Looking back on the 1900s now, we see it as an era of political peace. The parties were not polarized and were largely overlapping, thus bipartisanship was common. After the presidency of Nixon, we began to see the decline of bipartisanship, however things were still quite good until the later years of George W. Bush’s presidency. It was at this point that the filibuster became a staple of modern politics. The filibuster is a technique resulting from the unique rules of the Senate. A Senator is allowed to speak for as long as they want, and on any topic, unless a 3/5th majority or 60 Senators vote to end the speech. The result of this is when a large enough minority of Senators oppose a bill, one of them can speak for the entire proceedings of the Senate for that day, such as the time Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) spoke for over 24 hours in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. However, because they have to continue speaking for this entire time, they need to talk about literally anything, which is how we saw Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) read Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham to the world’s greatest deliberative body. The purpose of the filibuster is to force the majority group to consider the desires of the minority, to guarantee that the voices of 50 Senators cannot be considered void due to the voices of another 50 (plus the Vice President). However, the majority is still the majority for a reason, and they should not be forced to have to accept whatever the minority says either.

For a long time, compromise was able to prevent the use and abuse of the filibuster. However, due to the polarized nature of modern politics, we have reached a point where compromise with the minority party is nearly impossible. As a result, the death of the filibuster is looming. The use and abuse of the filibuster had slowly been increasing during the late 1900s and early 2000s, but its death was guaranteed in 2013. Republican filibusters had prevented almost all of then-President Barack Obama’s executive and judicial nominees from being confirmed. In the face of this unprecedented opposition, Senate Democrats, the majority party, voted to require only a simple majority, or 51 votes, to end a filibuster on judicial (excluding the Supreme Court) nominees. You may be wondering, why couldn’t Republicans simply filibuster the motion to end the filibuster? Because the Senate chooses its own rules, its possible to change the rules of the Senate with only a simple majority. Thus, a simple majority of the Senate was able to vote to abolish the rule requiring 3/5ths of the Senate to support a motion. This move is called the nuclear option, because of the way that its consequences escalate. With this move, the death of the filibuster proceeded as expected. In 2017, due to Democratic filibusters on then-President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Republicans voted to only require a simple majority for Supreme Court nominations as well. Now, due to Republican opposition to nearly all of President Biden’s policies, there are now calls to end the filibuster altogether. In a world where the parties were able to communicate and compromise effectively, I would have supported the filibuster in order to protect the rights of the minority. However, when political polarization is preventing the government from functioning, I unfortunately have to support the abolition of the filibuster.

The United Nations recently released a report spelling out what we all already knew: climate change is getting worse, and every day it becomes more and more irreversible. President Biden and other world leaders have pledged to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but each year the world emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the year prior. It’s clear that we need to actually start working to limit climate change, and we need to start within the US first.

The United States does have a branch of the executive department dedicated to environmental protections, the aptly named Environmental Protection Agency. But despite this name, the agency is not all too effective because of how low its funding is. In 2021, the EPA was budgeted $9,237,153,000, but in 1978 they received $5,498,635,000, which would be almost $23B in 2021. The EPA is running on less than half the money today than it was four decades ago. With budget deflation like that, no wonder the US can’t stick to its environmental promises. Obviously, nobody wants to increase their own taxes to pay for more government funding, but there is a lot of excess fat in the budget that could be trimmed for increased environmental funding. Defense and Medicare are two of the most funded and most bloated federal programs; their excess funding could instead be used to fund the EPA. Unfortunately, this approach would be unlikely to receive any political support. Most Republicans are already opposed to climate intervention, not to mention that no Republican or Democrat in Congress would cut defense funding, and no Democrat would reduce Medicare funding.

There are more ways to pay for environmental protection. One of the most effective ways would be to implement a carbon tax. A carbon tax would charge individuals for their emissions, incentivizing people to choose greener options. The appropriations could then be invested into research to develop greener technologies. Obviously there is the problem that products that pollute more are cheaper than green products. A lower income household may not be able to afford a fancy electric car, solar panels, or even ethically sourced food or clothes. As a result, poorer people actually would pay more in a carbon tax than richer people. We should not exempt anyone from a carbon tax, so a solution would be to lower income tax rates even more for lower income brackets so that everyone is still incentivized to lower their carbon footprint. Another option is to return the revenue from the carbon tax back to the people. This approach would be more likely to receive support from both sides of the aisle. A carbon tax is already part of the Democratic platform. If it were framed as lowing income taxes, while giving people an opportunity to lower their own taxes, Republicans, as the party of lower taxes, would be more likely to support the idea.

