By: Lauren Ratliff and Emily Sydnor

Americans get information about what is going on in the nation and the world through the news media. While the media cannot tell us what to believe, they control what news we see and how that news is presented. In other words, the media don’t tell you what to think, they tell you what to think about. Media sets the agenda; they select which stories to report on and which stories to avoid. They influence what we think is important and what criteria we use when evaluating politicians, policies and the government generally. Media can also influence individuals’ interpretation of the news by framing it in a certain way. Support for welfare policies increases, for example, when it is discussed in terms of providing aid to children and decreases when it is discussed in terms of giving handouts to individuals who do not have jobs. Media can even persuade individuals to form or change an opinion on an issue.

Because of all this, the media is a powerful moderator of political information in America. It is important that we are aware of the power and biases that media possesses in conveying this information; therefore, we must read and consume knowledge with a critical eye and an open mind. Here are some things to keep in mind before, during, and after you read a news article.  Continue reading →

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has garnered a fury of public attention in recent days. Despite not referencing sexual orientation, the bill, in its original form, was touted to provide legal justification for discrimination of members of the LGBTQ community. Fueled by the media, public opinion of this bill turned increasingly hostile towards both its supporters and the entire state of Indiana. While the original Indiana RFRA was amended to remove the controversial language, damage to the reputation of Indiana’s lawmakers and residents has been done, showcasing the power of public opinion in America today.

Advocates of the bill argued that the Indiana RFRA was similar to the federal RFRA, which was signed into law under President Bill Clinton in 1993. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the “government (from) substantially burden(ing) a person’s exercise of religion” unless there is a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest are followed. The federal RFRA law was utilized to uphold Hobby Lobby’s objection with provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) that required them to provide contraception coverage to their employees in violation of their religious views (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores).  Continue reading →

An individual’s decision to participate in politics constitutes multiple decisions throughout the course of their lifetime. This post focuses on one type of political participation, voting. Every year, citizens head to the polls to elect representatives, support referendum, and voice their opinion on the issues. The act of voting on Election Day can be broken up into two component parts: the choice of who or what to vote for and the act, or behavior, of voting.

The Vote Decision

Individuals must decide who or what to vote for on Election Day; however, explaining the origins of candidate choice, issue opinions, and political attitudes is complicated. An individual’s political beliefs are formed early in life through a process known as political socialization. The worldview developed in childhood provides the frame through which the political world is evaluated. As children age, life experiences pull them in one political direction or the other. The Vietnam War, for example, pulled youth in the 1960’s and 1970’s against war and toward the Democratic Party.

Individuals begin to identify with a political party early on and once this identification is solid, it is a powerful predictor of vote choice. There is debate about the stability of party identification over the course of an individual’s lifetime. Some research suggests that this identification can and does change in light of new information. Other research finds that party identification, an affective identity with a political party, moves only in periods of political realignment (i.e., the realignment of the Southern Democrats to the Republican Party) or large social change. Either way, party identification remains the primary predictor of vote choice for a majority of the electorate.

Continue reading →

“Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”

Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson

As a previous post articulated, civil rights protect individuals from discrimination by the government and other individuals. Almost two hundred years after the eradication of slavery in the United States, the fight for the civil rights of African Americans continues. Let us reflect briefly on how far the nation has come.  Continue reading →

Civil liberties and civil rights are commonly used interchangeably, but they represent two fundamentally different principles. Civil liberties, based on the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution) and the “Due Process” Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are political freedoms that protect individuals from government tyranny. Individual rights to speech, to privacy, and to bearing arms are examples of the civil liberties that we are guaranteed as U.S. citizens. Civil rights, on the other hand, protect individuals from discrimination by the government and other individuals and originate from the “Equal Protection” Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Civil rights guarantee the equality of all citizens; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are prime examples of laws instituted to ensure equal protection of all citizens under the law.  Continue reading →

In January, the Supreme Court announced it will review four cases pertaining to same-sex marriage in the United States. The fundamental constitutional question at stake in these cases is not whether same-sex marriage is or is not okay, it is whether or not the states have the right to define marriage for their residents. Do states have the legal authority to define and regulate marriage or does that authority rest with the central government? Thus, this debate involves the merits of our federalist system.

