Author: pmn5228

To wrap up the final post analyzing politics as a civic issue, a prevalent topic that we have not yet discussed is the power of money and lobbying in elections and the government. Originally, lobbyists did not hold as large of an impact on the government and political world as they do today. However, over time with new laws and court case rulings, such as Buckley v. Valeo, lobbying continued to expand through political action committees (PAC) to its current influence in the modern day. This growth in lobbying has significantly affected the modern election system with “purchases of government positions” and “spreading of misinformation”.

For instance, in the most recent election in 2024, a PAC was formed by Elon Musk in support of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. This PAC spent over $200 million in order to help support Trump against his opponent, Kamala Harris. From his lobbying support, Trump was able to further promote his campaign and even included Elon Musk at his political rallies. According to PBS, Musk’s continued efforts for Trump’s campaign eventually allowed him to receive “…an enormous job of searching the federal government and rooting out inefficiencies and waste” (Brangham). Because of Musk’s lobbying support, he now has a government role in Trump’s administration, showcasing how lobbying can “buy positions” in the government.

Furthermore, lobbying can also be seen in the case of social media algorithms. For instance, Elon Musk’s ownership of X was utilized to promote misinformation about Kamala Harris by altering the algorithm for suggested posts. According to NPR, Musk had “…ramped up his public promotion [by] interviewing Trump live on X…” (Bond and Allyn). By adjusting the algorithm in Trump’s favor by featuring posts/videos including him, Musk severely influenced X users’ opinions and votes in the election. This further portrays the ability of “lobbying” purchasing positions after Trump assigned Musk to a government position.

With Musk’s appointment in this government position, many citizens and government workers have expressed their concerns regarding his qualifications. To this day, there are daily concerns regarding whether Musk should continue holding his position.

Personally, I do not believe that Musk should hold this position, and I believe that lobbying should not be able to purchase government positions. Although these individuals significantly contributed to presidential campaigns, promising positions of power can lead to underqualified government workers and undermine the “democracy” in America. Furthermore, despite these lobbyists not being the actual candidates for office, they influence the image of the actual candidates in both beneficial and harmful ways. Overall, I believe that there should be laws passed to limit lobbying in order to help protect the legislature and government from the influence of these groups and PACs.

While continuing our discussion on politics as a civic issue, a prevalent topic that we have not yet discussed is the validity of political updates released to the public. Originally, political updates were broadcasted on radio and in newspapers. However, with developments in social media and television, these updates are able to be spread much more efficiently to larger groups of citizens. However, the rise of this “quick” news has also led to significant misinformation being spread to citizens.

For instance, during the most recent election in 2024, there were several debates between both the Democratic and Republican candidates leading up to the election to help promote their campaigns to citizens. During these debates, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spread misinformation about their opponent’s side in an attempt to dissuade voters who planned to vote for their opponent. For instance, from the live stream recording of the 2024 Presidential Debate by ABCNews, Kamala Harris attacked Trump claiming that “It is well known that he admires dictators…” and how “It is [also] well known [that] he exchanged love letters with Kim Jong-Un” (ABCNews 1:00:39). Neither one of these statements had substantial proof that could counter or support them, confusing the public as to what they should really believe. With this significant amount of misinformation, many citizens began to believe their false statements.

Similarly, a post from the social media platform X, JD Vance, Donald Trump’s VP partner, spread misinformation regarding how migrants had been eating cats and dogs in Ohio. According to JD Vance, he had previously “…raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio” (Vance). Despite having no substantial proof to confirm his statement, Vance accused the immigrants in Ohio of causing chaos in order to advance his party’s campaign. Similarly, other candidates in recent elections followed this trend of using social media to deliver misinformation to citizens in an attempt to sway them in their favor.

This significant amount of misinformation present in politics nowadays has severely clouded recent presidential elections. Instead of candidates being selected based solely on their qualifications and promises to American citizens, citizens are now being influenced by “insults” and “rumors” spread by each candidate. Instead of relying on their own opinions about their qualifications, citizens are now voting in a manner to “avoid” the rumors spread about the other candidate. Due to this, I believe that laws should be passed to prevent unjustified slander by political candidates against their opponents, and instead statements should have some level of proof to justify their claims.

