Politics is not black and white. Nothing about politics can be black and white due to the varying levels to everything and the vast hypothetical situations and outcomes of every issue create a cast grey region of politics which is impossible to track.

Trigger Warning: Abortion and Sexual Assault mentioned in the next two paragraphs.

To illustrate this grey area, let’s quickly dive into a highly controversial topic: abortion. The website isidewith poses survey questions about every major political issue in the United States. You can answer these survey questions by picking from a multiple choice list of popular stances regarding the topic Once you finish the survey, the website matches your answers to those of candidates, parties, and ideologies to see what you “side” with. When it comes to abortion specifically, the two main stances are pro-life and pro-choice: black and white.

If you select to view other stances, you are presented with the following stances in order:

• “Pro-life, and I also oppose abortions for victims of rape and incest
• Pro-life, but allow in cases of rape, incest, or danger to mother or child
• Pro-choice, but ban after the first three months
• Pro-choice, I don’t agree but the government has no right to ban it
• Pro-choice, and providing birth control, sex education, and more social services will help reduce the number of abortions
• Add your own stance.”

The issue has gone from black and white to having several shades of grey. It’s likely that you have heard several other stances on this issue in particular which only adds to the shades of grey.

This point of grey-ness in politics is a point I made clear in my previous blog post about the multi-party system. Nonetheless, this issue is important to address in a new light. This light being the extent in which politics, specifically political parties, represent US citizens.

With so much grey area yet only two main political parties, to what extent do political parties represent US citizens?

The answer is, unsurprisingly, not that much. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, only 57% of the US population identify with one of two major political parties (25% Republican and 32% Democrat). The political parties, by this metric, don’t define the US citizens. Not enough people feel personally affiliated to the main political parties, so to say that political parties are a strong representation of the US population, in my opinion, is simply dishonest.

The immediate rebuttal to my claim would be to mention that 98.2% of voting Americans voted for one of the two major political parties in the 2020 election, therefore the political parties do represent the US citizens extremely. My personal rebuttal to this is that support does not mean affiliation by any means.

I don’t like to play with semantics too much; however, supporting or voting for a party does not mean you affiliate with the party. One could have voted for person X because they preferred person X’s ideas more than the other candidate’s. Just because person X represents party Y, does not mean you are affiliated with party Y. Being affiliated with party Y would imply more than just a vote.

People do tend to vote in correspondence with a single party in election years, but I still would argue that doing so would not represent true affiliation or representation. As the Gallup poll demonstrated, a plurality of Americans would call themselves independent (41%) in which they don’t affiliate directly with either the Democrats or Republicans.

Another point which proves why political parties don’t represent the US populace is by looking at the distribution of Democrats and Republicans among varying levels. At the Federal Level, Democrats have control of the presidency, house, and senate. At the state level, there are more Republican governors, state houses, and state senates.

This inconsistency further proves that the political parties can’t really represent the US since even within our own system there is contradiction to some degree.

Ultimately, the political parties do not represent the US citizens to the extent that we let them do. For more information of the political parties and their role representing the US citizens, check out this article.

The United States was meticulously designed and forged by the Founding Fathers in the late 18th century. Did they do a good job at it? Depends on who you ask. From my standpoint, they did some things really well and other things not so well. Let’s talk about something they did well in my opinion: federalism.

Federalism is the true government type that we run in the United States. It’s defined as a layered Government form with a centralized system and subsystems that act independently and cooperatively with the centralized system. In the United States, that looks like the federal government as the centralized system, each state government as a subsystem, and local councils as a subsystem from both former government types.

Federalism is good in my opinion since it disperses responsibility and control throughout various sectors. The issues faced in Louisiana are not the same as those faced in Iowa, and neither of those issues resemble those faced in Arizona. Federalism allows each state to govern by their own means, such that a state government can focus all their attention to issues that pertain to the state at hand.

This goes even a step further when accounting local issues. The issues faced in Philadelphia aren’t the same to those faced in State College nor the ones faced in Erie. Federalism allows a local governing body to address and handle local issues. As a country we have layers, and federalism covers almost every layer there is.

Think of it this way. Who is responsible for speed limits? If there were a road with a speed limit which was too high or too low which you wished to change, you would not want the federal government to resolve that, would you? They have so much on their plate, they would never pay attention to a small road in Yourtown, USA. With federalism, you don’t have to call Congress for that change. Instead you can address this issue to your local government which can take care of that issue. Maybe even the state government if the road is big and important.

Believe it or not, most issues are dealt and handled by your State government. Think of the coronavirus pandemic. We keep hearing that certain states are implementing policy X, mandate Y, or that a state just removed regulations on Z (whatever X, Y, or Z may be). For example, we all know Florida was the first to open entirely and remove a mask mandate. This was a state decision. A local decision made in Arlington, Texas included opening Texas Rangers stadium to full capacity for opening day.

Believe it or not, the drinking age of the United States is actually a state government issue. There is a neat loop-hole for this issue in which the federal government got involved (see comments for the explanation), but regardless this issue was initially and technically still is a state’s right issue along with many issues. Another clear example is the difference in Marijuana legislation from state to state.

