Compromise in the United States Congress

Can We Compromise As A Nation? Or Is It Too Late?

On January 20th of 2021, after a tumultuous year of devastation that surmounted what any political party could have orchestrated, President Joe Biden was sworn into office. On the steps of the U.S. Capitol— where just weeks before, the largest and most destructive insurrection in modern history occurred— Biden delivered an Inaugural Address that would serve as a declaration, possibly a plea, for unity among American citizens:

“The American story depends not on any one of us, not on some of us, but on all of us… to overcome these challenges— to restore the soul and to secure the future of America— requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: Unity. Unity.”

Despite a chart-topping 33.8 million people tuning in for President Biden’s address, the concept of Unity is one that has long been departed from American territory. Starting at the beginning of the century, and possibly exacerbated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, citizens of the United States have been in a constant tug-of-war with each other over the best policies to implement for the greater good of the nation. These conflicts have spilled over into the White House as well, with Congress members becoming more and more divided on substantial legislation— it seems as though the country is at a standstill, and has been for a while.

Jennifer Wolak, the author of “Compromise in an Age of Party Polarization,” understands this troubling concept, and even offers up some reasoning as to why:

“Why does compromise seem so hard to achieve? The seeming scarcity of compromise in Washington might be the product of stubborn ideologues and divided parties within Congress, but it might also be a consequence of the demands of the electorate. Legislators who resist concessions and stand firm to their convictions might be doing just what voters want them to do… If this is true, however, then citizens must shoulder some of the responsibility for gridlock in Congress. If the American public sees no value to political compromise, then legislators who fight only for their convictions and refuse to try to find common ground are merely acting in line with the wishes of their constituents.” (Wolak, 13)

The unwillingness of Congress to compromise on important issues does not mean that President Biden hasn’t introduced bills for their consideration, however. In just four short months, Biden proposed two major legislations— the American Rescue Plan and the American Jobs Plan. For the first plan, President Biden signed a massive $1.9-trillion coronavirus relief package into law on March 11, after a grueling and long debate between the U.S. House & Senate as to what components of the bill should make the final cut. The final vote for the amended bill was 220–211, just barely slipping through the cracks. Even though a CBS Poll showed that 70% of Republican citizens supported the measure, the majority of opposers in Congress were Republican. This challenges Wolak’s theory that most legislators are voting in line with what their constituents want.

The second plan, the American Jobs Plan, has not been voted on yet. The American Jobs Plan, according to President Biden on the whitehouse.gov website, is “a plan that puts millions of Americans to work to fix what’s broken in our country: tens of thousands of miles of roads and highways, thousands of bridges in desperate need of repair. But it also is a blueprint for infrastructure needed for tomorrow— not just yesterday, tomorrow— for American jobs, for American competitiveness.” In the same speech, President Biden reiterated the importance of action: that inaction is not an option (potentially referring to Congress).

So far, numerous polls have shown that there is a substantial amount of support for the proposal. One in particular from Data for Progress shows that 73% of all voters, and 57% of Republicans are in support. This doesn’t necessarily give hope for the measure to be passed in Congress, however, seeing as the aforementioned American Rescue Plan struggled to pass with similar support.

An Op-Ed by Jeffrey Sachs, published by CNN, suggests that the American Jobs Plan is “a comprehensive, well-targeted and timely approach to America’s many long-term economic ills, responding powerfully to 40 years of federal neglect.” An Op-Ed by Stephen Moore of Fox News, however, suggests that “Biden’s proposals will likely speed America further along the track to bankruptcy, higher interest rates, higher inflation and much higher taxes.” These conflicting opinion articles are only two of many differing opinions on the plan, and only add to the big question of whether the plan will pass in Congress. 

With this in mind, there are a few ways that it could pass in the next few months. The first utilizes budget reconciliation— if Democrats in Congress were to lump everything together into one budget reconciliation bill, and bypass the 60-vote threshold of the Senate filibuster, it could eventually pass. The second way is if Democrats are able to pass multiple budget reconciliation bills, giving them more options to pass Biden’s job plan in multiple parts. The third way is the least likely, because it involves Democrats and Republicans working together to pass a bipartisan transportation reauthorization bill. Committees in the House and Senate are currently working on this bill, which comes up every five years.