In continuing our discussions about civic issues in politics, a major topic frequently in conversation is the United States’ Electoral College System. The Electoral College system has been established for hundreds of years and plays a significant role in specifically presidential elections. However, recently, many citizens have started expressing their concerns and contempt for the long-lasting system with growing American values for democracy.

For instance, until recent elections, the Electoral College’s role was only occasionally questioned, often with new reform laws. The 1968 election was just one election that attempted to revamp this system with the ratification of the Bayh-Celler Constitutional amendment that passed in the House of Representatives, but eventually failed in the Senate. However, in recent years, citizens have started to physically protest the Electoral College system, directly challenging its significance in accurately representing their votes. This protest contributed to the January 6th Capitol Riot in early 2021, where citizens questioned whether their votes were being accurately represented with the recent 2020 election results. Despite this protest, the “House and Senate both rejected Republican objections to the Electoral College count – one focused on Arizona’s votes and a second on Pennsylvania’s” according to USA Today (Garrison and Shesgreen). This protest showcase this continued debate on the Electoral College’s significance, as well as whether it should continue to exist.

Similarly, many citizens have expressed concerns about whether the Electoral College accurately represents their vote through the distribution of Electoral College votes. The Electoral College was designed to prevent smaller states from being overpowered by states with much more population. However, this has resulted in certain instances where the winning candidate is not the popular vote of the election. Citizens expressed concern about how a candidate could actually win if they were not also the popular vote. Also, in certain states dominated by a single political party, citizens have expressed how it is pointless to vote if they are members of the non-dominant party. Thus, the Electoral College system has also raised questions about the real value of a single vote.

These concerns about the Electoral College and voting have continued to grow for several decades. Overall, I believe that this system has both its pros and cons. While the system may seem as if it reduces the value of a single vote, this same flaw comes with the benefit of protecting smaller states in the election. I think that instead of completely destroying the system, a few new amendments could help the system accurately determine the president in accordance to the popular vote as well. This method would help increase the value of each vote while still serving the same protection factor for smaller states at a national scale.

When continuing our discussion on civic issues in politics, a major prevalent topic that we have not yet discussed is the United States’ Foreign Policy. Originally, the United States operated under a system of isolationism where the government attempted to avoid engaging in any outside conflicts that did not involve them. However, over the last 100 years, the United States has constantly changed with the rise of new leaders and ideologies.

For instance, until this month, the United States had been holding increasing responsibility as a global power. The United States created diplomatic relations with a variety of nations in an effort to promote democracy and trade. However, with President Trump’s inauguration, foreign policy has once again changed. According to The New York Times, “It’s not just a reversal of previous administration policies…but a reversal of the fundamentals of American foreign policy since 1945” (Broadwater). President Trump has attempted to resolve conflicts that the U.S. is involved in, and is currently attempting to reverse back to isolationism ideologies for foreign policy.

With this pattern of reversing toward isolationism, the United States has also decreased their aid to other countries. According to the Pew Research Center, President Trump has attempted to “…freeze foreign aid and shutter the primary agency that distributes it…” (Desilver). Not only has President Trump pushed for an isolationist policy, but he is attempting to push the United States toward focusing on itself by playing a lesser role in the health of other countries. This change will not only affect the economy of the United States, but globalized networks throughout the world.

Currently, there is no major common ground for foreign aid between both the Democratic and Republican parties. Just before President Trump was elected, foreign aid was much higher, as seen on the map. The Democratic Party and President Biden encouraged U.S. involvement in supporting third-world countries toward prosperity and growth. A few of the major countries supported by the U.S. in 2022 included Ukraine, Israel, and Ethiopia.

This debate of the right foreign policy and just how much foreign aid the U.S. should be offering to other countries has been ongoing for several years because of the difficulty in creating one true answer that fits all situations. The change in policy and aid from President Biden’s Administration to President Trump’s Administration shows the vagueness of the line that justifies the United States’ role in globalized affairs/issues. Due to the lack of a “clearly defined line” for foreign policy and two political parties with vastly different views, it will likely continue to change in future decades. Furthermore, with these changes in foreign policy, there will likely be continued changes in foreign aid because of new global concerns (i.e. new conflicts and alliances). Thus, foreign policy will likely continue serving as a civic issue in politics for many years.