Note: I am not advocating for any example listed. I am simply providing the most famous or infamous examples. Also, note that local governments must abide by state law.

What I want to get across is the importance of federalism in this country. It seems to me that people look at the federal government for answers to all our issues. Sometimes, it is not in the jurisdiction of our federal government to get involved. This was a point taught to me in my high school government class which resonates with me today and I hope to get across to you with the examples listed.

We give politicians in Washington D.C too much credit for issues which are primarily resolved at the state level. True change can occur at the state level. Another example of this regards the Arkansas Governor who vetoed a bill which would ban gender-affirming surgery for people under the age of 18. Transgender rights is a hot topic in politics currently, and this pro-LGBTQ+ move by the governor was made at the state level.

If you want to see change, then look at your state government.

According to statistics pulled from The New York Times and CNN 98.2% of people voted for either the Democrat or Republican Party in the Presidential Election. This means that 1.8% of people decided to vote for a third party candidate; ⅔ of third party voters voted for the Libertarian Party. Let’s talk about it.

One may argue that people voted for a person rather than the party, however for the sake of this argument we will deal in absolutes. That being said I disagree with the notion people vote for people and not the party.

Third party voting is surprisingly not as uncommon as you would expect especially given how dominant the two leading parties are. That being said I can *almost* guarantee that you don’t know someone who is strongly affiliated with a third party such as the Libertarian or Green Party.

The reason I’m bringing up third parties is because I want you to reflect really quickly with your political party affiliation. Do you agree with every stance your affiliated political party stands by? Do you believe your political party is 100% correct? Do you disagree with everything your party disagrees with? Do you agree with the plans and tactics of your party? Does your party focus on things you care about?

If you said no to any of these questions, don’t worry. This is normal, actually. It’s almost expected. What if I told you, however, that there is a way for you to be part of a party that you agree with almost entirely?

Queue in the multi-party system. Multi-party systems are the best way to properly align everyone’s views and priorities in an electoral process.

Politics is a complex spectrum with literally millions of factors that must be considered to align someone politically. In our society, you will see people align themselves through their economic and social stances. An example of this is if a person is economically right and socially authoritarian, then they would be an ideal Republican. If a person is economically left and socially libertarian, then they would be an ideal Democrat. This is because the parties main agendas would best support these types of people.***

What if you are socially libertarian and economically right? Technically this falls within the Libertarian Party agenda, however with everyone being either Republican or Democrat, a person with that mindset is conflicted between the two parties. Same goes for someone who is socially authoritarian and economically liberal. If you’re interested in seeing where you land on all these, take the political compass test.

This is where the multi-party system comes in handy! Our country does not have a multi-party system, however our neighbors across the pond do. England and most European countries have a multi party system that controls their parliaments which not only prevent a majority in parliament but it also allows for more compromise and action to take place.

In the House of Commons, there are ten political parties with not a single one holding a majority of the entire house. According to BBC, there are over fifteen political parties to choose from. The parties pride themselves in promoting and voting for certain things strongly with their presence in the House such as Plaid Cymru which is a party that supports Welsh independence or the much larger Scottish National Party (SNP) supporting Scottish independence.

This menu of choices allows the voters to choose a party that truly fights for their cause and then get represented in the nation’s highest legislation and courts. It’s fairly common for nations with multiparty systems, such as England, France, and Australia, to have chambers of congress that have no true majority which forces the parties to seek compromise and alliance in favor to pass the best bills. Modern American politics pass bills solely off of party-lines which is obviously unfavorable.

From personal observation alone, I’d say that our country should have these parties: Democrat, Republican, Progressive, Moderates, Libertarian, and Green Party.

I must digress and admit that the UK voting system is favorable to the multi-party system whereas the American system is not as favorable. Nonetheless, it is an option and consideration that we as a country should invest in and seek after.

For the logistics behind how we could make it happen, listen to this great podcast: Can America Become a Multiparty System?

For more on the UK voting system, read this article: UK Gov Voting Systems.

 

*** Here are basic definitions of the terms used in this paragraph according to the Political Compass Test.

Economic Right: Desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations.

Economic Left: Desire for economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (often referred to as the State but can also be known as a network of communes).

Social Authoritarian: Authority should be obeyed.

Social Libertarian: Personal freedoms should be maximized.

It seems that political parties could not be more divided than they are today. We, as a country, have not seen this level of polarization. This is not an opinion, but rather a true fact. For example let’s see the senate votes for the past few Supreme Court in the graphic below.

Senate votes for Supreme Court Justices

The 1986 vote for Justice Scalia was nearly unanimous, and each following senate vote has become less and less bipartisan. This does not only apply for Supreme Court Justice votes; this applies to every single piece of legislation that comes through congress. It seems that every bill introduced and passed is announced as “it passed by party-line vote.”

Party-line vote is a way of saying that each member of one party agreed to pass it and each member of the other party did not agree to pass it. This level of partisanship has plagued our country terribly during times where we needed unity more than ever before. It’s the reason why it seems like it takes forever for anything to pass.