Taking into account the public’s opinion on the bill, two major news organizations’ influential opinion articles on the bill, and the history of bipartisan legislation (or lack thereof), I believe that the chances of unanimous support in Congress for the American Jobs Plan are slim. In fact, I think that the passage of the bill will likely end up in a similar position as the American Rescue Plan— with smaller parts of the plan being voted out, much like the $15 minimum wage measure that never made it into the final bill.

Like Wolak said in her book, “both the design of government and the deepening divide between the political parties represent significant challenges to the prospects for congressional compromise.” One can only hope that the past year has provided enough crises for lawmakers to open up to the idea of compromise in the White House. 

The Correlation Between Media Coverage and the 2016 and 2020 Elections

(This is an essay I wrote for my Media and Modern Politics class. It analyzes the 2016 and 2020 elections and how televised media played a role in the outcome.)

The 2016 U.S. Presidential election, in hindsight, was one of the most exceptional and unorthodox elections in modern political history— and it wasn’t just because both nominees lacked substantial experience in the presidential realm (many of the past nominees have been incumbent presidents or vice presidents). According to Words That Matter, a book published in 2020 by several authors of varying political and technological backgrounds, there were a few key aspects that made this election so different. More specifically, it was the combination of two major factors: first, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were seen as two of the least-favorable presidential candidates in recent history, according to a Gallup poll. Trump received a 61 percent unfavorability score, compared to Clinton’s 52 percent— solidifying them as the worst and second worst in presidential polling history. In addition to this (and possibly because of this), the authors found that news coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign “was more negative than in previous presidential campaigns, consistent with these campaigns being the most unpopular nominees in polling history” (Bode et al. 22).

    Despite the unprecedented negativity surrounding the two front runners, 139 million American citizens still cast a ballot on Election Day, resulting in the highest influx of voters ever recorded in U.S. history— and as a result, President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January of 2017. And with more and more people turning to social media rather than print media to get their news, questions have been raised as to how influential these sources have been for the people that cast their ballots. How does the media process election information? And better yet, what information ultimately gets absorbed into the minds of registered voters? The authors of Words That Matter used five major datasets to help answer those questions. 

The first of the datasets was a Twitter Daily Random Sample database, which consisted of a random sampling of 5,000 tweets each day about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The information was collected from July of 2016 until Election Day. Through this sample, the authors were able to see what exact topics were being discussed about the two candidates by everyday people. Here, we can see that despite a number of topics skyrocketing to the forefront of public dialogue, Hillary Clinton’s historic “email scandal” reigned supreme.

The second dataset used was the Twitter Journalist Database, which included 1.97 million tweets posted about the candidates from over 930 influential journalists. Clinton’s email scandal consistently ranked near the top of this set as well.

The third dataset included a collection of over 40 thousand articles written by prestigious newspapers. Once again, the Clinton email scandal prevailed.

The fourth dataset, and possibly the most relevant dataset to this essay, was a compilation of telephone surveys conducted by Gallup, Inc., an American analytics and advisory company known for its worldwide public opinion polls. In this set, Gallup asked approximately 500 random people a set of two questions, everyday: “What specifically do you recall reading, hearing or seeing about Hillary Clinton in the last day or two?”, and “What specifically do you recall reading, hearing or seeing about Donald Trump in the last day or two?” The answers varied depending on the day, but by now one could guess the major answer recorded among those polled.

Based on all of these datasets, we can conclude that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal served as a sort of “Achilles heel” for her subsequent downfall in the 2016 election. We can also conclude that the frequency in which prestigious news organizations and prominent journalists covered the scandal influenced how important the scandal would become to everyday voters (whether that email scandal deserved to solidify Clinton’s loss in the election is another discussion entirely).

Now, if we travel four years into the future, we may be able to see some correlation between how the media played a major role in the final election results in the 2016 election versus the 2020 election. While the authors of Words That Matter released their book far in advance of the most current election, it is safe to assume that the data concluded in their research still applies today.

The 2020 campaign drew some parallels to the 2016 campaign in many ways— the most relevant being that towards the end of the election, both Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden had favorability ratings that consistently dipped below 50% (according to Gallup, Inc.). 

“The biggest thing that stood out to me with the 2020 election was how polarizing it was… many people didn’t seem happy with either candidate. Both the 2016 and 2020 elections were like this and seemed to let radical viewpoints flourish within the voting populace,” Savanna Judith, a Junior at Drake University said.

What may have been a defining factor in the 2020 election, however (and what many say led to Donald Trump’s defeat), was an increase of people voting not just for Joe Biden’s policies, but against Trump’s. 

