2016 United States Presidential Election
The 2016 United States presidential election was defined by changes in modern news and social media, politics, and cybersecurity issues, causing the election to be extremely divisive and controversial. (Kurtzleben)
When campaigning began in 2015, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush were the most prominent candidates. Clinton and Bush were both political insiders with a family history in politics. Early polls show Clinton beating bush 51% to 46% in a possible general election. Clinton’s campaign raised $794,875,608, and Bush’s campaign raised $155,838,961.
Bush, the Republican governor of Florida, began his campaign on June 15th, 2016. The Republican primaries featured the largest field of candidates of any primary in history. In 2015, Bush was ahead in the polls at 22%, followed by candidates Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.
The Republican field of candidates was upended on June 16, 2015, when Donald Trump announced his campaign for the republican nomination. He ran on the slogan “Make America Great Again,” focusing on issues such as the loss of industrial manufacturing jobs in the midwest, decreasing trade deficits, fighting Islamic terrorism, and stopping illegal immigration to the United States of America through Mexico by building a wall on the U.S./Mexico border, which he claimed Mexico would pay for. Trump quickly gained popularity with working class white voters, quickly shooting past Walker, Rubio, Bush, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, and others in polls. At the 2016 Republican National Convention from June 18th through June 21st, Trump won 45% percent of delegate votes, winning 1,441 delegates and and 37 states. Ted Cruz was second with 551 delegates, followed by Marco Rubio with 173 delegates and John Kasich with 161 delegates.
Clinton, the secretary of state under President Barack Obama, began her campaign on April 12, 2015. Her primary opponent was Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont who ran on a Democratic-Socialist platform that resonated with younger voters. Sanders ran on a platform of government-funded healthcare and higher education. Clinton appealed to Obama’s base, championing equality of race and gender and gaining support from racial minorities and upper-class democrats. Clinton wanted to close the gender pay gap, increase background checks on gun buyers, increase the minimum wage, and stay out of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Sanders and Clinton were the only democratic candidates that remained by the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2016. Clinton won 2,842 delegates to Sanders’ 1,865 delegates, although the popular vote was closer than many expected with Clinton receiving 55% of the vote to Sanders’ 43%.
The presidential candidates of both parties suffered from scandals and federal investigations. Clinton was called out by critics for using a personal email server as secretary of state, instead of federal servers that were more secure. Clinton was investigated by the FBI, and over 100 emails were found which contained classified information. Clinton was also accused of deleting emails that had been subpoenaed for investigation. She was further criticized when it was revealed that her server had been subject to hacking attempts. FBI director James Comey stated that she was careless in her handling of the situation, but not criminally negligent.
The controversy returned multiple times throughout the campaign, decreasing her support and giving her a reputation of dishonesty, which Donald Trump capitalized on by giving her the nickname “Crooked Hillary” and calling for her to jailed. Trump also said that if elected, he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her.
Clinton also received criticism for her handling of the Benghazi situation. On September 11, 2012, a terrorist attack killed four american diplomats in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton and Obama were accused by critics of negligence during the attack that led to American deaths, and falsely blaming the attacks on a video mocking Islam.
Trump was also the subject of scandals during the 2016 election. Critics accused him of racism and xenophobia after his comments during the announcement of his candidacy, in which he said Mexico was sending drugs, crime, and rapists over the border. He was accused of sexism after a recording of him was leaked in which he referred to “grabbing [women] by the pussy” without consent. (Kurtzleben).
Trump was also accused of intolerance for his comments on Muslims. Notably he proposed a ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries: “A prohibition of Muslims — an unprecedented proposal by a leading American presidential candidate, and an idea more typically associated with hate groups — reflects a progression of mistrust that is rooted in ideology as much as politics.” (Kurtzleben). This is one example of the divisiveness of ideology in the 2016 election.
Trump was also accused of ties with Russian government, and Russian meddling in the US election. FBI investigation found that Russia created fake social media accounts to promote Trump and discourage support for Hillary Clinton. They spread false information and “fake news” to increase political tension in the United States. Russian hackers also hacked into multiple sources of confidential information, releasing the information and hurting Clinton’s campaign. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee were hacked, and emails were stolen and released. Much of the stolen information was distributed through Wikileaks.
Three televised debates took place during the general election between Clinton and Trump. The first debate took place on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. It was viewed by 84 million people and was the most viewed presidential debate in American history. Polls showed that 62% of viewers thought that Clinton won the debate.
The second debate took place on October 9, 2016 in Saint Louis, Missouri. It was viewed by 67 million people. Polls showed that 57% of viewers thought that Clinton won the debate. During the debate, United States citizen Ken Bone wore a red sweater and asked an excellent question about energy, earning him short-lived praise and internet stardom after the debate.
The third debate took place on September 26, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was viewed by 72 million people. Polls showed that 52% of viewers thought that Clinton won the debate. A vice presidential debate also took place between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine at Longwood University in Virginia on October 4, 2016. Polls showed that Pence won the debate.
Despite her performance in the debates and the predictions made by pre-election polls, Clinton lost the electoral vote to Donald Trump. Most polls predicted at least a 70 percent chance of a victory for Clinton. On November 8, 2016, Trump won 306 electoral votes and Clinton only won 232. Trump won key states Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Trump also won Michigan, which was expected to vote democratically as it did in 2012 and 2008.
538s Nate Silver writes on the reason for Clinton unexpected loss: “By one measure, Wisconsin was the most important state in the nation in November. According to FiveThirtyEight’s tipping-point calculation, it was the state that put Donald Trump over the top to 270 electoral votes and the White House. (Or at least arguably it did: Pennsylvania has a competing tipping-point claim.1) So here’s an interesting question: How many times did Hillary Clinton visit Wisconsin during the general election? The answer: Zip, zilch, nada. She didn’t set foot in the Badger State after losing the Democratic primary there to Sen. Bernie Sanders in April.” (Silver). Many experts agreed that Clinton had not spent enough time campaigning in important states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Clinton did however win the popular vote. She received 62,523,126 overall votes to Trump’s 61,201,031 votes. (Kurtzleben, Danielle)
How the Impossible Became Possible
- 1 Abstract
- 2 How the Impossible Became Possible
- 3 Communication
- 4 Anti-Establishment
- 5 Rust Belt
- 6 “It’s Rigged”
- 7 Criminal Investigation
- 8 Clinton’s Health
- 9 Presidential Precedents
The present text explores various pivotal factors during the 2016 presidential campaign that ultimately led to the election of Donald J. Trump. The paper discusses factors such as communication techniques, anti-establishment sentiments, the rust belt, voter turnout, the authenticity of the election process, scandals, candidate’s health, and the influence of preceding president’s policies. Though many elements were uncontrollable by then candidate Trump, each cooperated simultaneously to reach an otherwise unanticipated result.
How the Impossible Became Possible
Donald Trump’s status as a well-known celebrity in the limelight made him no stranger to captivating an audience. In an interview with Time Magazine, Trump stated “It’s not the polls, it’s the ratings.” His hold-no-punches rhetoric interested Americans everywhere, regardless if they liked him or not. Whether Trump was insulting a decorated war hero John McCain, picking a fight with popular Fox news reporter Megyn Kelly, or taking jabs at Rosie O’Donnell, his support only grew stronger over time. His ability to communicate with his audience along with his charisma and confidence created a man made of Teflon. Attacks came and rolled off without drawing any fatal blood. Rather than frame himself as a polished politician, Trump’s embodiment of the unconventional candidate gave him leeway where others did not, all the while exemplifying him as authentic.
One of the most pivotal instruments for Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign was social media. More specifically, his twitter. His infamous twitter account was started in 2009 for publicity reasons. Fans of the Celebrity Apprentice and Miss Universe were eager for updates and insides to the shows they loved. Trump’s twitter soon became one of his greatest tools for his presidential campaign. His style of blunt, reckless, and carefree tweeting captivated audiences, regardless of the context. He was able to garner media attention at the whim of a tweet, whether they liked it or not. He was able to speak directly to his supporters by bypassing the middle man: the mainstream media. Regardless of how crude or controversial his tweets were, his ability to directly communicate through social media saturated media headlines and maintained his relevancy.
Trump’s ability to energize his audience transformed otherwise humdrum political rally’s into entertainment television. During the course of the 2016 campaign, Trump held a whopping 323 rallies throughout 40 states. His “huge” crowds garnered media attention, furthering excitement and momentum within his base. Each rally seemed to grow larger than the last, as Trump was forced to give the same rally twice in different occasions to thousands who couldn’t fit inside. Overspill became so common that overflow space was implemented outside, featuring food trucks, Trump memorabilia, and wide screen televisions to watch the candidate speak. Trump’s rallies gave the candidate the opportunity to fight against negative press, while simultaneously changing media headlines at the utterance of his voice.
America loves an underdog, and that’s exactly what Trump’s presence brought to the political arena. Donald Trump’s campaign was driven on anti-establishment rhetoric. Although he was shunned immediately from much of his party’s establishment and dismissed as a joke by the media, his message of economic grievance and need for change resonated with forgotten small-town voters and ultimately played a large part in his election success. Trump’s emphasis on Washington’s corruption and the cronyism of the political elites made him into the ultimate outsider amongst a field of 16 Republican nominee contenders. His recklessness, crude style, and virginity to politics further contrasted himself from polished politicians in a time when the public was yearning for change. Trump’s slogan “drain the swamp” and the corruption within it quickly placed him at the top of the pack.
Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton most notably because of his ability to win three rust belt states: Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Taking Iowa for example, Barrack Obama successfully won 53 of the states 99 counties, while Clinton only won 6. Trump’s populist message resonated with these industrial-rich states, promising jobs to the declining working-class. Trump relentlessly attacked Clinton on her support of NAFTA and the TPP, programs that have effectively dismantled the industrial states in the Upper Midwest. The industrial Midwest was looking for a voice to channel their anger and resentment. Their jobs had been shipped overseas, their factories were now empty carcasses, and their cities were shadows of their former selves. Trump promised lower corporate taxes and a return of jobs to the desolate shadow of a former middle class. Threats such as a 35% tariff on Ford’s goods if they went through with their plan to move their headquarters to Mexico energized a declining industry.
Trump’s victories within Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin not only marked a win for himself, but a major failure within the Clinton campaign. Though Hillary Clinton’s campaign had an ad budget of $200 million, she barely focused any energy or money within the three states. According to Bloomberg, the Clinton Campaign’s first ad in Wisconsin launched as late as October 28th and waited until November 1st to begin advertising in Michigan. Although it is impossible to tell whether or not greater focus on these areas by the Clinton campaign would have altered the result, it remains a grave blunder.
The validity of the 2016 Democratic nominee race was questioned regularly throughout the campaign with rising levels of frustration. Whether it was leaked emails of DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile providing CNN forum questions to Clinton, superdelegates voting against the public majority, or apparent bias of the Democrat party in favor of the Clinton campaign, the voter base splintered rapidly during the nomination process. Bad news for the Hillary camp continued as the Democratic National Convention began. Sanders supporters booed the nominee to be, causing an uproar both inside and out of the arena. DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was booed off stage after reports surfaced of WikiLeaks emails exposed DNC staffers as devising strategies to weaken Bernie Sanders campaign.
The turmoil resulted in the resignation of Wasserman Schultz from her position, and the news gifted Trump more fuel for his “rigged system” narrative. Mounting evidence of the conspiracy emboldened Sanders supporters, many of which attended Clinton rallies with banners labeled “Bernie or Bust” or “Feel the Bern.” The breaking news along with a history of party officials fretting with the Sanders campaign over debate schedules, access to the party’s voter database, and a joint fundraising campaign between Clinton and the DNC resulted in a depressed voter base.
Hillary Clinton’s reputation was effectively crumbling before securing her party’s nomination. Since the election, both Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren have admitted the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination was “rigged.” Although the DNC was meant to remain neutral in the race, it entered a joint fundraising pledge with the Clinton campaign. Hillary would pay the committee’s debt under the condition that her campaign would manage all day-to-day operations as of August 2015. Brazile went on to describe Clinton’s control as a “cancer” to the party. Hillary’s campaign controlled the DNC before the voters had the opportunity to vote. Brazile speaking out validated many concerns regarding the party’s inherent bias towards Clinton. Not only did this compromise the party’s integrity, but the result left a wound within the democrat party that would remain well into election day.
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server surrounded much of the 2016 presidential campaign. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times published information stating former secretary of state possibly broke record keeping laws. Clinton held the emails in a private server in her New York home. Her emails were subsequently subpoenaed. Hillary Clinton released her “work-related” emails to the state department, simultaneously deleting and bleaching those related to her personal life. The Judicial Watch sued the state department, demanding all emails be retrieved from Clinton from her time as secretary of state. News soon broke that new emails between Clinton and longtime adviser Blumenthal were found by House Republicans, emails that had not been turned in previously. Many criticized Clinton as possibly using her private email server to receive financial information that may have influenced her foreign policy decisions. Although Clinton insisted she never sent nor received classified information on her private email server, emails continued to be uncovered that consisted of classified information.
Hillary Clinton was poised confidently in the last week of October as she rose to a six-point lead above Trump. The Clinton campaign announced plans to go on the offense in Arizona, a longtime Republican stronghold. Although there was no genuine attempt to steal the red state, the move meant to symbolize momentum for the Democratic candidate. Just as Clinton geared for the offensive, the political climate flipped. The FBI announced they were reopening the criminal investigation against Hillary after finding more emails pertaining to the matter. Hillary Clinton would now be on the defense for the remainder of the twelve days before the election. Trump capitalized on the issue, stating “She’ll be under investigation for years. She’ll be with trials. Our country, we have to get back to work”. He emphasized the incompetence of leadership under Hillary Clinton, looming under endless investigations and scandals.
Hillary Clinton’s health became of greater concern following her collapse following the 9/11 memorial on September 11th, 2016. Cameras caught Clinton collapsing to the ground as she attempted to enter her motorcade. This immediately caught media attention as the public began questioning the state of her health, turning an otherwise right-wing conspiracy theory regarding her fitness into a relevant issue. Hillary was subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration. Donald Trump responded to the fall, stating Hillary “doesn’t have the strength or the stamina” to be president.
Trump’s national spokeswoman Katrina Pierson continued with the attack, accusing Clinton of poor health. In an interview with MSNBC, Pierson alleged Clinton suffered from Dysphasia, a neurological condition that inhibits the ability to communicate and respond to speech. She alleged Clinton suffered from severe brain damage, citing her mannerisms, previous injuries, and elongated time off the campaign trail as proof. The question of whether or not Clinton was healthy enough to handle the pressures of the presidency remained.
Dr. Drew Pinsky of HLN reignited the argument over Hillary Clinton’s health after reading her released medical evaluation. Pinsky explained he felt alarmed regarding her blood clot found in her skull (transverse sinus thrombosis), an issue that formed after Clinton hit her head in 2012. He pointed out Clinton had been wearing “prism glasses” following her fall, explaining that it was the result of brain damage. He criticized her healthcare medications, stating she was on “bizarre” medications. Pinsky faced criticism following his comments and his show was cancelled days after he spoke out. Although many dismissed his claims as well as former speaker Newt Gingrich, the argument of whether Hillary was healthy enough to serve as president had already ignited into a genuine issue.
The controversy regarding Clinton’s health affected voters greatly. Following her fall at the 9/11 memorial and media coverage, more than 40% of registered voters believed that Clinton is either in “below average” or “very poor” health according to a survey of 1,501 people taken between September 12 and 13. That number rose from 26% just the month before the incident. The issue of health became a bona fide issue quickly in the campaign, with 1 in 4 respondents saying Hillary Clinton’s health would have an impact on their vote. This was another issue in a mounting case against a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump not only benefitted from running against one of the most flawed candidates in American history, but from the legacy of those before him. Americans were yearning for change after years of minor growth and disappointment. 2016 general election exit polls revealed 62% of voters believed the United States was on the “wrong track”, compared to 33% who believe it was going in the right direction. One of the greatest reasons Trump achieved success in the presidential election was a result of one of the most contentious issues: healthcare.
Many Americans expressed contempt for Obamacare after premiums and deductibles skyrocketed out of control just weeks before the election. In the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, rates for people within the private insurance market soared to an average 55 percent. Other states such as Wisconsin and Michigan saw rates expand to 16 and 7 percent respectively. Midrange plans rose approximately 22 percent nationwide. Trump promised to “repeal and replace Obamacare”, and those suffering saw hope in the candidate. According to RealClearPolitics, Americans disapproved of Obamacare at a 49.4 to 40.4 margin. Of the 47% of Americans that believed Obamacare “went too far”, 82% voted for Donald Trump. Trump promised to replace Obamacare with “something terrific”. Although it was not clear what the replacement was, the promise was ultimately a gamble the public was willing to take.
Health Policy Brief
- 1 Health Policy Brief on HR 465 Prescription Drug Price Relief Act of 2019
- 2 Introduction
- 3 Prescription Drug Price Relief Act of 2019
- 4 Current Status
- 5 Key Stakeholders
- 6 Potential Impact of the Bill
Health Policy Brief on HR 465 Prescription Drug Price Relief Act of 2019
In recent times, the cost of prescription medications and therapies has emerged as one of the top legislative agenda for lawmakers across the divide (Johnson, 2019). The issue of prescription drugs has even caught the attention of President Trump, who has promised to deal with the problems in a bipartisan way, while also offering proposals (Johnson, 2019). Considering the recent Congressional hearings, the rising cost of pharmaceuticals is key to their debates.
Thus, on January 31, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed to lower the prices of prescription drugs by encouraging manufacturers to give direct discounts to patients.
Prescription Drug Price Relief Act of 2019
The Bill aims to establish a variety of oversight and disclosure requirements that relate to the prices of brand-name drugs (Text – H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). It calls for an annual review of all brand-name drugs for excessive pricing. Within the bill, the Department of Health and Human Services must also review the prices when a petition is filed. Under the proposal, a drug price is considered excessive if the domestic average manufacturing price goes the median price of five countries (Text – H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). These countries include the UK, Canada, Germany France, and Japan. Other factors that the bill focuses on for pricing are cost, revenue, and the size of the affected patient population (Text – H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). Thus, such factors are considered if the pricing information is unavailable in at least three countries mentioned above. Also, the bill makes it mandatory for drug manufacturers to report specified financial details for the brand-name drugs; such information includes research and advertisement expenditures (Text – H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020).
In its current status, the leaders of the House and Senate Committees are already conducting hearings on the drug pricing issue. The conferences have been placed open even to top executives of major pharmaceutical companies to present their testimonies (Philips, 2019). The House and Senate hearing has been able to weigh issues on several themes such as:
- Determining the need for fairer prices through negotiations between Medicare and drug companies.