The greatest case study of this to be shared is the second Coronavirus stimulus bill. To summarize the case, what occurred was that the country was greatly affected by the coronavirus pandemic and many people suffered financial loss. According to Pew Social Trends, 42% of all adult Americans either lost their jobs or took a pay cut due to the quarantine and pandemic. The American people looked at the government to help resolve financial issues to perhaps help the individual or help the small business.

Initially, the government was able to land $1,200 per eligible adult. The bill was passed in March of 2020 which was the beginning of the lock-downs in most states, however a peculiar occurrence was that the second stimulus bill did not pass until December 2020. Nine whole months after the first. For more information on the timeline, click this AS news link.

Why didn’t the second bill pass until nine months later despite the nation still being in the pandemic and lock-downs? To put it lightly: bipartisanship has been dead for a while. The American people were suffering, and Congress couldn’t draft a bill together to benefit the people of the United States in a timely manner since they were too busy trying to make their opposition party look bad in my opinion.

This CNBC timeline discusses the first five months of stimulus conversations that were constantly at stake with each other. It was basically a roulette of the Republican-ran Senate passing a relief bill and the Democrat-ran House blocking it and then the Democrat-ran House passing a relief bill with Republican-ran Senate blocking that one and so on and so on.

This lack of partisanship is upsetting nonetheless.

Here’s one last graphic illustrating the polarization and lack of bipartisanship in our Government throughout the years. This polarization is dangerous and will continue to affect Americans. There is no concise and explicit reason as to why we are so polarized, so it will be difficult for our country to find unity under the hands of our own government.

Each Dot represents a Congressperson. The closer the jumbles of circles, the less polarized that Congress was. The farther separated, the more polarized.

The year 2020 demonstrated an incredible amount of politics around the United States. With what seemed to be constant protests, campaigns, a heated election, and an “X” factor that has never been unleashed before, 2020 taught us one thing: politics is growing among the citizens unlike ever before. What I wanna discuss is the infamous “X” factor I just alluded to.

If you couldn’t guess it, I’m referring to Social Media. Social Media services including, but not limited to, Instagram, FaceBook, Twitter, and TikTok quickly became filled with political content. With about 500 million daily viewers on Instagram alone, according to Oberlo, it makes sense that some portion of that would be invested in politics. The surprise came as to how big of a portion that became.

It’s difficult to really pinpoint how big the proportion is, however from personal experience I can tell you the 2020 election and events surrounding brought out a level of activism that I had never witnessed in my five years on Social Media. People of all ages, especially the demographic of high school to college students (infamously known as Gen Z), shared on their stories posts discussing political opinions. Accounts like @Feminist with 6.4 million followers, @blklivesmatter with 4.3 million followers, @SettleForBiden with just under 300 thousand followers before shutting down gained a great amount of attention with hundreds of thousands of likes and shares per post.

These accounts in particular were left-leaning accounts in support of Joe Biden during the race. I am not omitting right leaning by accident. The reason I didn’t mention any was because Instagram in particular is dominated by liberals. Business Insider emphasizes this in an article highlighting that Instagram seems to be helped greatly by the left whereas FaceBook is a little more right leaning. It’s worth noting that Business Insider argues that this could be an effect of the older crowd of people who use Facebook and not Instagram. Read the article for more details.

The middle ground of Gen Z politics I believe is in TikTok. TikTok gives political creators the power to react to the other side’s videos with comments, duets, and stitches. Duets and stitches allow a creator to talk about another creator’s work, and political accounts use these tools to “debunk” or debate the point of another TikToker.

TikTok holds something unique called hype houses. @therepublicanhypehouse has 1.1 million followers and @thedemhypehouse has around 250 thousand. Although the democrat hype house has a smaller following, let it be known that creators in the house have a stronger following such as Victoria Hammett, a left leaning 22 year old woman, who has 645 thousand followers. These houses share their opinions relentlessly and post constantly about information their side has to offer.

This Affinity Magazine article goes into depth regarding the increased use of politics in TikTok. This increase in political education through TikTok seems to be a result of 80% of young people believing the government isn’t doing enough to ensure the best possible life for the citizens of the United States. That statistic was used in the article; nonetheless, I personally do side with the 80% of young people who believe the government isn’t doing its best effort in ensuring freedom and happiness.

One final statistic I want to note comes from a Pew Research study that said that 55% of U.S social media users are ‘worn out’ by political posts and discussions. This makes us question if social media will still be an “X” factor in politics for years to come or if this increased politicization will die out like a trend and only resurface once every four years. I personally believe it will be the latter, but I hope not.

All in all, I appreciate the increased political awareness of my generation, however I disagree with the form they convey their activism. I implore those that read this article to correct me if I’m wrong, however I witness that the “discussions” or “debates” (yes, I am placing those in quotations on purpose) that occur through TikTok, Instagram, and FaceBook are incredibly ineffective and polarizing. However, I will hold this conversation for another day.

What’s worth noting is the increased growth and popularity of politics. Some thought provoking questions for you are: is the increase in politics through Social Media going to stay? Will Social Media have more power and influence in the future? Is this dangerous?

–

–

Here’s one last article by the New York Times if you want more information about politics in TikTok specifically.