“Women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community really influenced who I was going to vote for. I have a lot of friends and family who are in these groups, along with myself. I asked myself, ‘what candidate would benefit these groups the most after this next election?’”, Kim Bates, a Junior at Drake University said. 

Towards the end of Donald Trump’s presidency, and after the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January, his approval rating dipped lower than it had ever been in his term. Additionally, a record number of Americans polled (57%, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll), wanted Trump immediately removed from office for breaking the 25th amendment. And either by chance or by correlation, in the weeks that followed it seemed as though the only thing the media was reporting on was the attack.

“The biggest thing I remember hearing in the news about the election was the riots at the Capitol, and how so many people wanted [Trump] out of office after it happened,” Ander Johnson, a Junior at Drake University said. “I already had voted by then, but it kind of helped solidify my vote.”

The frequency of negative media coverage surrounding the candidates doesn’t seem to be the only influencing factor among registered voters. In a September 2020 poll by Gallup, Inc., 6 out of 10 people in the United States reported little or no trust in mass media. The influence of the media, as well as the topic of “fake news”, led to a widespread debate on whether or not certain media outlets could be trusted over others.

“I remember the vast amounts of times the truth was twisted, slander was supported, or the media was stifled during this recent election. Additionally, a great deal of information and misinformation followed the 2020 election,” Savanna Judith said. 

Judith also gave some input into how she ultimately decided who to vote for. 

“The most important thing to me when deciding to vote on a candidate was choosing one who was not going to stifle my identity and look to [make] a better tomorrow for everyone,” she said.

In addition to what the authors and the people I interviewed said about the media’s involvement in the election, I will also provide my own input. Much like my colleagues at Drake, some of the biggest things I remember about the 2020 election were the negative components of it. I vividly remember the intense media coverage of the capitol attack, as well as the constant dissection of false claims made by Trump. Similar to Savanna and Kim, I wanted to vote for a candidate that was interested in giving a voice to marginalized groups. I believe one of the biggest reasons why Joe Biden ultimately won the presidency was because a majority of the media covered Donald Trump in a negative light, thus furthering people’s negative opinions on him. Additionally, the book spends a significant amount of time discussing how middle and low engagement voters (those who don’t consume media as often) tend to be more susceptible to influence when they encounter political information. When groundbreaking news stories came out surrounding the capitol attacks, Trump’s demeanor during presidential debates, and his reaction to the COVID-19 health crisis, even the lowest-engaged voters found those stories hard to miss— simply because they were everywhere. I believe this could also have played a part in the final ballot numbers. 

Given that the media is one of the most influential players in who ultimately ends up in office, I believe we should be concerned about how the media will evolve in the next several years. Social media is rising fast in popularity, and with it lay numerous pin-triggers that, if crossed, could lead us down a path that may permanently change the way we are influenced by political media. I already see several concerning issues that come with media consumption— and at this time, I don’t think anyone has a concrete answer for how to combat these issues. Time will ultimately tell what route we end up taking.

Facebook in Politics

(This is an essay I wrote for my Media in Modern Politics class. Do you use Facebook? How often do you see political discourse on the website?)

The concept of Facebook originated as all other concepts do— with an idea.

And according to the primary developer, Mark Zuckerberg, the idea started with a mission to give people the power to build community and bring members of the world closer together. Since the beginning of its conception, Facebook has been a source of controversy for many different reasons. From the obvious dilemma surrounding its humble beginning as a “hot or not” app for undergraduate male students; to the lawsuits against Zuckerberg by three Harvard students who accused him of stealing their idea; to controversies surrounding tax avoidance, censorship policies, and handling of user data; and finally the Antitrust lawsuit that rocked the country last year, there has never been a time when Facebook was not under intense scrutiny by the public. Does any of this change the global impact that Facebook has on its users?

 For Jordyn Conard, a junior at Drake University, it does not. Despite the dozens of social media sites that exist for the sole purpose of connecting online users to other users around the world, Facebook is an app that Conard still visits daily, sometimes multiple times a day. As a cheerleader at Drake, Facebook serves as a way for her to keep in contact with friends, family, and organizations that would not be as accessible to her on other apps— like Snapchat, Instagram, and Twitter. In recent years, Facebook has been coined by millennials as a “hub” for older generations to congregate in one place. It can be theorized that a majority of younger users on the Facebook app do so for the purpose of staying in touch with loved ones who have not yet planted their feet into newer, sleeker apps like Snapchat. Conard doesn’t necessarily use her Facebook account to post anything, but she does enjoy looking at the content others put out on their public timelines.