- Considering the pharmaceutical benefit managers as unhelpful middlemen
- A comparison of negotiations between Medicare and the VA system on possible lower prices
- Enhanced competition in the industry characterized by transparency at every step of the process
- Questions on the whether the effect of higher rates on reflect R& D of related companies
In the hearings, the House Oversight Democrats have criticized the industry for gouging and fixing prices by spending more on marketing and buybacks than on R&D (Johnson, 2019). However, the Republican committee has spoken against the Democrats and accused them of pushing for excessive government involvement in the healthcare sector (Johnson, 2019). They argue that Democrats should be bot fault the private sector for high prices when government intervention was behind many current price distortions (Johnson, 2019). The basis for supporting the bill is the aggressive nature with which the drug manufacturers increase prices on existing drugs and setting higher launching prices for new drugs.
The major players in this issues are U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Republican Senator Ro Khanna (Philips, 2019). These two legislators announced the need to introduce the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act for debate in Congress to ensure that prescription drug prices are reduced to affordable levels for Americans (Philips, 2019). Other stakeholders included in this debate on health policy include the CEOs of drug manufacturing companies, the Oversight Committees in the House and Senate like the House Oversight Democrats, Senate Finance and House Oversight committees, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee (H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). President Trump has also given his proposals towards the bill and committed himself to support the law in a bipartisan approach.
Potential Impact of the Bill
If the bill passes, the Department of Health and Human Services will have to take specific measures against excessive pricing of prescription drugs. First, the HHS will have to void any government-granted exclusivity and issue open, non-exclusive licenses for the medicines (H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). The impact will also involve an expedition of the review of the similar applications for generic drugs and biosimilar biological products (H.R.465 – 116th Congress, 2019-2020). This will also include the creation of a public database for each prescription and its determinants.
Other than the high automatic impact that will come with the passing of the bill, there are several benefits likely to arise. First, the Director of Knowledge Ecology International contributes that the legislation will help ensure that the legal monopoly of the companies involved is at risk if the prices are excessive, instead of the patient. Also, it will also enhance government ability to end legal monopolies to curb exorbitant prices. The U.S consumers will no longer suffer excessive charges for drugs as compared to the listed countries.
Big Money, Big Problems
Money and politics are two words that are hard to separate. Money has ruled the political scene in the United States for years, and there is no sign of that changing or slowing down. In 1895 Senator Mark Hanna was quoted saying “There are two things that are important in politics.
The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one”, and I do not know if there is a better quote that describes the state of the political system in the United States. In the Presidential elections that happen every four years, billions of dollars are thrown at campaigns with the understanding that money plays a vital role in the outcome of an election.
In the 2016 Presidential campaign there was nearly $2 billion raised by the two leading candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. With a Presidential campaign coming up, I feel that something must change. The role money plays in politics tilts the playing field, and makes it impossible to have a chance at winning without the backing of a major party, or billions of dollars from private donors.
The main problem with donors and money given to campaigns, is where the money comes from. The two main groups where the money comes from, are the super rich, and corporate financial lobbies. A report published by democraycjournal.org, reported on a study done by political scientists on the uber rich, and wealthy corporations. The 0.1% of billionaires in the United States are concerned with taxes and deficits. Of course the corporations care about this too, but their main focus is on industry-specific regulations and subsidies. And while the rich 0.1% of Americans focus their contributions to campaigns, corporations but most of their money into lobbying.
For Americans at the top, a stakes are potentially massive. When you are working with a family, or single person worth a billions, tax cuts in turn, could mean millions lost or saved. This dilutes the reason behind the donations of the top percent in America.
For corporations, their main interest is direct spending or donations, to effect policy. For most part, the campaigns do not matter nearly as much to corporations as it does to the super rich. The real game for corporations begin as the governing starts. David Koch was quoted saying “Our main interest is not participating in campaigns…. Our main interest is in policy”. In the 2016 elections, the David Koch, and his billionaire brother funneled over $400 million through their network of corporations.(cnbc.com). One can only imagine the amount of money to be spent, if the Koch brothers main interests were in campaigns.
It is time for a change. The problem of money in politics is a universally recognized. Current President, and capitalist Donald Trump, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders both agree on the problem. Sanders has spent his career fighting against the corruption caused by big money, and Trump even admitted to making large donations before his presidency to gain favor with them.
I started to look for a solution to the problem of big money, and found one at the State level I thought to be very interesting.
In November 2015, Seattle residents voted overwhelmingly to create the Honest Elections Seattle ballot initiative. It won 63%-37% on aggregate, to create the nations first Democracy Voucher program. What is a Democracy Voucher? A Democracy Voucher is Seattle’s way of fighting big money politics.
Last January the residents of Seattle received a packet from the state government in the mail. Many threw the envelope away, thinking it was spam, or junk mail. Those who opened it found “free money,” courtesy of the City of Seattle inside.
The “free money” was in the form of a Democracy Voucher. These vouchers could be used to donate to local political candidates. Residents received four $25 Democracy Vouchers to for use in two at-large City Council races and the contest for City Attorney. The program will expand to other races including the race for Mayor in future elections.
Those who received the vouchers simply wrote the candidate of their choosing on the back, and sent it back to the City, or personally gave it to the candidates. The candidates then received funding from the State, to use as they pleased for their campaigns.
In my eyes this is a huge step forward. The Seattle Experiment shows that citizens of the United States have acknowledged the problem with big money in politics. It gives power back to the average tax payers, instead of letting the power of money reside with major political parties, and named donors.
Gina Owens who is a Seattle Resident was quoted saying, “ It is the perfect example of the empowerment this program provides.” She told the Seattle times, “My income has never been the highest in Seattle, so I always had a problem using my finances for campaigns, when I have to take care of home.” Because of the Democracy Voucher program, she has the means to make a difference in the local election. “I felt like a bigwig that usually donates all the time…Being able to contribute to a campaign like that was really awesome …” Of course this solution didn’t make everyone happy, but the majority of residents in Seattle responded positively.
The point of the Seattle Experiment was to prove that there is a way to make small money significant in American politics, and take away the corruption big money has created. Certain data gathered from the experiment show that it indeed is giving power back to small money.
The city of Seattle plans to stick with the experiment for the next round of elections. As of April 18th, this is the state of the current voucher program, according to seattle.gov.
2019 Allocated Funds
According to everyvoice.org, “Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is achieving its intended goals by generating historic numbers of new and small donors, diversifying the makeup of campaign supporters to better reflect the people of Seattle, and limiting the reliance on big money in local elections.”
A major problem when it comes to voting in American, is capturing and engaging the focus of the younger generations and minorities. Among the donors within the Democracy Voucher program, the share of funds from young people, which is defined by ages 18-35, 27%. Which is nearly three times greater than the 9%, found in the last cycle of elections, without the Democracy Voucher system in place, according to studies published by seattle.org.
The number of small donations tripled since the program has been put in to practice. Another report shows that 84% are first time donors. These sorts of numbers, when it comes to small money donors, are unheard of in the political realm. Yet, there are still problems that must be smoothed out.
Out of nearly 600,000 residents who received vouchers, only 3.3% redeemed them and sent out their donations. This means 96% of the “free money” sent out by the government was lost, or merely forgotten. The main issue with not having a big turnout was that it cost the city almost $1 million to start up the program and only brought back about $1.1 million in donations.
Like any government program, it is not perfect but I believe the pros outweigh the cons tremendously. I know from personal experience it is very easy to ignore state politics, and not pay attention. These vouchers in a way, have helped to solve that problem. It gets citizens engaged, and reduces the role big money plays in politics. Of course it is not perfect, but I have not seen a better solution to the problem.
For the first time, every Seattle resident played an important part in the fundraising of potential campaigns. The result was that runner-ups relied heavily on vouchers dispersed within the community rather than the wealthy white communities in Seattle. The role of these vouchers dramatically reduced the impact big money had on the campaigns, and helped balance the playing fields. As public awareness of the vouchers goes up, the percentage of the population that redeems their vouchers will go up, even furthering the discouragement of big money in politics. Seattle’s next plan of action is to send the vouchers out during the campaign for Mayor. We can expect the potential candidates running for Mayor, to appeal and advertise themselves to the everyday citizens, instead of lobbying predominantly with the upperclass. The best part about the program is that the longer it is in existence the better results we will see. It will continue to grow and exponentially compound its results.
While the program is undoubtably expensive, it is getting results. Cara Bilodeau, program director at the Win/Win Network in Seattle was quoted saying,
“This was a historic election in which more Seattleites participated as donors than ever before and more candidates were able to run with the backing of small donors, instead of big money…Our city is strongest when everyone has the opportunity to have his or her voice heard, and thanks to the Democracy Voucher Program, we made strides towards ensuring that opportunity this election season.”
Tam Doan, who is a research and policy director at everyvoice.org. She has been very involved with the program, and has been following it closely.
“Seattle voters put in place the Democracy Voucher Program to make local government more accountable to the people of Seattle, and so far, it’s working…As billionaire donors play an increasingly larger role in national politics, Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is a promising example and a reminder for the rest of the nation that if we choose to use them, we have the tools necessary to reduce the power of big money and give everyday people a bigger voice in our political system.”
More than anything, these reports show that the people of Seattle are on board. They love the change, and the results of the experiment. In my opinion the voting system at the Federal level, could learn something from the city of Seattle.
It is time for a change. The problem of money in politics is universally recognized. Current President, and capitalist, Donald Trump and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders both agree on the problem. Sanders has spent his career fighting against the corruption caused by big money, and Trump even admitted to making large donations before his Presidency to gain favor with them.