“No taxation without representation” was a rallying cry among Americans during the colonial era who were upset at being taxed by the British Parliament, without being represented. They felt that their needs were not being heard so they were being unfairly treated. I’m not advocating for a new age revolution, but it is shocking how applicable this is today. Americans who live in a federal district or territory, even though they are citizens, have minimal say in national affairs. At least Washingtonians can vote in presidential elections, a right not afforded to citizens of the territories. However, none of these non-states can elect voting members to Congress, though D.C. and Puerto Rico can send non-voting representatives and senators, though with no voting comes no power. The population of Puerto Rico alone is around 3.28 million, which would be the 30th largest state by itself, and the total population of all non-states is more than 4.3 million. That is 4.3 million people who are being disenfranchised despite paying taxes, denied the very rights that the United States was founded on.

How can we solve this issue? The most popular idea is to turn D.C. and Puerto Rico into states, with all the rights and responsibilities that come with statehood. The other territories would probably not meet the requirements to be considered for statehood due to their low population. However, due to how politically polarized the United States is at the moment, this is unlikely to ever happen. This is because both D.C. and Puerto Rico would be Democratic states, so Republicans will not agree to make them into states. Another downside to this approach is that 50 states is a perfect number, and adding new states would change that. Not to mention this still ignores the other territories whose citizens are being disenfranchised. Another possible solution would be to have a system similar to the Indian reservations. Tribal lands are in the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the state lands in which they reside. However, Native Americans are still allowed to vote as members of that state. Therefore, even though these reservations are not states themselves, when it comes to elections, they are still considered part of a state. Something similar could be done with the territories. They could be considered part of a different state, maybe the closest state to them when it comes election time. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands would be counted under Florida, and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands would be counted under Hawaii. I don’t think this solution is as good as simple statehood, but it does guarantee that everyone has the right to have their voice heard, and it works under an already existing framework.

The Electoral College system receives a lot of hate, and for good reason. It is an inherently undemocratic system, meant to take power out of the hands of the people. The winner-take-all system means that votes of voters whose preferred candidate lost reelection do not matter. They only end up contributing to the popular vote, which does not matter either in an electoral college system. This is why in 5 of our presidential elections, the candidate to lose the popular vote has won the presidency. In addition, this means that votes in a majority of states do not matter. Most states, like Vermont or Wyoming, often vote overwhelmingly for one candidate over the other. This means that on an individual basis, votes do not matter since the state’s result is guaranteed from the start. In the 2020 presidential election, only 8 states had margins of victory of under 5%, and only 16 states had margins of victory of under 10%. This means that 34 states(+1 for the District of Columbia) and 335 electoral votes’ votes do not matter. Any system that effectively disenfranchises a majority of voters is antidemocratic and should not be allowed to stand in the world’s oldest democracy. It’s obviously an unrealistic scenario, but it is technically possible for a candidate to win the presidency with only 20% of the popular vote, a clear indicator of how ridiculous this system is. However, as things stand now, the Electoral College is a political issue because of the way it benefits Republicans and harms Democrats. For that reason, we will never be able to agree to reform it. Nonetheless, the Electoral College is still a fundamentally flawed system that degrades America’s democracy.

 

Even once the President is elected, the systems that follow are flawed, which we only discovered after the 2020 presidential election. After attempts to challenge the results of the election through the courts, supporters of former President Donald Trump attempted to overturn the results in unprecedented ways. First, by trying to convince state legislatures to ignore the official vote and send their own slate of electors to the Electoral College; second, by trying to have congresspeople object to the electoral votes during the formal counting of the votes by Congress; and finally, by storming the Capitol during the formal counting. All of these attempts eventually failed due to the actions of individuals who opposed the terrorists and chose to uphold the law. However, this revealed that we should not need to rely on people to make the right choice in the first place. Instead, our laws should be crystal clear so that nothing like this can ever happen again. Apparently, a bipartisan group of 16 Senators is working on legislation to tighten up our post-election laws so that there will be no room for loopholes within the laws. Obviously 16 Senators will not be enough to overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, but considering that objections to the election were rejected by margins of 93-6 and 92-7 respectively, an agreement can be reached that will win the approval of the Senate.

Recently, Stephen Breyer, the oldest justice on the Supreme Court, announced that he will retire, giving President Biden the chance to nominate his first SCOTUS justice. Breyer, 83, was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1994. Since 2016, Supreme Court nominations have been intensely bitter political battles. Merrick Garland, President Obama’s replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, was refused a hearing by the Republican Senate. Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s replacement for Scalia, saw the first use of the nuclear option on Supreme Court confirmation votes, lowering the threshold for confirmation from 60 votes to 50. Brett Kavanaugh, the replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed amid many sexual assault accusations. Amy Coney Barett, Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, might have been the bitterest battle yet, due to Republicans’ hypocrisy in confirming her in an election year while denying that right to Merrick Garland 4 years earlier. The last 4 Supreme Court nominations have been incredibly toxic. Compared to that, it is hard to believe that Breyer was confirmed with over 90% of the vote, the last justice to receieve such an honor. Even since then, Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan received 78%, 68.7%, and 63% of the vote, respectively. Clearly, up until the last 6 years, Supreme Court nominees were able to get some level of bipartisan support, even if its not the same level as 30 years ago. However, Gorsuch was confirmed with only three Democratic votes, Kavanaugh with one, and Barrett none. Considering that our political landscape is more polarized than ever, it is safe to assume that we have a similarly bitter fight coming up.