 “The app itself comes with its pros and cons. I like seeing my memories pop up from years ago because it reminds me of what I was doing two, or three, or four years ago today. I also enjoy keeping in touch with my grandparents who don’t use any other social media app. I don’t like the ‘stories’ element on the homepage, and rarely ever use that function. Also, the ads seem to take up half of my timeline and what I do see on my timeline is out of order. I also get several irrelevant notifications on my phone every day for a cousin’s friend’s babysitter’s birthday,” Conard said.

The topic of curation is not one that only Conard seems to take issue with. In recent years, Facebook’s use of curation on their News Tab has been a source of public discourse. In August of 2019, Facebook announced that they were going to hire a team of veteran journalists to work around the clock to collect, organize and contextualize information that would be given first-priority in being shown to users on the app. When news of this spread to the public realm, it raised questions surrounding the inevitable biases that could take form when a group of humans were in charge of what the majority of the public saw on their screens everyday, according to an article on Forbes magazine. In the weeks that followed, members from both major sides of the political aisle took offense to this new implementation. Conservatives suggested that the content on Facebook was primarily focused on Democratic and left-leaning politics, and Democrats suggested that this curation didn’t do much to stop the influx of fake Russian-backed accounts from influencing public opinion on the election.

“I think Russians and people of the like have hacked into Facebook before,” Amanda McGowan, another junior at Drake University said. “That’s really scary to think about because if the issue was as wide-spread as people say it is, I think a lot of people could have potentially been influenced by this.”

McGowan doesn’t use Facebook nearly as much as Jordyn Conard does, but she checks in periodically to see what her family is saying about politics. McGowan comes from a conservative line of families, but her immediate family leans left. She says she rarely posts anything other than sporadic comments trying to correct her secondary family members on their political opinions. When asked if she believes her family members have received biased or inaccurate information through Facebook, McGowan responded, “absolutely. I don’t think my aunt would have voted for Trump in 2016 if she hadn’t been flooded with false information.”

I will admit, my own personal Facebook habits are quite similar to Amanda’s. I can’t count how many times I have engaged in public quarrel with someone on Facebook over a political difference in opinion. And thousands of others, I’m sure, can attest to that too. What started off as a way for people to come together and build a community around personal experiences has quickly shifted into an Amphitheatre of political discourse.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, the author of “Anti-social Media” also describes his personal use of Facebook in a more light-hearted tone. He even goes as far as to call himself a “social media power user.” 

“…when Facebook became available to those with an @nyu.edu email address in 2004 I signed up immediately. I didn’t think deeply about social networking in those days. But its importance in my life and the lives of two billion others has forced me to master it… I have discovered many fascinating works of thought and culture via Facebook. Through [it] I have befriended people I have not spoken with since we were small children. I have followed friends’ children as they have grown up and left home. I have mourned the passing of more than a few friends and dear relatives…I have learned a lot through Facebook.” (Vaidhyanathan, 43)

For even one of the most prominent and outspoken criticizers of Facebook, Vaidhyanathan seems to use the app just as frequently as those who blindly support it. Despite this, Vaidhyanathan concludes his book with a summons. He suggests that all of the dangers surrounding Facebook must be mitigated soon, or we would enter into a rocky territory that will be impossible to crawl out of. In order to fix this problem, Vaidhyanathan urges readers to study the issues surrounding Facebook, construct proposals that take all stakeholders into account, introduce them carefully with consideration of their potential effects, and argue honestly about the best ways to move forward. But after interviewing multiple Facebook users, and analyzing the habits of both myself and Vaidhyanathan, it doesn’t seem like this idea is one that will make it past its early stages of conception. But the global powerhouse that is Facebook originated as all other concepts do— with an idea. And seeing that something so powerful originated from a rundown dorm room at a college in Massachusetts may give us hope that our ideas can become a powerhouse, too.

###

The Dream of Fifteen— How a Progressive Idea Is Paving Its Way Into the Forefront of American Policy

(This is a political article I wrote for Drake University’s Drake Political Review about the minimum wage in America.)

Numerous studies have shown that both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of increasing the federal minimum wage, which has stood at $7.25 since 2009. The question among Congressmembers is, to what extent and how fast? Progressives have their own idea.