A possible solution to the problem of big money in politics is expanding the Seattle Experiment to a Federal level. Giving out the equivalent of a Democracy Voucher every four years could solve the problem. An ideal scenario would be for the 2024 elections. This gives the government adequate time to advertise the new system, and make sure it is known and talked about in order to keep the turnout from being a low percentage, like the first year in Seattle. There are over 140 million tax payers in the United States. If as little as 20% of tax payers used their Democracy Vouchers, that is over $28 million in potential campaign funding. The longer this program is in effect, the bigger the number of vouchers used would be.
Christianity in Politics
Christianity in politics can be very tricky. It can make people vote one way or the other. If you put two candidates together, who have opposing thoughts, they will ultimately bring politics into their thoughts pulling on people’s religious strings.
In the 2016 election, the candidates were basically put on a chopping block for the American people to bring them down. The U.S. Constitution and other laws have attempted to draw lines separating certain official government functions from the nation’s religious life. But these same laws have largely steered clear of regulating religion in the political sphere. Religion has long been entangled in the nation’s politics and its political campaigns.
The 2016 election season came at a time when there was evidence that the country was becoming less religious. At the same time, roughly three-quarters of Americans (77%) still identify with a religious group, and a growing number of people in both parties wanted their political leaders to publicly discuss their faith. As the 2016 presidential contest continues to heat up, with the Iowa caucus just days away, the Pew Research Center has once again released a new survey attempting to gauge the current state of the relationship between faith and politics.
Roughly two-thirds of Republicans, as opposed to about four-in-ten Democrats, say it is important for a president to share their religious beliefs. However, Donald Trump, a candidate many Republicans view as a potentially good or great president, is seen by many in the GOP as not being a very religious person compared with other leading candidates. Just 44% of Republicans and those who lean Republican say Trump is “somewhat” or “very” religious.
At least six-in-ten Americans and seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners viewed Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio as being at least somewhat religious. This level of religiosity is more in line with the GOP electorate; more than eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners say that religion is at least somewhat important in their lives, including 61% who say it is very important.
Americans see the two leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, as being less religious than their Republican counterparts (with the exception of Trump). Clinton is perceived as being somewhat or very religious by roughly half of the general public (48%), although among Democrats and those who lean Democratic, 65% see her as at least somewhat religious. Sanders, is seen as being somewhat or very religious by 40% of the general public and roughly half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (47%) even though he has described himself as Jewish but “not particularly religious” and is particularly popular among people with no religious affiliation.
Americans’ opposition to a gay or lesbian candidate has dropped by 20 percentage points since 2007, when a Pew Research Center poll found that nearly half of Americans (46%) said they would be less likely to support a gay candidate. Only a quarter of adults (26%) now say they would be less likely to support a gay or lesbian presidential candidate. Among Republicans and those who lean Republican, the share saying that they would be less likely to support a gay or lesbian candidate for president has dropped from 62% in 2007 to 38% today.
Half of all Americans say religious conservatives exert too much control over the Republican Party, while slightly fewer (44%) say secular liberals have too much influence over the Democratic Party.These views are significantly influenced by partisanship. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean Republican (68%) say secular liberals are too influential in the Democratic Party, while exactly the same share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (68%) believe religious conservatives exert too much influence over the GOP. Both groups are far less likely to express these views about their own party.
Being seen as a religious person is generally an asset for candidates; people who think a candidate is a religious person tend to be more likely to see that candidate as a potentially good president. But many Republicans think Trump would be a good president despite his perceived lack of religiousness. Of the 56% of GOP voters who think Trump would be a good or great president, a substantial minority of them (17% of Republican registered voters overall) say they think Trump is not religious. The pattern is very different for the other leading GOP candidates; virtually all Republicans who think Cruz, Rubio and Carson would be successful presidents (and who express a view about their religiousness) also say they view those candidates as at least somewhat religious. Just 2% of GOP voters think Rubio would be a good president and that he is not particularly religious, with just 1% saying the same about Cruz and Carson.
In conclusion, religion is a big part of politics and how candidates get elected. If a candidate is not viewed as religious they are usually not in favor of the American people.
For this essay I decide to choose the Yemen Resolution as my piece of legislation to write about since it has caused such a huge debate within Washington D.C and throughout the nation. The official name for this piece of legislation is the S. J.
RES. 54 which is a joint resolution for the removal of United States armed forces from the Republic of Yemen that has not been authorized by congress to be there. To understand why the United States of America is involved with the war in Yemen, you have first look at the backstory of what caused the war and the USA relationship to Saudi Arabic. Throughout the process of this assignment I will be trying to understand why this piece of legislation was passed, the main sponsors and the effects it will have on the United States government and citizens.
Over the last couple of decades, our government has been trying to repair our relationship with the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. A good relationship with Saudi Arabia allows for the USA to have an Islam ally country within the Middle East. In the last couple of year, the United States of America has been supporting a Saudi Arabic led coalition in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The Saudi Arabian led an intervention into Yemen in 2015 after Houthi rebel group took up arms against the Yemen government who they believe have been oppressing them for many years. The Houthi are Shiite Muslims while the Yemen government is ruled by Sunni Muslims. For generations, all across the Islamic world Shiite and Sunni Muslims have fought wars against other and oppressed the minority group within their country. The belief of who’s religion is the right version of Islam is an endless and timeless battle that has and will continue to go on for generations to come. There have been many wars and battles between the two denominations of Islam, but never a war lead to such destruction and death. In the 20th and 20th we have not seen a humanitarian crisis of this magnitude. The war in Yemen has led to millions of people being displaced from their homes, thousands of innocent civilians dying from the crossfire and hundreds of thousands of citizens going hungry at night. The United State of America has played a massive role with on-going war in Yemen because we have continuously supported Saudi Arabic by providing military aid, sending weapons and giving the Saudi Military training on how to use US manufacture planes, and other weapons. In the last couples of years, Saudi Arabic has become the leader for buying weapons from the United States of America.
The support for Saudi Arabic has begun to dwindle over the duration of President Donald Trump being president and the constant human rights abuse claims against Saudi Arabic. Our government and the citizens of the United States of America has become divided on the issues of should we withdraw support, or should we remain loyal to an ally who fighting “terrorist”. The decision to withdraw support has divided our executive and legislative even more. President Donald J. Trump released a statement on November 18,2018 declaring his support for Saudi Arabic, “After my heavily negotiated trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries – and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States” (Donald Trump). This quote shows that President Trump is more worried about the amount of income revenue we will receive from Saudi Arabic rather than the international laws we are helping them commit. It hard to break a relationship with a country when there are huge economic benefits we can and are receiving from them. President Trump is not willing to allow the war in Yemen to break the relationship with Saudi Arabic after years of USA president trying to get closer to that country. It is a harsh reality, but the United States of America is a country that is only looking out for itself and its our citizens. President Trump and many presidents before him, were willing to do anything to help generate a profit for our economy. In one way, I do understand why President Trump is siding with Saudi Arabic because it is benefiting our country, however it is hard to know that USA is helping in creating one of the biggest humanitarian crises since the Syria War.
On the other hand, there are many people in Washington D.C who disagree with our support of Saudi Arabic led coalition in Yemen against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. One of the biggest opponents is Bernie Sanders who was the main sponsor on the bill and introduced this bill into the Senate. In addition to Bernie Sanders, this bill has eighteen co-sponsors Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT], Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ] ,Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT], Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA], Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY],Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI], Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA], Sen. Harris, Kamala D. [D-CA], Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH], Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]. One thing you notice from this long list of co-sponsors is there are seventeen democrats and one republican, which makes me think that many fellow republicans are against the bill or their constituents aren’t opposed to the war in Yemen.
Bernie Sander was the original sponsors of this resolution and was highly critical towards our support for Saudi Arabic in Yemen. “This war is both a humanitarian and a strategic disaster, and Congress has the opportunity to end it” (Bernie Sanders). The war in Yemen has caused more harm than good, even though Houthi believed they are fighting for the opposed part of the Yemeni population they have contributed to the destruction of their whole society. Before the war even started, Yemen was already one of the poorest countries within the middle east and the world causing to already be hard for its citizens. Bernie Sanders understands that because of the help the United States of America is providing to Saudi Arabic it has caused even more damaged within Yemen. As a member of congress, Sanders can see that we have an opportunity to bring our armed forces back from Yemen without seriously damaging our relationship within the countries of the middle east. Right now, there has been a lot of scandal surrounding the country of Saudi Arabic, so it is the perfect opportunity to stop helping aid them in a war that has nothing to do with the United States of America or an of our interests. I think this why the democrats and republicans are so divided on the issues because republicans are afraid of losing relations with Saudi Arabic while the Democrats are more worried about the ethnically issues, we are helping create.
Before this bill was voted on and passed in both the congress and house of representatives, it was a part of one committee which was called Senate Foreign Relations. The main authors of this bill are Bernie Sanders and Mike Lee who both introduced the bill on the same day. Bernie Sander is a highly respected political leader who is currently apart of the independent party and has been in office since 1981 in many different political positions. He is currently one of the senators from Vermont and has been a senator for the state since 2007, Sanders is the longest serving independent in congressional history. Bernie Sanders is one of the more outspoken members of Senate against our current president and the many of the political choices we have made over the last two years of his presidency. Sanders is a chair on numerous committees which are the Committee on the Budget, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “As an independent, Sanders worked out a deal with the Senate Democratic leadership in which he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless the Democratic whip, Dick Durbin, agreed that he need not (a request rarely made or granted). In return, he was allowed to keep his seniority and received the committee seats that would have been available to him as a Democrat” (Wiki). Even though Sanders is considering and presented as a member of the Independent, many of his views and votes align with the Democrat party.
