Skip to content
Subscribe

Partisan Policymaking Hurts The Nation... And It Is Only Getting Worse

Published:

Federal rules and regulations are a source of discussion and debate whenever they come up. Some rules and regulations are straightforward and generally accepted. One example of this would be the interim federal safety regulations on the use of infant life jackets while boating. The regulation follows common sense, and stands aside in the presence of state law.

On the other hand, some federal rules and regulations become controversial issues, such as the Common Core standards of education. The Common Core standards traditionally belong to a “big government” way of thinking, which is more Democratic. Hillary Clinton is a vocal supporter of Common Core, as is Martin O'Malley. Bernie Sanders is non-vocal, but his voting patterns suggest that he is for state choice.

An Example of Partisanship in the 2016 Presidential Race

The Republican candidates should traditionally be against this “big government” approach to education. So strong is this perception that Jeb Bush, a strong and vocal advocate of Common Core standards, has come under fire from fellow Republicans. Other Republican candidates such as Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are direct opponents.

Chris Christie, on the other hand, was strongly pro-Common Core during his governorship. As he entered the presidential race and the competition heated up, he quieted on the issue. Currently, a team has been appointed to study Common Core and its effectiveness in education. The assumption is that he will make an updated announcement when the results come out.

This waffling is a distressing example of how partisanship can hurt impartial policymaking in the future change of administration. Obama's Race to the Top educational program was strongly dependent on Common Core. Republican candidates use criticism of the program to boost their own educational platforms, and make it seem “un-Republican” to do otherwise.

Impartial, Nonpartisan Voting Benefits the Nation

A great number of current social security and health care benefits enjoyed today had bipartisan backing. In 1935, under Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Social Security Act was passed with 16 out of the 25 Republican Senate votes, and 81 of the 102 Republican House votes.

Medicare passed under Democrat Lyndon Johnson with 13 out of 30 Republican Senate votes, and 70 out of the 138 Republican House votes. Two of the landmark social security policies, still in force today, were the result of bipartisan voting.

This kind of impartial voting is noticeably lacking in today's legislature. Under Obama, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was brought up for vote in both the House and the Senate. 83% of Democrats voted for it, while 95% of Republicans voted against. Even in the Bush Administration, tax cuts received all, but 1 of the Republican House votes, but only 7 of the Democrat votes.

Unfortunately, Legislative Partisanship Is Increasing

It is a proven fact that the parties are, indeed, becoming more partisan as time passes. A study by Rand Corporation assigned values ranging from -1 (most liberal) to +1 (most conservative) to each member of the House of Representatives. The values depended on their aggregate votes for a certain time range.

The results were fascinating. For the 87th House of Representatives (1961-1962), both Democratic and Republican members voted in the -0.125 to the 0.375 range. In other words, a fair amount were voting in the moderate range. On the other hand, in the 106th House of Representatives (1999-2000), the only overlap is seen in the 0.000 to 0.125 range. Public officials are voting more according to party.

Partisanship Will Hurt Partisan Officials In the Long Run

In the same Rand Corporation study, they discovered that roughly 25% of Republicans and the same percentage of Democrats rank themselves as 4/7 in a Liberal-Conservative scale. In other words, 50% of the voting population consider themselves moderate. The number of respondents answering either 1 or 7 were collectively around 5%, with the other 45% evenly distributed on either side of the moderates.

The mindset and perception of the elected officials is that they must fight tooth and nail to be obviously Republican, or obviously Democrat. However, they should take the changing electorate into consideration. As the number of independent voters increases, along with the number of moderate party-members, it would be well if the legislature shifted to impartial voting on programs and bills that would benefit the nation as a whole.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Partisan Policymaking Hurts The Nation... And It Is Only Getting Worse

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us