When attempting to further examine modern Politics over recent years, bipartisanship is often revolving in the conversation. The United States has operated under a bipartisanship system for hundreds of years with two major parties: The Democratic Party and The Republican Party. These parties created platforms with opposing perspectives on current issues (i.e. Abortion, Gun Control, etc.)

However, this bipartisanship system has recently declined because of a rise in polarized values. According to The New Yorker, this polarization”…[was] more or less inevitable because of the speed of Internet communication, the inherently adversarial and mostly anonymous characteristics of online chatter and the isolation that comes with staring at a screen all day” (Kang). The social media algorithm and ability of users to choose who to communicate with anonymously greatly accelerated the decline of bipartisanship. Users began to only communicate with those who believed in similar political ideas, and this caused the users to much more strongly perceive that their beliefs are the only answer to an issue. Furthermore, certain platforms align themselves with one party, increasing the amount of content seen by users for that party compared to the other. With both of these features, individuals struggle to amend their perspectives to reach a common-ground with those who disagree, creating a polarized view.

Similarly, this decline in bipartisanship and rise in polarized views can also be noticed during Congress votes. For instance, the vote on Obamacare in 2017 created many divided sides on whether Obamacare should remain instituted in the United States. According to CNN, “…the Republicans did not have a comprehensive plan to replace the landmark health care law and they couldn’t get unanimity in their party even for a pared-back attempt to hollow the act out.” Although Republicans were unable to pass their own law negating the Democrat’s Obamacare law, they were also unable to create any changes on it because of their own disagreements within their party. Furthermore, a variety of techniques such as presidential vetoes, filibusters, and anonymous holds further decreased the chances for compromise and bipartisanship. This lack of bipartisanship illustrates the rise of polarized views limiting compromise when attempting to settle major issues.

Despite this lack of bipartisanship, the government is still able to pass laws using the President’s ability for executive orders. For instance, certain presidents have targeted voting access and smaller improvements in the quality of life of citizens via these executive orders.

Overall, despite this decline in bipartisanship, I believe that the polarized views can be reversed through laws that limit techniques such as the Filibuster in Congress. Removal of these techniques will force both parties to find common-ground much more easily. Bipartisanship is important in the U.S. because it allows for different perspectives on solving key issues. These solutions will consist of new laws and practices that will improve quality of life for both current and future generations.

When attempting to view modern politics as a civic issue, a concern regarding changes in civic discourse is often involved. Civic discourse is the process of two individuals interacting with each other courteously as they discuss their opinions and ideas. Without civic discourse, modern democracy in the U.S. cannot function due to a lack of order and stability when attempting to listen to two different, contradicting ideas. This order and stability provided by civic discourse makes it a common practice in modern politics.

However, civic discourse has gradually disappeared over the years with the rise of social media platforms being used by politicians. Although these platforms can be used beneficially, they can also spread misinformation and false claims. According to The New York Times, Trump established ” …a steady stream of dehumanizing anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric” that was able to be spread quickly via social media to promote his beliefs and rallies during the election.

Social media can also tailor the algorithm to find content that matches your views, creating a false sense of companionship where an individual feels that their view may be the “right” and “only” view because they see many other individuals with their view compared to other views. In-turn, this trend affects the individual’s approach to civic discourse with opposing views because they feel much stronger about their views.

These strong emotions held to views are also associated with a lack of civic discourse and an increase in heated arguments with less information exchanged fluently between both parties. According to a second The New York Times post, today’s efforts to promote civic discourse have failed because discussions often include “…student against student” interactions. Although the Stanford campus encouraged civic discourse, students continued to support their own views without attempting to strongly listen to any individual with opposing views. The choice of ignoring the opposite ideas from another student demonstrates how although civic discourse is being promoted, more and more individuals have gradually begun to ignore the practice because of their strong views towards their own perspective.

Despite these trends indicating that civic discourse is ailing, civic discourse can still be improved by having individuals practice it from an early age in school or university classes. Over time, a greater emphasis will be placed on these skills through this system, establishing civic discourse as a common political practice again. This revival of civic discourse is important because civic discourse is not only a skill that affects conversations on politics, but all individuals’ daily lives. The importance of civic discourse justifies the need for more engagement in civic conversations by students in order to help maintain this skill in future generations.