Bernie Sander was one of the most popular candidates running for presidency in the 2016 election, only to lose the democratic the ballot to Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, Sanders rallied around the ideas of universal healthcare, increasing taxes for the wealthy, higher-education for all and environmental change. His idea made many older American and conservative view him as a socialist who was trying to change our country into a place like Sweden or Norway. However, millions of young Americans rallied around this candidate who brought new light in the presidential race. Even though, Sanders ended up not getting on chosen as the democratic ballot candidate, he gained millions of supporters all throughout the nations and became one of the most popular senators in congress. The voice and support Bernie Sanders has gotten allows for his to openly criticize President Donald Trump, the republican party and many other things happening within our nation.
The state of Vermont has gradually become a dominate democrat state since the early 1990’s to now. This state has been on the forefront for leading the way to equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community. Compared to many states Vermont is more liberal leaning with their views and the way their citizens votes. I think Bernie Sander was acting in the best interest of his constituents because this is one of the states who has always tried to protect people rights.
Mike Lee is politician from the state of Utah even though he is originally from Arizona who elected in January 3,2011. He is the son of Rex Lee who was the Solicitor General of the United States under President Ronald Regan. Lee is a chair on numerous committees which are Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Joint Economic Committee. As a member of the Senate, Lee is a conservative who have voted with President Donald Trump about 80% of the time since he has taken off. Within the congress, Lee is considered one of the biggest supporters of President Donald Trump is a huge opposer to the democratic party involvement in the Muller case. “We’ve got people, who for the last two years have been using the Russian’s attempt to undermine the legitimacy of our electoral process as an effort within this country to undermine this president, and the process by which he was elected” (Mike Lee). This quote shows the Mike Lee has the belief that many senators and representatives who are democrats have been trying to sabotage President Trump presidency since the beginning. Lee believes the Muller case is just being used an excuse for the democratic party to try and impeach President Donald Trump.
The state of Utah is a predominately red state with conservative views with a majority of people voting republican; however, Utah has always had soft spot in their hearts for refugees and people being persecuted. In Utah about 2.1 million of the population are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this religion has been persecuted and forced to live their land before, so they seem to have a soft spot when others are experiencing similar things. I think Mike Lee was acting in the best interest of his constituent when he helped co-write this resolution. The war in Yemen is more than a civil war between the government and its citizens, it is a war for freedom and fighting against oppression based on your religion which the citizens in Utah can related to.
Political parties played a large factor in the passing of this legislation. From just looking at the sponsors of this resolution you notice that there is only one republican meanwhile there are 17 democrats which shows many in the republican party were not huge supporters of this resolution. The senate ended up passing the resolution to end US support of Saudi Arabic in Yemen by the count of 54-46 on March 13, 2019. Then the Yemen resolution proceeded to the House vote and was passed with a vote of 247-175 on April 4, 2019. However, now the bill will go to the president desk and it is believed that President Trump will issue his first veto of his presidency with this bill. Since President Trump is very keen on keeping a close relationship with Saudi Arabic, he will not want to do anything that may upset them. The senate is currently controlled by the republican party so in order for this bill to have passed, the democrats has to persuade three swing republicans to their side. Meanwhile the house of representative is controlled by the democratic party now, so getting the legislative passed there was not as hard because people rarely vote against their own house.
Member of congress definitely followed their own political parties opinion when voting on this resolution. Only four republicans voted Yes on this resolution which were Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS], Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY], Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT] and Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]. These four separated themselves from their political parties view and voted with their person conscience. From the start of this bill, being introduced people opinion has stayed pretty much the same. There are people on both sides of different political parties who want to see the United States of America withdrawn support and there are also people who see the benefit of USA helping with Saudi Arabic led collision. It depends on a person personally view on the matter and what they may believe in. Depending on the state, you reside in I think some people opinions on the matter is unsimilar because of the region they live in. The media can also factor into how an American see our involvement in Yemen, depending on the news channel you watch the things you see and hear can be completely different.
In the end, each member of congress has their own agenda when I come to voting on a bill or resolution to be pass. It is hard to distinguish when a congressmen or congresswomen are voting on the behalf of their state’s citizens or personal belief. In the government system of the United States of America we elected people to offices for them to represent our beliefs and voice our opinions to the government. However, there are hundreds of thousands or millions in each state so every time an elected official votes it may not be what you wanted but it is impossible to make everyone in your state happy. The biggest issue I see happening with this resolution is the possible of it becoming President Donald Trump first veto. President Trump has publicly stated that he will veto the bill if it was passed it the Senate. Even though the resolution has passed in the senate if the president decide to veto the bill, it would take 2/3 of the senate and house of representative to override the veto.
The Psychology of The President
There is a list with 45 names on it and if you are on the list like Obama and trump then that means appear to the most powerful person in world. Evaluating these two presidencies is a bit hard because President Trump only has 2 years in office and Obama had 2 terms, which is 8 years. Scholars have come to the conclusion that understanding the office of the presidency is not easy task and it’s a complex position to for any individual to be in.
Moreover, when two presidents who are incomprehensibly unique from multiple points of view, for example, Barack Obama and Donald Trump who are voted on my the people to lead, the behavior between the two uncovers changes inside the country, the legislation, the states, the position they take and most importantly the political time and climate they used to be president.
To further understand what this means look at it from a psychological point of view, in the article The Psychology of The President by James David Barber as describe by Michael Nelson. Nelson ultimately discusses presidential character by stating there are four types of presidential psychology: Active Positive, Passive Positive, Active Negative and lastly Passive Negative.
This means what when that framers were thinking of our Republic they made charter important to those writing in the Constitution. In the case of former president Obama he was ‘Active Passive’. According to Nelson ”these are the healthy people whose high-self esteem allows them to enjoy what they do, work hard at it and so on.” (Nelson, Michael pg. 174). Which is what Obama was calm, mellow, collective, unemotional he poked fun at himself at the White House corresponded dinner. Trump on the other hand is ‘Passive Negative’ which according, to Nelson, are ones “we should worry about, these are power seekers who compulsively devote all their energy to the job.”(Nelson, Michael pg. 174). Meaning they are dangerous because will persist in error that would lose their sense of control like going on Twitter and starting calling people names like president Obama the “is the worst president in U.S. history!”(Donald Trump, @realDonalTrump, Jul 18, 5:15 am, tweet) Or calling Mitt Romney “One of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican Politics”(Donald Trump, @realDonalTrump, Nov 10, 8:23 am, tweet) also, about president Bill Clinton “the WORST abuser of women in U.S. political history”(Donald Trump, @realDonalTrump, Dec 12, 4:30 pm, tweet) Trump is such a power seeker he will Tweet anything to anyone no matter what. Something we haven’t seen in the history of our country.
Numerous individuals have condemned the president for this conduct since it appears to be unprofessional, unpresidential, inappropriate and immoral to position and he appears to society as to deal with a circumstance or issues. Nelson can show the contrasts between these presidents, Obama was significantly more strategic, quiet and appealing while Trump is forceful, controlling and trusting himself to be dependable regardless of actualities.
Furthermore, at the start of their respectively presidential term both Obama and Trump had their party majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, this meant passing legislation was easier for both. Paul Quirk would argue different and say that strategic competition is more noticeable during the Obama era then with the Trump Presidency.
Paul J Quirk, describes The Goldilocks theory as, “the president time, energy and talent and thus his capacity for direct, personal competence, are scarce resources. Choices must be made concerning what things a president will attempt to know. Delegation is necessary.” (Quirk, Paul pg. 136). This is best seen when then President Obama administration took two years to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because healthcare is not a fundamental right in this country, which is sad! In the Senate he faced a lot of problems because after the 2008 election Democrats only had 57 seats to 41 and 2 independent votes; one from Joe Liberman and Bernie Sanders. Things also were difficult when the great Ted Kennedy died in 2009, which gave Democrats 59 seats, still one short of 60 for the filibuster. Now the House had a different problem because a lot of the representatives are from places where their constituents are very conservative and they have a low number of voter turnout. That is why one republican voted “Yes” in November 7, 2009 and 39 Democrats voted “NO”.
The person responsible for helping president Obama build a lot of momentum and get the right parties involved was Rahm Emanuel, who had been dealing healthcare initiatives since the Clinton administration. If there was anyone that can everyone on the same page it was Emanuel by making backdoor deals with different representatives to vote “yes” on the Affordable Care Act. After a lot of backdoor deals and a myriad of rewrites, the bill was passed by March 21, 2010 by a 219- 212 vote. The bill passed the House with no Republican support and with 34 Democrats who voted against it. On March 23, 2010 President Obama signed the legislation and now years later the person in the White House is trying to get rid of it again and again. ACA has gone through a series of twists and turns and back door deals. The Obama administration was super effective in passing ACA. Despite all the opposition at the time the Democratic majority allowed him to pass legislation easier he demonstrated himself to be a taking part in the Goldilocks theory by delegating to members of his cabinet and legislation.
In contrast with the Obama administration when Trump passed the tax cuts the Republican Party was a majority in the Senate, and they were a majority in the House. They didn’t have a problem passing the bill because there was no debate, no a cross the aisle talks, no back door deals, no thing. The measure was passed on a purely partisan basis, not one democrat voted for the bill. Some policy experts say that tax cuts will add more deficits to the United States.
The Trump tax cuts are not Trump’s if anything he just signed it and had a big party in the Rose Garden. Then, the Speaker of he House Paul Ryan, was the master mind of the tax cuts just like Rahm Emanuel was the master mind for the Affordable Care Act. This is how Nelson can show the contrasts between these presidents, Obama was significantly more strategic, quiet and appealing while Trump is forceful, controlling and trusting himself to be dependable regardless of actualities. Obama had a more traditional approach that showed he had control of his administration and position while Trump fights with everyone and is faced with opposition and has adopted much more populist approach forcing control over his administration.
