Monday, October 8, 2012
In Congress, A Shrinking Pool of Moderates
With the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections a lot is uncertain. However one thing is clear that there will be many fewer moderate politicians in Congress. A combination of redistricting, retirement of fed-up law makers and large amounts of campaign spending to push these moderates out of Congress has been underway creating uphill battles for re-election. This has been occurring to centrist Democrats as well as Republicans and in turn is beginning to polar the House to a great effect. A census done by a professor at the University of Georgia and another from the University of Princeton concluded that the House has not been as polarized in over a century. This means that Congress, who failed to pass even the most mundane bills, will be even more stagnant without the the essential tie breaking power of the centrists. I believe that this is a step back for the American Political system and puts even more power into the hands of the radicals of either side making it easier for radical view points to be valid options in Congress. Not to mention Congress will be incapable of passing any legislature at all because of a lack of moderates that could help shift a bill one way and get it passed. The lack of moderates in Congress will prove to be poor decision by the radicals on either side of the spectrum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With a lack of moderates in Congress after the elections, no legislation will get passed. This lack of moderates will not help either Obama or Romney in office. This is going to make an already difficult process, harder.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara that not having enough moderates in congress will help Obama or Romney in office. Having less moderates in congress and having people people with opposite extreme view points will make it difficult to have anything passed in legislature. I agree that this is a set back for the American political system because it gives more power to the radicals of the two view points, rather than moderates.
ReplyDeleteMany people say that they feel there is a need for a third major political party, but I feel many of the reasons they give for the necessity of a third party can be accomplished through these moderate candidates that are being pushed out of office for example, political gridlock or agreeing with each party on some issues so neither party accurately resembles their feelings. I feel it would help these moderate candidates to list themselves as independents because of the more positive connotation than moderates.
ReplyDeleteAs Jeff stated, political gridlock will be present. It will be very hard to pass anything without moderates. Moderates are important because they can swing in either direction. If this isn't the case, there will not be a majority opinion.
ReplyDeleteHaving Moderates in congress is absolutely crucial to having legislature being passed. Assuming that every Republican votes the same for a bill, and Democrats voting the same for a bill, we could potentially end in a gridlock of a bill that may or may not be crucial to society as we know it. The votes of the Moderates will either have a bill get passed or rejected.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with everyone's previous comments about the fears of the "Blue Dogs" not being reelected into Congress, yet the article also mentions a second theory. This theory includes some sort of new deal-making consensus between a combination of Democrats and senior Republicans instead of a political gridlock. This consensus may occur because of a sheer necessity to avoid large tax increases and significant military cuts. I think this theory is worth considering.
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought it was hard enough for anything to be passed now! It's crazy that it's just going to get harder. It's a real shame that the opinions are so polar that it's stunting the possibility of any real change.
ReplyDeleteNo matter who wins this election partisanship is still a necessity and something they need to work towards. Nothing is getting done because everyone is so far to the extremes that agreement is just short of miraculous. Republican or Democratic president aside, Congress needs partisanship.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm the only one, but I don't see it as a problem that politicians are less moderate, despite most people being moderates. We pick politicians to represent the best of ourselves and our views. Therefore, wouldn't you want them to be opinionated and stand for something, rather than just be wallowing in the middle? Partisanship is not about "I hate you becuase you're on the opposite team", it's "I fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint". This does not mean that there can be no compromises, but in having politicians hard-set on what they believe in, when there are compromises, it is truly in the national interest as shown by the fact that either side was willing to budge. As a nation, we would be better off if people were more partisan because the reality is that most of the public who are moderate are apathetic. If people dislike political gridlock, then they should be more partisan and vote consistently!
ReplyDeleteAs far as the theory of compromise that Kate mentioned between the Democrats and senior Republicans in Congress, I believe that this is the most appealing option to pursue in order to avoid a political gridlock. None of these members of Congress wish to see "large tax increases and significant military cuts" that would inevitably occur without the cooperation of both parties. If the members of Congress struggled to pass legislature so commonplace as dealing with farms and highways this session, the difficulty of passing legislation will only increase as the more controversial topics are brought forth and Congress is even more divided next session.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grace. I'd like to think the people who run our country have a strong opinion on what's best for our country. They should stick to what they believe in and not be able to be easily swayed to either side for every bill. We knew what the people's intentions were when we elected them.
ReplyDeleteI do see where the disappearance of moderates in Congress raises the risk of gridlock and how this can be quite a pain when trying to pass legislation, however I do agree with Grace and think it is more important to have a consistent and partisan Congress and encourage voters to follow suit.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a smaller amount of moderates in Congress may cause gridlock, the people running our country should have very strict views of what is best for us as a nation. We vote for these people because of their views and if they can be swayed easily then our voice may slowly start to disappear.
ReplyDeleteI think the greater issue is not the specific party trends but that gridlock is prominent in the federal government today. While gridlock can occur within the same party, the increasing differences in the political stance of legislators will only worsen the problem. However, I do believe it is better for a politician to be firm in their beliefs. Hopefully government can work together for the good of the country rather than their own individual interests.
ReplyDeleteI would like to applaud Governor Schwarzenegger for actually doing something about partisanship. Partisanship is a pain and does nothing but polarize the country at the expense of progress. Even if one party completely seized congress and the presidency, they wouldn't hold it for longer than two year. Their actions would tick off moderates, driving them to the other party. The only thing worse than gridlock is being contradictory, which is something I can see America heading towards.
ReplyDelete