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx
Theriault,
Sean M. “Party Polarization in Congress.” 14 Oct. 2005. Print. 8 April. 2012. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lmartin/Speakers/Theriault.pdf
United
States Censor Bureau. “Elections: Voting-Age Population and Voter
Participation.” The National Data Book.
United States Censor Bureau. 2010. Web. 12 April. 2012. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-age_population_and_voter_participation.html
Vedantam,
Shankar. “Partisanship Is the New Racism.” Slate.
Slate Magazine. 24 Jan. 2011. Print. 6 April 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_hidden_brain/2011/01/partisanship_is_the_new_racism.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)