Lastly, when it comes to political time and political climate, Stephen Skowronek argues that presidential power should be looked at over time rotation of political time connects presidents past and present at parallel moments of potential for power. If correct, this suggests that the presidents are at least partly just the beneficiaries or the victims of their particular moment in time. Skowronek saw Obama as an opposition leader trying to see how weak and replaceable the reigning was. Obama was more like the future of the country and Trump is more like lets take the country back and make it great again.
The massage trump send is more like old regime and no sudden change and lets not look ahead. Obama ideas were he tried to convince the nation to stop thinking about political transformation and past ideologies. He wanted a more secular practical approach to government. Trump on the other hand had more like a jacksonian idea of politics. The idea that we have to make ‘American great again’, ‘drain the swamp’, and ‘I am new to politics the greatest business person ever’. (Skowronek, Stephen Pg. 81) furthermore, the 20th century Progressives truly tightened up the administration the feeling that they imagined each president as a transformative pioneer. So they founded essential races, which gave us these eccentric presidential gatherings not under obligation to any system. Rather, they are close to home associations, which feed this, thought of transformational initiative. And yet, the Progressives revamped the administration to make this gigantic administration device we call the official office of the president. So now we additionally anticipate that the president should be a discerning organizer of foundations and activities all through this enormous central government.
As result of the 3 articles we see how President Donald Trump and President Barack Obama, used political time and political climate in their favorite. Also, the psychological point of view this two have is very different from each other Obama was Active Possitive and Trump was Possive Negative. Lastly, the strategies they used to make sure their legislation and bills became laws.
Donald Trump for the Republicans
As of now, there are 18 Democrats running for the primaries in the 2020 election. Furthermore, Bill Weld has announced that he will challenge Trump in 2020. Although it’s early, it appears that the big candidates for the election are Donald Trump for the Republicans and Bernie Sanders for the Democrats. Both Trump and Sanders have been labeled as “radical” and “anti-establishment” by many in the “establishment”.
The establishment, which, is dying. The old politics of neoliberalism and neoconservatism are being replaced by a new generation. This generation is embracing a new ideology-populism. This is happening on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.What is populism?In general, populism is defined as a movement that puts “the people” first and has an enemy in the “elites.” Populism is an umbrella ideology, meaning many other ideologies and ideas fit under it. Many fascist, socialist, and even some liberal movements have been defined as populist. There is no set in stone economic or social policies for populism. However, it will generally be a movement for “the people” rather than “the elites”. A typical populist movement will have a dynamic leader who will use his charisma to rally the “common man” around him. Because of this, the lower and working class tend to favor populist leaders and ideas.
Typically, people often divide populism into two groups, right-wing populism, and left-wing populism.Left-wing populismLeft-wing populism is an anti-capitalist ideology that takes in many elements of socialist ideas. To the left-wing populist, “the elites” are the rich or upper class. “The people” are the workers. Left-wing populism is often very anti-hierarchy and supports social and economic equality. They will support many social programs that “elevate the people”. Arguably the most famous left-wing populist in America was Governor and Senator Huey Long with his famous motto “Every man a king”. Indeed, Bernie Sanders is a left-wing populist. Many ideas of this ideology overlap with socialist ideas, but not all populists are socialists.Right-wing populismI have previously written on Murray Rothbard’s “Right-wing populist” paleo strategy. However, there is a lot more to the ideology than this.
Right-wing populists share the same anti-elitism as left-wing populists. However, right-wing populists are strong proponents of nationalism, protectionism, and border control. To them, open borders threaten “the common man”. After all, they bring in cheaper labor. Moreover, right-wing populists tend to hold socially conservative values and are not as anti-capitalism as left-wing populists. Tucker Carlson is a good example of a right-wing populist as he talks often about the “ruling class” and stands up for the working class.A change in politicsAmerica has already seen the rise of populism. Donald Trump, who holds right-wing populist views, won the election in 2016. Much of his support came from blue-collar workers in the “rustbelt.” They were sick of the establishment and voted for a man who wanted to use protectionism to protect their jobs. Much of Trump’s rhetoric was about protecting American jobs.
The old days of George W. Bush-style conservatism are dying. They are being replaced by Trump-style populism. The right-wing youth in America is showing more support for Trump’s rhetoric than traditional conservatism.This similarly happened in the Democratic party. The youth showed enthusiastic support for Bernie Sanders. Speculation claimed that Hillary Clinton may have rigged the primaries and stole them from Bernie. But the Democratic party is no longer the party of Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is on the rise. Bernie’s ideology is clearly populist. His war on the 1% and wall street in favor of redistributing the “the wealth” is as populist as it gets.Moreover, popular new candidate Andrew Yang also has many populist beliefs. Yang is concerned about technology outsourcing the jobs of blue-collar Americans. Furthermore, he supports a UBI (Universal Basic Income) program. Yang has stated that he wants a mix of capitalism and socialism.These are the types of candidates that will be the hot shots of this age in politics.New AgeMany people on both the left and right are showing anger at the elites running D.C. and the world. The youth are throwing away the politics of the boomers and are embracing populism.
Corruption and cronyism are what have caused this massive shift. The 2016 election was a battle of populism vs. the elites. The 2020 election will be a battle between right-wing and left-wing populism. Most likely being between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Nevertheless, it is evident that there has been a change in politics that will continue. Whether or not you like populism is irrelevant to the fact that it is here to stay.
The Influence of Politics in Language
The famous novelist, George Orwell, once said, “[Political] prose consist less and less of words chosen for the sake their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.” Now, what exactly does this mean? Orwell was trying to point out how politicians are twisted– or more so, how they twist and select what they say to whom they are speaking to. He perfectly describes the way that politics is performed; everything an act and creatively changed, or used, to make people believe in things they should or should not.
In politics, eloquence is one of the key ingredients to becoming a leader. The words they use are very selective, calculated, formulated; to do such advance planning was, and is, for convincing and persuading their audience. The usage of political vocabulary in language is a powerful tool to use as it influences what people believe, how people perceive who the politician really is, and the entire culture of American language.
Language can be morphed depending on to whom and where a politician is speaking, by using words that have strategic connotations in order to manipulate their audience. Statistics have shown that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have all reacted very positively to the phrases “civil rights,” “family values,” and “states’ rights,” (Alvarez). However, Republicans usually respond negatively to the phrase “socialism.” Because of this, most Democratic candidates or representatives tend to use the phrases “civil rights,” “family values,” and “states’ rights” more often. Republicans use the phrase “socialism” when attacking their opponents because they know that the overall response from the audience of using that phrase is negative, therefore gaining public preference over their Democratic opponent. In more extreme cases, language can be used to sway the public’s opinion on controversial topics. For instance, immigration is known as a hot-button topic in United States politics as of right now because of such radicalized arguments from both sides of political parties. Pro-immigration groups use language that appeals to pathos, and invokes a sense of empathy from the audience. Anti-immigration groups, on the other hand, use phrases such as “illegal alien” as opposed to “undocumented immigrant” to sway the public into thinking immigration is wrong and criminal (Dean). In addition, the word “alien” essentially dehumanizes the subject and creates a separation from human sympathy. “Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by “criminal aliens.” And last month, President Trump told a law enforcement gathering that “sanctuary cities release thousands of criminal aliens” into the streets, including ‘predators, rapists, killers,’” (Egelko). By using the word “alien,” Trump creates a snap judgement of a what he believes to be a “stereotypical” undocumented immigrant, and uses his position of power to sway his audience’s viewpoints on immigration.
When describing the power of words in politics, Dean Powers states,“Language is indeed a mechanism for shaping the way people think about politics.” In most cases, politicians announce new proposals for legislation with specific vocabulary in order to appeal to their audience. For instance, if one were to propose a law that raised taxes, instead of saying that taxpayers would have to pay even more of their money to the government, they would say it is a “way of helping the schools, universities, and public projects,” (Dean). Although people will still have to be paying more money in taxes, they may be more willing to do so if they believe it is going towards a good cause rather than “just to the government.” By using these words, politicians are essentially driving attention away from the topic and towards something better, and distracting their audience from the upsetting news that is being given to them. Politicians change language in order to gain public favor- whether they are proposing a bill or giving a speech. When announcing his 2020 Presidential Candidacy, Bernie Sanders used the word “dangerous” to describe the state of the nation under Donald Trump’s presidency (Gambino). Sanders applies such an extreme word to attack the opposite political platform, and uses the word “dangerous” instead of “unsafe” to rile up his audience and gain public favor.
Another example of how the political use of language takes more than creating positive or negative feelings by using wordplay to change words of discussion is when Gingrich was outdone by the Democrats (Pitney, Jr.). Changing the words of discussion to get the people’s satisfaction is the main goal for the speaker to feel like they have done their job. It has been said that “We need to increase spending on federal domestic programs” (Pitney, Jr.). Instead of doing this, President Bill Clinton expressed approval of “critical investments and training” from the spending bill of last fall. In Clinton’s statement, he never used the word “spend.” That is because “spending” indicates loss, while “investment” indicates the profit’s expectation. The outcome from his words is shown that Americans would be more productive for the federal programs to pay for themselves. Clinton also manipulated language when he stated that the spending bill “added resources to protect the environment, to move people from welfare to work” (Pitney, Jr.). People think positively when they hear “resources” because “natural and renewable” is what they tend to think of when that word pops up. But in this case, the “resources” is just a cover-up for the budget figures. Even in some situations, language does not even make sense to people, but it just has to sound helpful or pleasing to satisfy them as a citizen. Bill Clinton was pretty much the master of manipulating his audience, who were the citizens of America, especially with his political campaign ad for the presidency of 1992. “Its sole purpose was to begin creating a set of positive associations with him and a narrative about the Man from Hope – framed, from start to finish, in terms of hope and the American dream” (The Guardian). Clinton’s ad does a great job of connecting to the audience. This gets more attention because the American citizens would want a president who they could connect with, and someone who would understand them because they are coming from the same struggles and environment. The American dream is what everybody strives for, so putting that in his ad already got some votes as this is what they want in the future. But, sometimes in language, especially in politics, it takes lying to maintain their position on where the speaker lies. “The lie can be maintained for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie…” (Frank) The truth eventually gets out into the alertness of the public, and “then only outright repression can be used against populace” (Frank). The manipulation of political power of language can cover up lies, but can only last for a short period of time.