Continue reading →

In divided government, obstructionist tactics on both sides of the political aisle are commonplace. Previous posts on this site have pointed this out. Parties and legislators use run-of-the-mill legislation and action to delay or frustrate efforts from the opposing political party or the president. The legislation or action may have little to do with what is being opposed; it merely acts as an opportunity for one side to try and get what they want from the other side. The use of the filibuster, a demonstration used to block or delay legislative action, is a common tactic. The sixteen-day long government shutdown in 2013 is an extreme example of modern day obstruction.

While real and significant issues are being debated in these political exchanges, there are tangible and potentially harmful consequences to obstruction. One consequence of obstruction and divided government is the delay of appointments to the executive branch. Each congressional session, the president nominates and the Senate confirms hundreds of individuals to work in the executive branch. Over 100 civilian appointments wait for the Senate’s approval today, including President Obama’s Attorney General appointment, Loretta Lynch. Another consequence is agency shutdown. Currently, the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is at risk; if Congress does not reach a deal this week, the DHS will be shut down with many individuals, such as airport security officers, going without pay.

Continue reading →

Interest groups are important players in the American political system. They provide a venue in which interests and concerns of the people are conveyed to the government. Interest groups possess very specialized knowledge and represent many sides of an issue. Take the issue of gun control and the ongoing debate of allowing open carry handguns in Texas, for example. Groups, such as the National Rifle Authority (NRA), advocate for second amendment rights and support policies and representatives that aim to decrease regulations on gun control. On the other side, Moms Defend Action for Gun Safety in America and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence promote legislation and legislators that work to increase regulations on gun control.

Continue reading →

Presidents look very different at the end of their eight years in the White House than they do at the beginning of their first term. Historically, presidents are hard pressed to push their agenda in these years except in emergency circumstances or by pursuing legislation that has more support among the opposing party than the president’s own party. The president and his staff are exhausted after several years of toil. Because the president is on his way out, there is little incentive for Congress to work with the president especially if it is controlled by the opposing political party.

A Republican majority, a lame-duck Democratic president, an upcoming presidential election, and an increasingly polarized political environment paint a bleak picture for Obama’s domestic agenda in the next two years. Despite these realities, presidents possess unique tools that can aid them in the end of their term. First, presidents have direct and implied Constitutional powers that help them succeed on the domestic front. While the president does not have the authority to make laws, he does enjoy some means of legislative control; the presidential veto being the primary one. In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama threatened to use this veto power if Congress passes laws that take away health insurance benefits, among others. While he cannot pass the legislation he wants, Obama is able to prevent legislation he does not like from becoming law.

Continue reading →

The Populist Party. The Reform Party. The Green Party. There have been a handful of third parties in the United States throughout its history as nation, but none have had the staying power of the two primary parties, the Democratic and Republican Party. Why is this the case? Is a strong and viable third party possible in the United States?

This video addresses the issue and discusses both the pros and cons of third parties in the U.S.. On the one hand, third parties (could) bring new ideas and issues to light; issues not currently tackled by the two major parties. On the other hand, third parties might make the current political environment even worse, leading to less congressional cooperation.

One thing this video does not address is the feasibility of third parties in the United States. Is the establishment of a third party possible within the structure of the American electoral system? Duverger’s law asserts that in a single-member, winner-take-all system a multiparty (more than two parties) system cannot be sustained. On the national level, voters have one vote for each political office and the candidate that gets a simple majority of the vote share wins the seat. There is little incentive for voters to vote for a third party and for potential political candidates to run with a third party.

“Revival” by Thomas Hawk (CC BY-NC 2.0)

What about you, do you think third parties are feasible in the United States? Do you think third parties would help or hurt the current political environment?