Less Transparency

It is widely known how Americans trust in Congress has been on the decline over the years. It seems that our country is getting more and more polarized in terms of political views, and I believe a large part of this has to do with how much transparency there is. While I do think that we should be holding our politicians accountable for their actions, I also believe that there should be less transparency. I am mainly referring the C-Span coverage when congress is in session. Before conducting a vote in congress, the representatives first debate the issue in the Capitol. I believe that all media should be off limits when these debates are occurring.

We live in a technological world where a single message can reach millions of people in a matter of seconds. Thus being said, politicians now have to watch what they say more than ever. When these debates are occurring in congress, I believe that the representatives aren’t saying exactly what they want to on account of the fact that they are too worried to upset constituents. Maybe this is why the two parties can’t seem to reach agreements on issues. I believe that shutting off the media in these meetings would result in the politicians speaking more freely, and I also believe this would result in better results and less polarization. I do, however, believe that every vote should continue to be published and every bill readily available to any citizen that would like to read it.

This article illustrates my point that the media causes even more polarization http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/james-carville/328731-polarization-in-media-worsens-partisanship . Both the republicans and democrats are creating such a strong divide in this country that we are almost at the point of no return. Party views are so strong that our country will continue to have a harder time reaching agreements on any issue. Although my proposal calls for less transparency during the debates in the Capitol, every constituent will still be able to see exactly how their representative voted, and will also be able to see what exactly is written in each bill.

As I already mentioned, the politicians today have to watch their every move because of the speed in which news gets reported. While raising taxes may be a good move (hypothetical situation), a congressman may not offer that proposal because he/she is worried that their constituents will see them make this suggestion. By getting the media out of these discussions, the politicians will be able to speak more openly, which could potentially lead to more agreements and compromises from the two big parties. 

Too Much Control

I have mentioned many times how the mass media is directly correlated with politics. One recent post I did was about President Obama speaking about Trayvon Martin, and I believe he did this because the media gave the story so much attention. I believe this same concept applies to every situation our country has ever faced. The government, over the past century, has been getting more and more involved in the daily lives of American citizens. They feel it is their “responsibility” to tell people what they can and cannot do. While I do believe that the government should be involved in certain aspects, I think that they are way too involved currently. Why does the government even discuss certain issues such as equality, gay marriage, or legalization of marijuana? It is because the mass media hypes up these situations to the point where people start large movements in favor of a certain position.

As I mentioned, I do not believe the government is all bad, just as I do not believe the media is all bad. The government, in my opinion, is involved in too many aspects of our lives; however, I believe that it is good that they got involved in certain aspects. One aspect in particular was the Civil Rights Movement. The media during this time had been covering the movement on a daily basis, and this kept the people up to date and involved on the situations. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was a Supreme Court case that made all people “separate but equal.” This essentially meant that it was legal to have separate facilities for whites and blacks, but all men were seen as equals. The 1950s sparked a movement towards civil rights, which led to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, which essentially overturned the Plessy decision. Had it not been for the coverage from the media, as well as the movement from the people, who knows if the government would have addressed the issue of segregation. Thus being said, does the media control what is going to be discussed in politics? I believe they do to a certain extent. Here is a good article that talks about the media coverage of the March On Washington http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/march-on-washington-media-coverage_n_3814627.html .

Since I mentioned what I consider to be a “good” thing the government got involved in, now I will go to what I consider to be crossing the line. I am a firm believer in the constitution and people’s rights. It irritates me how the government wants to control everyone’s lives and say what they think is “right” or “wrong.” The biggest social issue our country faces today is gay marriage and whether or not it should be legal. I absolutely do not understand why the American people are letting the government even discuss this issue. A marriage is not between a person and the government; it is between a person and another person. Why does the government feel it is their responsibility to say what will make people happy? Even if the government creates a constitutional amendment that states a man cannot marry a man, and a woman cannot marry a woman, this will not stop these people from living together and being happy. With all the troubles America is involved in throughout the world and here at home, I do not understand why these social issues are at the top of the list. I would much rather hear our representatives discuss a plan to control spending and bring down the debt, or a plan to bring our troops home. These are real issues. I believe that we will look back fifty years from now and laugh that our government was so concerned about the issue of gay marriage. After all, it is not like people are wanting to marry an animal, they simply want to legally be able to marry the person that makes them happy. This article does a great job of describing government’s role on this issue: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/27/when-it-comes-to-marriage-government-should-divorce-itself/ .

In conclusion, mass media does a great job of bringing attention to big issues, which ultimately results in politician’s discussing that issue and making a decision on it. As shown, this is not always a bad thing. The Civil Rights movement may not have been as big if it were not for the mass media, and the politicians may not have even addressed the issue of racial equality. These kinds of issues are ones that the media should pressure the government to take control over. Social issues such as gay marriage are not something that the government should be involved in. 

Is Three A Crowd?

Anyone that follows politics knows that the candidates running are not only Republican or Democrat; there are other candidates known as "third-party candidates." These candidates do not get even a small percentage of the attention that the bigger named candidates get that are affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic party. One problem with this two-party system that we are in is that the American people see issues as only having two options; they do not get to hear the other options unless they do their own research.

One of the more well known third parties today is the Libertarian Party. The candidate for this party in the 2012 presidential election was Gary Johnson. If you walk down the street and ask someone who the candidate for this party was, I would bet that less than half of the people would know this answer. Why? Because the media does not give these candidates any attention on the nightly news, and they also do not invite them to the presidential debates. Despite being shut out by the media, Johnson still received over one million votes in the election. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/08/Libertarian-Party-buoyant-Greens-hopeful/UPI-46151352363400/ .

Many Republicans in the 2012 election did not like Ron Paul because they did not see him as being a true Republican. These people are correct. Paul is considered to be a Libertarian, but he had to join the Republican ticket if he wanted to get any kind of media exposure to get his message and beliefs to the American people.

Third party candidates have not always been excluded from participating in the debates. Ross Perot was  included in the debates during the 1996 election. Although Perot did not win the election, he still received over 8% of the votes. http://presidentelect.org/e1996.html . Is it fair for the American people that the media chooses to only show two parties beliefs? I do not think it is fair. In our political society today, many people rely on their information by watching an hour of television a few times each week. During the election season, these mass media sites only focus on the two major parties, which essentially leaves the average voter with two candidates to choose from. While I do not believe that every third party candidate should be on stage for the presidential debates, I do believe that putting one more candidate in the debates is a good start for now. Our country is very black and white when it comes to politics today, meaning that there are only two ways of doing things. It is time to bring some real change to politics and give the American people more options.