The way politicians are viewed play a big role in the audience that follows them. In order to “stay on top” they must “present on top” by being weary of the language they use and that is used to describe them. With fear of losing support, maintaining their image is one of their main concerns. It is very common to see politicians using sugar coated language in order to either exaggerate or play down their true actions, “This weasel word is often used by bureaucracies and the corporate-minded to censure employees’ behaviour. What the culprit has done is not described as `wrong’ or `illegal’ or `prohibited’, but as `inappropriate’” (Wordsworth). The lies run even deeper, with not only the twisted truth from politicians themselves, but the news outlets that present these stories. News stations typically swing one way politically, making the way they air stories biased, “In recent years, journalism had grown increasingly dependent on spin-doctor spoonfeeding and the circular and insular quoting of other journalists instead of attempting to locate and quote actual first person sources” (Arkansas Business). For a party/figure they favor, their diction is always used to paint a politician as the hero, but for the opponent, it is not unusual for them to choose words that make a person look criminal. Over the years, these issues have become more and more prevalent, most of them starting with the politicians themselves and their lack of political understanding that makes it all go south, “One of the reasons, said Toronto novelist Timothy Findley, is that modern-day politicians have little substance to say” (Wallace), this was noticed in the last presidential debates, Trump’s comments became more personal than professional when he began criticizing his opponents, saying things like Clinton is “such a nasty woman” (Kingston). Giving himself enough time to think of what to say next or at least making Clinton lose supporters. Although politicians may be lacking in some areas, they know how to use manipulation in their words to get ahead.
A successful speaker refines his language at the level of syntax, vocabulary, semantics, pragmatics, and discourse. A successful politician infuses this foundation with political philosophy, thinking, and even paradox, thereby demonstrating his political ideology and goals. But there can be highly controversial and extremely negative effects when this caution is completely ignored. In the 2016 presidential election, Trump defined his persona as a top businessman and then hyperbolized and fully committed to this role in the beginning of the election cycle. In his elevator pitch–a succinct and conclusive synopsis or outline of the concept of the campaign–he highly emphasized his winner status and tough attitude as he stated “we will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning” (Trump). Usually, populist politicians emphasize their poor origins in an attempt to project a “populist” image, while plutocratic politicians avoid talking about their wealth. However, Trump’s image as a winner is based on his billionaire status as he deliberately touts and exaggerates his wealth with the most direct and unscrupulous description. The reason behind this is that he accurately finds the product-market fit, or , the fit between the product and the market demand, in which he concludes that “from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about far outweigh the drawbacks” (Trump). Although more than half of party voters trust Trump most when it comes to “the economy, jobs, and immigration” as a result, there is this obvious and radical board criticism on his use of language upon his election.
Trump’s language is uneducated and unpolished in which it is identified at the fourth-grade level based on Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale, which is the lowest of the last 15 U.S. presidents” as this new evaluation suggests (Burleigh). The evaluation includes studies on his use of presidential vocabulary collected from unscripted words uttered at press conferences and other public appearances according to the highly credible FactBase, in which the conclusion is drawn that based on every indicator and method of testing, Trump’s vocabulary and grammatical structure are extremely poor, simple and lack of diversity compared with the 15 presidents since Hoover. Instead, he pays great attention to the purpose and provocative of his words, which promotes his ideas and counter attacks criticism towards him, often causing him to ignore the etiquette, beauty and even logic of the language itself. His understanding of profit maximization as a successful businessman makes his language targeted and aggressive, forcing people to look for logic that is lacking in his language from his policy itself. This leads people to produce a natural prejudice and distrust in their impression of him, and hinders him to implement his policy. As an aggressive speaker, Trump creates a looming vision full of untrue and inappropriate political language, and brings the listener into his vision and thinking. This type of hyperbolic statement not only renews the standard and understanding of the language of a President, but also greatly reduces his credibility and reputation. He continues to supply meaningless lies to the public, such as “my dad was born in Germany” and “I had the largest inauguration crowd in history” (Cockburn). He also continues to attack the assistants who work around him in vulgar and indecent language, in which he refers his Omarosa Manigault-Newman as a “dog”, which is considered as a racial discrimination that devalues and insults his former aide (Graham).
On the contrary, his opponents and opposing parties have tightly grasped his huge loopholes and rigor in language. These opposing voices search for and magnify common ground from the complaints and doubts of the people and them, in which they temper language itself to seek out the most “resonant” words when purposefully and consciously facing a particular group of people or a widely sought after point of view. The most common and effective language attack on Trump is to accurately describe his actions or fully quote his original discourse. Even Trump’s National Economic Council chief Gary Cohn writes in an email that “Trump won’t read anything—not one-page memos, not the brief policy papers; nothing” (Burleigh). The major news media have chosen Trump’s direct discourse as the website title for Trump News, such as The Atlantic selects “Trump Attacks Omarosa, Calling Her a ‘Dog’” as the title of an report discussing Trump’s usage of racial discrimination language to devalue and insult his former assistant (Graham). This seemingly weak discourse contains the most powerful guidance to the public, highlighting Trump’s lack of literate and cultural connotation by easing the language of criticism. In response to these opponents, Trump obviously fully use his knack for tarnishing his opponent’s image in which he has been using the monikers to refer to his rivals directly in speeches and on social media such as “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted” (Trump). Ironically, the Texas senator “Lyin’ Ted’ Cruz is now changed to ‘Beautiful Ted’” as Trump realized all the risks and threats he might face in the 2018 midterm elections (Mahdawi). Even the most unscrupulous people would succumb to the use of correct and favorable political language under the struggle from dealing with the pressure of political parties, which demonstrates and reflects the obstacles that inappropriate political language could possibly bring, and the risks that could be avoided by correct and smooth political language as an excellent counterargument.
It is natural for humans to learn by example; from the way we talk to the way we act, it is constantly changing and influenced by relatives, friends, celebrities… etc. politicians even influence what we say. Ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt, presidents have been heard across the country through radio. Then, President Eisenhower had politicians being shown on television. When their voices are heard around the country people aspire to act and talk like them because they want to be as powerful as them. But when their language is not clean, it sends a message to the citizens. “Assistant Secretary State Victoria Nuland made some impolitic comments…Representative Dan Burton referred to President Clinton with an offensive word…George W. Bush us[ed] a vulgar term…Vice President Dick Cheney insulted Senator Pat Leahy on the Senate floor with yet another vulgarity…Representative Michael Grimm threatened an aggressive reporter, using an obscenity” (Sheidlower). All instances are from within the past 20 years, obviously over time Americans got comfortable with profanity due to media. Though hearing it from someone who is supposed to be professional, and has a job so key to our society functioning as a country, it is a little unsettling. Not to mention, depending on what words they specifically used, it is as if they are giving the permission to everyone to say those words because their status is just below regality. These terms are not only offensive, but highly unprofessional and unnecessary; such animosity should not be condoned by a person who is meant to keep a façade of complete eloquence with respectable vocabulary. Now, as time has gone on, politicians word choice have not become better, but rather worse–almost as if we have gone back in time. “Referred to people in the Middle East as savages…I was just using the Trump administration’s terminology” (Ahmad). This quote displays how the political celebrities can affect the way we speak. The man was addressing a Muslim woman in a debate over one of President Trump’s ideals and he crudely labeled the woman that derogatory term. For a retired actor, and now an American President, it is highly important for Trump to watch what he and his advisors say to, or in front, of the public. It is because he is a man of such power, in a time where media is in control of everything, that people now believe it is acceptable to say inappropriate, harmful, discriminatory language.
Politicians use eloquent, strong, and carefully sourced diction when speaking to their audience in order to persuade or gain power. Studies have shown that legislation is easier passed when politicians use specific phrases, and strive to use particular language to maintain a good reputation. In addition, words used in American politics can greatly impact the everyday language of Americans, as politicians lead by example. Political language is an art- it persuades and mesmerizes the average American into believing something other than what is going on. For instance, the heartbeat bill-a bill that restricts abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy which was recently passed in a few states around the nation- uses specific diction to appeal to pathos. By labeling this bill the “heartbeat” bill and not something as straightforward as the “sixth week” bill, politicians use the word “heartbeat” to manipulate their audience into feeling shame and guilt for terminating a pregnancy after the baby’s heartbeat is formed. That being said, a fetus’s organs are not developed until the 10th week of pregnancy and it is not viable outside the mother’s body until at least the 20th week of pregnancy (The Fetal Heartbeat Bill). Millions of Americans are being manipulated by their elected officials daily due to their politicians’ carefully crafted word choice. What does it say about Americans when our nation’s viewpoints on such vital matters can be influenced so easily? What does it say about America itself? Why do Americans allow their politicians to essentially make decisions for them?