It’s been more than a year since the COVID-19 pandemic made its presence known in the United States, and many Americans are still struggling to deal with the economic aftermath. Progressives have long pushed for a $15 federal minimum wage, and they believe the idea is more important now than it ever has been— but questions have been raised about the effect a wage increase would have on the country. Is $15 a fix-all policy, or will it hurt the economy?

Supporters of the $15 minimum wage experienced a glimmer of hope in January when President Biden introduced a massive $1.9-trillion coronavirus relief package into Congress. A key proposal in President Biden’s initial plan included a federal minimum wage increase of $15 an hour. 

Their hope was short-lived, however. 

After widespread debate between the House and Senate as to what components of the bill should make the final cut, the $15 wage increase was struck down in a vote on March 5, 2021. To add insult to injury for progressive Senators, seven of their fellow Democratic Senators and Independent Senator Angus King voted against the measure.

The push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour did not begin with President Biden’s relief plan, and it won’t end with it either. Progressive lawmakers have long advocated for an increase in pay for low-wage workers, citing that anything under $15 is not a livable wage for any American, let alone one who is trying to support a family on a single-income. With 65% of the population supporting an increase in the minimum wage, questions have been raised about why this measure would be voted out of the final relief package, especially by Democratic Senators. 

“The simple fact of the matter is that $15 as the minimum wage is just barely a living wage,” said Pete D’Alessandro, the Iowa director for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and 2018 candidate for Iowa’s third Congressional District. “And to have people that are working 40 hours a week not be able to sustain even a basic dignity, in terms of their day-to-day, is absolutely wrong… $15 is the low point, and there shouldn’t be any negotiations lower than that.”

The next step for members of Congress who are in support of the wage increase is an attempt to use reconciliation, a budget process that would let Democrats bypass the 60-vote legislative filibuster. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will be responsible for drafting a resolution in the coming weeks that will cater to this idea.

“We need to include [the $15 minimum wage] with a bigger package so that lawmakers have to vote up or down on the full package, and we would do that if there is a vote on reconciliation,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), an avid supporter of the $15 minimum wage. “We have the power to make it part of the reconciliation… but it’s going to require Republican votes, and I am going to lead the charge on that.”

It has been over 11 years since the last time the federal minimum wage was raised, and many feel that another wage increase is long overdue. In 2012, the “Fight For $15” movement popularized the concept of $15 being the minimum hourly rate for workers. Since then, seven states have passed legislation to phase in a $15 minimum wage in certain cities, including New York, California, and Washington. This “magic number,” made popular by Progressive Democrats and grassroots campaigns, has caused controversy in both the political and economic realm. 

In a 2015 survey conducted by the UNH Survey Center, nearly three-quarters of U.S. based economists opposed a federal wage of $15, citing that the measure will have negative effects on youth employment levels, adult employment levels, and the number of jobs available. Additionally, seven out of ten economists believed that small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would struggle to keep their business afloat. A majority of the economists polled in the survey self-identified as Democrats.

The push to raise the minimum wage to $15 or more is not the only measure that stands at the top of the progressive agenda. Recent years have seen an increase in discussion surrounding substantial reform to America’s healthcare, higher education, environmental, and social justice systems. Medicare For All, a Green New Deal, Debt-Free College, and police reform have paved the way into the forefront of political dialogue, and the rise of the progressive movement has grown significantly among both candidates for office and the general public. Despite these policies still being considered controversial among many, more and more people are beginning to open up to them— particularly when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for president in early 2015 and brought with him a set of policy ideas that had rarely been given a second thought in the public eye until then.

“[The Progressive movement] has always been there,” Pete D’Alessandro said. “But there were things that kept it from taking off… I used to say this about being on the Bernie Sanders campaign. He didn’t invent these ideals, they were there waiting for someone like him.”

President Biden signing the COVID-19 relief bill isn’t an end-all cure for the economic and social devastation that Americans have faced in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clear to the majority of the population that there is still substantial work needed to be done to help offset the burden. What exact policies need to be implemented, however, will be under intense debate for the foreseeable future— and if there is one thing to be said about progressives, it is that their consistency on the issues don’t seem to waver with time and circumstance.

“People realize that so much of the country has been left behind,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA). “So much of the country has not had economic dignity or a great economic future… And that means that the minimum we ought to give people is good healthcare… And it means that the minimum we should give people is good education…  And it means at the very least people should be paid fairly for their work, not being paid starvation wages. These are common sense ideas, and I believe the pandemic has made us more empathetic, more aware of the suffering of our fellow Americans.”

###