The Senate is currently evenly split between the two parties, with Vice President Harris’ vote giving Democrats a majority. No Democrat has ever voted against one of Biden’s nominees to lower district and circuit courts, and three Republicans have consistently voted for his nominees, specifically Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. Therefore, it seems like the best case scenario would be three Republicans joining every Democrat to confirm Biden’s nominee, however it is more likely to be even less than that. It is unfortunate that nowadays, Supreme Court nominees are judged by their political ideology, and not their qualifications. All of the past four nominees, despite their ideological differences, have been extremely intelligent and highly qualified, definitely worthy to serve on the country’s highest court. The focus on candidates’ ideological beliefs began with the nomination of Robert Bork to the court by President Reagan in 1987. Before then, nominees were almost always confirmed by extremely large margins, with objections being based on their ability to serve and not their beliefs. However, Democrats borked Bork’s nomination due to his opposition to several Democratic policies, most notably civil rights. Though this did not immediately lead to politicization of the nomination process, it definitely set the precedent that Supreme Court nominees could be rejected because of their politics. I wish that we could go back to how it was before, so that justices would only be considered by their qualifications and abilites, and not by whether they agreed with you or not.

Healthcare has become one of the most important issues in the US political landscape in recent times. The Affordable Care Act was President Obama’s most significant achievement as well as the most high-profile and controversial bill in decades. Healthcare is often a key issue in elections, with Republican candidates promising to repeal “Obamacare” and Democratic candidates promising to expand socialized healthcare. It is a key issue for good reason. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other country. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, healthcare spending is around 17% of America’s GDP, and the US spends around $11,000 per capita for healthcare costs; both figures are around double the average for developed nations. The federal government spent almost $1.4T on just Medicare and Medicaid in 2020, out of their total spending of $6.55T. At the same time, the American healthcare system is infamous for being absurdly expensive for patients. How can the government spend so much more on healthcare than other countries, yet citizens still have to pay more for healthcare than many other countries?

Clearly there is a problem with the cost of healthcare. According to the American Medical Association, the largest chunk of money is spent on hospital care, followed by other personal health care, physician services, and prescription drugs. The high costs of prescription drugs is due to the fact that Medicare cannot negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies and is forced to pay the company’s prices, which are already higher than they should be, since pharmaceutical companies charge higher prices in the US to subsidize cheaper prices in other countries. Insurance companies, which base their reimbursements on Medicare rates, are forced to pay more for drugs and shift the costs onto consumers by increasing premiums. Physician services are high due to high physician compensation rates in America. Physicians are able to demand high compensation due to their short supply. Hospitals are the biggest contributor to healthcare spending due to the high levels of administrative bloat in hospitals. Since Medicare is slowed down by bureaucracy and the insurance system is inefficient and expensive, hospitals have to devote entire departments to billing and following regulations, in addition to maintaining human resources and legal departments like many other companies. All these costs add up.

How can America solve this problem? America is culturally rooted in private enterprise and small government. Other developed countries, such as Germany and Australia, have managed to maintain a private healthcare system and keep spending low. However, this is with the presence of a government-funded public option. Government intervention is very unlikely in the United States. According to the Hill’s list of largest lobbyists, in 2016, numbers 3 through 6 were in the healthcare industry, representing insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors. All of these groups, which are consistently in the top 10 lobbying groups, stand to benefit from the status quo and will oppose any change to the healthcare system that affects their bottom line. It is not even guaranteed that government intervention would be beneficial, since it seems that the primary driver of healthcare costs is due to administrative and bureaucratic burdens, which government is generally the cause of, not the solution to. Therefore, the private system has little incentive to fix the current healthcare ecosystem, and the public system has little ability to fix it.

In conclusion, there are ways to fix healthcare in the United States, though none of those ways are realistic in our current environment. The private sector is designed to cost as much as possible, and the government cannot fix the problem but actually makes it worse. It would take a united populist movement to drive any change to this system; however, the country is so divided and polarized that this is unlikely to happen any time soon. Unfortunately, while both sides recognize that the current healthcare system is unsustainable and needs to be fixed, one side believes that more private enterprise and less government involvement is the solution, while the other side believes the opposite. Until they can reconcile these differences, or until healthcare costs rise so high that they have no choice but to do something, no meaningful changes will occur.