People’s Thoughts and Opinion about the Border Wall
Donald Trump’s announced to the public in June 16, 2016 that he will run for 2016 presidential election. One of Donald Trump’s biggest platform is focused towards the immigration policy and the illegal immigrants. He promises the people that if he wins the presidential election he would “Make America Great Again” by reinforcing a better immigration law, strengthening the border wall, tax cuts, and many more.
During President Donald Trump’s campaign, he told his supporters that Mexico would pay for the building of the border wall in the south. Later during his time in the office Mexico refused to pay for the wall and that’s where some of his supporters starts to doubt him and the wall. President Trump’s alternative is for the congress to give him five billion dollars to fund the wall. President Donald Trump have been negotiating with congress. In the article “Democrats reject Trump’s bid to negotiate on immigration for his wall” by Eliana Johnson and Burgess Everett states, “the president proposed a bill providing temporary protection for some undocumented immigrants along with other measures in exchange for $5.7 billion in funding for his border wall” but the democrats rejected it (Johnson and Burgess, 2019).
President Trump announce that he is going to shut down the government, and he did. With the shutdown it affected many American citizens who works for the government because they did not receive any paycheck for weeks and not able to pay for their bills. President Donald Trump pause the shutdown and later announce the border wall as a national emergency. With this move his wall will get build. With the border wall being a controversial issue today many American have put their opinion about why they oppose the wall and why they agree to it. Many people disagree to building the border wall between the United States and Mexico. The first reason why many citizens do not want the wall is because it would cost billions of dollars for construction and maintenance alone. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers estimates that the border wall would cost 31.2 billion dollars and that alone covers 1000 miles out of the 2000 miles border line project President Donald Trump promised during his campaign (Bier, 2017). If President Donald Trump insist with his 2000 miles border wall, then the cost of construction of the wall would double to 62.4 billion dollars. With that much money to spend many Americans are concern that the government would have to borrow money, and it would add more to the national debt. The second reason is that the border wall could cause serious environmental damage. Many citizens who lives along the area of Rio Grande are concern about the flooding in the area once the border wall is up.
Flooding’s in the area would occur because the wall would block the flow of the river, and it will affect many residences in the area. In the interview that Matt Weiser conducted for Water Deeply he asked, “If the wall gets built, what are these border rivers likely to look like in the future?” and a citizen name Irvin replied “ it would have drastic and harmful effect on the rivers and streams along the border and the wildlife and communities that depend on those rivers and streams” (Weiser, 2017). This statement concludes that the border wall would affect not only the residences in the area but also the wildlife. For the wildlife who are in the area and depending on the river would have cause a great damage to them. Without water to drink they would not be able to survive in the wild especially during summer where it is hot. If the wall would block the flow of the river and flood the area it could kill wildlife animals. The third reason for the citizens to oppose the wall is that it would not stop any border crossers to keep coming here in the United States. Many border crossers can climb the wall effortlessly by getting on top of a truck or using a ladder for instance “One viral video from 2010 shows two women easily climbing an 18-foot steel bollard-style pedestrian fence in less than 20 seconds” (Bier, 2017). If climbing the wall does not work their alternative is to dig an under-ground tunnel. The under-ground tunnel is very concerning to many citizens in the United States because they are not only smuggling people but the illegal drugs at the same time “A wall would likely increase the rewards for successful tunneling” (Bier, 2017). The Border Patrol reported that they “found more than one tunnel every month on average” (Bier, 2017).
With all these statements it exhibits that the wall would not be very effective especially for the drug smugglers because they will always have a way to come across that border. Although some may oppose the building of the border wall but on the other hand there are other citizens who support the building of the border wall. One of the reasons why some of the citizens of America supports the border wall is that ranchers who have their land along the border line are very concern about their safety. According to Garrison Murphy’s article “Arizona Rancher Want Border Wall, Worry About More Border Patrol Agents on Their Land” one Arizona rancher named Ladd states “That’s how it is down here, if you leave your house for a day you’re going to get robbed” (Murphy, 2017). Another example is the “Angel Families” they are the families who are fighting for tougher immigration laws because they have been affected by illegal immigrants. According to the article “Angel Moms, Whose Kids Have Been Killed by Illegal Immigrants, Share Their Stories” by Hannah Bogorowski says that families “seeks to address immigration laws and bring light to their permanent separation from love ones” (Bogorowski, 2018).
One mother named Root shares the tragedy that her family have experienced, her daughter named Sarah was killed by car accident involving an illegal immigrant who was drunk and drag-racing (Bogorowski, 2018). These statements show the reason they want the border wall because they want to be safe and reduce crimes. The second reason is that without proper documentation the American citizens does not have a clue on what are the illegal immigrants’ intention here in the United States. One of President Donald trumps concern is that terrorist would use the southern border to come here in America without anyone knowing and importing illegal weapons to use for an attack. According to the article “Risk of terrorist crossing U.S. border into Texas is real – but low” by Eleonor Dearman states “a DPS assessment obtained by the Houston Chronicle gives the case of Somali Ahmend Muhammed Dhakane, who crossed illegally into Texas and was later found to be an active al-Barakat and Al-Ittihad Al-Islami member in an FBI fraud investigation” (Dearman, 2016). This conclude that anyone who comes here in the United States without proper documentation are putting many American citizens at risk. The third reason is that illegal immigrants are taking American citizens jobs and it is affecting the Unite States economy. Many U.S. employers would most likely hire illegal immigrants because they can pay them less than what they are required to pay an American citizen. Even though it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants there are still employers who hires them.
In the article “Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs” states, “the more that illegal aliens are able to take jobs in a sector of the economy, the less attractive the sector becomes to U.S. workers, and the greater appearance of validity to the lie that only illegal aliens are willing to take jobs in the sector” hiring illegal immigrant would affect the economy because Illegal immigrants does not have to pay for tax when they get their paycheck and If they do not pay then the government funds would not be enough to funds school, construction of the roads, and many more (40 years fair, 2013). Companies here in the united states would build to a different country like Mexico for cheap labor. With companies living the United States less jobs for American citizens and unemployment would rise. My sister and I immigrated here in the United States back in 2011. Our journey to coming here in America is though because we must go to the legal process to be able to come here or get permission to live here. In order to be qualified to get an interview at the American Embassy in the Philippines we must have legal documents NBI clearance, medical exam result, and passport. NBI clearance is basically a background check document that is very important because without it the security of the United States would be at risk. It shows that a person who does not have any criminal history that there is a possibility that the person does not have the intent to make a crime in the United States.
Medical exam result is another requirement because the United States is trying to prevent or be warn about any disease a person is carrying and is trying to come in America. With the illegal immigrants coming here the United States without a proof that they are healthy or that they are not carrying a severe disease could put the American citizens in jeopardy. Two years ago, my sister and I became an American citizen under our mother. My mom went through the legal process to be an American citizen she must learn the history of America, get interview, and must go to a citizenship ceremony. Since we are under eighteen, we are automatically American citizens and all we must do is to attend the citizenship ceremony. These are the reasons why I agree to building the border wall because if my mom can do it others can. Although some illegal immigrants may say that their situation may be different and that I can afford to pay for all the cost that is needed to get my documents done. On the other hand, they can afford to pay a lot of money to the “coyote” or “pollero” to help them cross the border illegally. My point is why waste their money on coyote’s they can just use that money to get their legal documents done. The immigration policy would not be though if there are no people coming here illegally. It is very important to keep the people here in the country safe from the terrorist and other people who have bad intention here. Many people may not know that the airport is the same thing as the border wall. The airports are tougher because if they suspect something is wrong with that person they have to dig open that persons’ luggage and if they found something that you did not declare they have the right to throw it away and charge that person with a minimum of four hundred dollars or even deport back into their own country at the same day. The government here in the United States is not only tough to the people of Mexico but to people in other country it may look like President Donald Trump is only attacking the people in Mexico but his not. Border wall is a great idea because it can reduce the some of the criminals who are trying to here in the United States.
Bier, David. “Why the Wall Won’t Work.” Cato Institute, 10 Apr. 2017, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work.
Bogorowski, Hanna. Angel Moms, Whose Kids Have Been Killed By Illegal Immigrants, Share Their Stories, The Daily Caller, 17 Sept. 2018, dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/angel-moms-stories-immigration/.
Dearman, Eleanor. “Risk of Terrorists Crossing U.S. Border into Texas Is Real – but Low.” The Texas Tribune, Texas Tribune, 1 Dec. 2016, www.texastribune.org/2016/12/01/special-interest-alien-apprehensions-rise-threat-r/.
Johnson, Eliana, et al. “Democrats Reject Trump’s Bid to Negotiate on Immigration for His Wall.” POLITICO, 20 Jan. 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/01/19/trump-government-shutdown-deal-1116049.
Martín, David Cook. “Why Trump’s Wall with Mexico Is so Popular, and Why It Won’t Work.” The Conversation, 10 Dec. 2018, theconversation.com/why-trumps-wall-with-mexico-is-so-popular-and-why-it-wont-work-70047.
Murphy, Garrison. “Arizona Ranchers Want Border Wall, Worry About More Border Patrol Agents On Their Land.” Arizona Daily Independent, 18 Feb. 2017, arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/02/17/arizona-ranchers-want-border-wall-worry-about-more-border-patrol-agents-on-their-land/.
Weiser, Matt. “Trump’s Border Wall Could Have Lasting Effect on Rivers, Water Supply.” Water, News Deeply, 4 May 2017, www.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2017/04/24/trumps-border-wall-could-have-lasting-effect-on-rivers-water-supply.