Barret’s confirmation evidenced the rupture in American institutions
On October 27th, Amy Coney Barett was confirmed to the Supreme Court with just over a week before election day. Along a 52-to-48 majority vote, all but one Reublican supported Barett amidst Democrat resistance. Her confirmation evidenced both parties’ unwillingness to dialogue, evermore polarized and consistent standpoints, and a political system that empowers a shift in political tendency and autocratic institutions.
In the late sixties, most Americans consumed the news from similar media. Three mainly imparcial news networks represented most of American news source. With the rise of broadcasters, since the eighties, and newer sources, media started to specialize on determined audiences through ideology. Consequently, society has polarized through the confirmation of specific audience’s political biases via media particularization.
Based on a study by PEW Research, American society is more polarized than ever before; since the 1970’s, the divisive tendency has been steadily growing as voters become more ideologically consistent. Each party plays this up as it is the only game in town and at the same time represents fertile ground for political strategists in campaigns focusing on voters’ political identity, provoking a shift in their political tendency.
(PEW Research Center, 2014)
(PEW Research Center, 2014)
Historically, liberals represent the source of new ideas, which are countered with a natural reactionary response, politically mediated with dialogue and consensus between groups in Congress. As parties shift political tendencies, Republicans and Democrats have become unwilling to dialogue and reach consensus as Congress has divided in a system that permits polarization. Consequently, parties have further polarized their ideologies, finding themselves capable of denying dialogue with the opposing party putting forward their own ideals.
Political polarization has been evidenced through time as Representatives and Senators more often vote across party lines rather than perceiving their political opponents as adversaries who view the world differently and yet can dialogue with. (Andris C, Lee D, Hamilton MJ, Martino M, Gunning CE, Selden JA, 2015)
Graph by Andris C, Lee D, Hamilton MJ, Martino M, Gunning CE, Selden JA (2015)
Over the past few decades, the increasing use of the filibuster to limit the opposing party’s objectives has shown both parties’ unwillingness to dialogue. The trend started by Republicans, as a natural conservative response, has become a hardball game in which Democrats match Republican stakes as a response to the change in the conservative party’s ideology: a response that is source of further political polarization.
Graph by Todd Linderman, Retrieved from Vox.
As a result of the American political system, as both sides polarize and Republicans move, Democrats become obstructionists through equal polarization and foster a bigger reactionary response; ultimately, provoking both party’s polarization to different spectrums of the political compass and further division.
Throughout the past decades, the weaknesses of American institutions have been exposed. It has shown to be a system that does not allow parties to reach consensus and to be a means of political polarization. Bipartisanship has proven to be ineffective in proper governance polarizing and fostering partisanship over dialogue, taking strict political stances without providing common ground, limiting third parties from providing new alternatives, and paving the way to a constant struggle in the fight for power.
At the same time, the electoral college represents a failed solution for democracy and pluralism. The electoral college limits independent and third parties from attaining power favouring consistency in states over popular vote and limiting a truly representative democracy. Moderates are punished, and do not compete at the voting booth as a consequence of institutional bipartisanship bias and societal polarization.
Meanwhile, the growing use of the filibuster has allowed parties to deny dialogue with political adversaries, the key factor of an effective bipartisan system, and deepen political polarization. The filibuster fosters a bipartisan system into an everlasting and ever growing autocratic exchange for power with the unique goal of implementing partisan ideologies.
American institutions have fractured. Along the polarized shift in parties’ tendencies the narratives of particularized media are proven, leading to further societal division via increasing polarization and developing fertile ground for populist and divisive politicians. American politics are deepening into an everlasting spiral disease of destruction driven by an evermore polarized society and a system that promotes division between parties. Political institutions further polarize and reject political plurality through the effects of bipartisanship, the filibuster, and the electoral college, undermining the political system at the threat of populism and authoritarianism.
Abolishing elements of the current system, however, without an effective restructuring of its core element, the two-party system, could only lead to further polarization, political instability, and a pure majoritarianism. Nevertheless, an effective constitutional reform of that magnitude can only be achieved through bipartisanship, and growing polarization seems to make that scenario unlikely, condemning the system to self-destruction.
Amy Coney Barett’s confirmation has come to evidence the rupture in a deteriorated bipartisan system. An almost partisan vote evidenced both parties’ autocratic determination to achieving specific partisan interests, unwillingness to consensus, and a polarized Congress with contrasting and hypocritical discourses. The emanated protests denoted the harm of political polarization arisen from bipartisanship in a divided society everytime more willing to the unconditional defense of polarized ideologies and partisan goals, careless of incoherence, threatening a splintered nation with violence and despair between two despised.
References:
PEW Research (2014) Political Polarization in the American Public. Retrieved on November 2nd 2020 from: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/
Desilver, D. (2014) The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s. Retrieved on November 2nd 2020 from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/
Andris C, Lee D, Hamilton MJ, Martino M, Gunning CE, Selden JA (2015) The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0123507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123507
