Political Crimes? Non-Existent Bipartisanship and Invisible Social Harm: The Dumb Discourses of American Politicians and How it Transitions into Dumb Discourses for American Citizens

American politicians have a two-step process that allows their behaviors to continuously thrive.  That is, 1.)  Configuring social problems that cause stress for ordinary citizens and organizations, and 2.)  Discussing the created social problems in a way that makes them appear righteous in their activities and performing actions in public to make them appear coherent to societal issues that have arisen.  Recently, and for example purposes, the above-mentioned two-step political process is seen with the immigration dilemma that both political parties have been using as a utility to acquire support and reduce the power of opposing politicians and their supporters (The Economist, 2018; Tanfani, Lange, & Stein, 2018).  Overall, the immigration issue is being used as a dividing factor in the political arena in the United States and is not being discussed in its full breadth with beneficial solutions included (The Economist, 2018; Tanfani et al., 2018).  Conservative politicians and old-fashioned citizens are focusing on xenophobic variables, and the liberals of society are simply presenting the xenophobic tendencies of the opposing political and civilian groups to contradict the prejudiced notions and, again, look righteous in their political endeavors (The Economist, 2018; Tanfani et al., 2018).  Neither group has actually presented any positive outcomes that would serve as an agreement in both stances and, in turn, allow for societal progression domestically or internationally.    

            With this being stated, the opposing behaviors about the immigration policies that are being discussed, as well as additional manifested social issues within the political and public stadia, are a demonstration of how politicians view the position of public office as a profession that allows for incompetent decisions to be turned into heroic postulations (Edwards, 1989, 2009, 2012; Krehbiel, 1998; Lee, 2009).  First, the incompetent decisions must be discussed and philosophically presented.  Politicians in American society take social issues and turn them into enormous political debates without working together in mind (Edwards, 1989, 2009, 2012; Krehbiel, 1998; Lee, 2009).  Rather than working together to comprehend all views about the social issue, they choose their positions, stomp their feet into the ground, and force their supporters to either align themselves with the chosen political bearing that has been manufactured or be disregarded (Bøggild, 2015; Mutz & Martin, 2001; Shantz, 2012).  In turn, these forced “choices” cause viewpoints to be conjured that entail viewing opposing thinkers as enemies of democracy (Bøggild, 2015; Edwards, 1989, 2009, 2012; Krehbiel, 1998; Lee, 2009).  Are these political processes by the public officials intelligent activities?  Or are they a form of unnecessary disruption toward democratic governances that make one side of the public officiality incorrect or correct?  Case in point, the lack of bipartisanship by both political parties and citizens, coupled with the lack of togetherness that brings factual content to the forefront of the social issue so that the public can decide which policy route to take, is as dumb as dumb can be in this author’s opinion.  In other words, the politicians who take their positions on a social issue like immigration in the United States expect their supporters to take on their political beliefs and rarely turn to the public to generate policies that are made from popular demand from citizens (Bøggild, 2015; Edwards, 1989, 2009, 2012; Krehbiel, 1998; Lee, 2009).  Who exactly does this form of governance represent and how is it considered smart to have a few public leaders speaking for millions of citizens without any significant inquiry into the desires of ordinary citizens?  Are these polls that are seen on national news networks an accurate depiction of the hundreds of millions of decisions by citizens in the United States?  The answer to this question is acquired by viewing the contradictory percentages that each politically-motivated news network conveys during their broadcasts.  Dumb governmental practices have a reciprocal effect, which is that it causes dumb thinking to permeate and be accepted by the masses as something that is normal.  Stupidity is something that should not be considered normal and half-ass public service is nothing to be proud of.  Yet, millions of Americans base their decisions and support toward a political party based on what a few political leaders and news networks are passing on.

       

            Now, the heroism by the public officials needs to be further discussed.  Politicians, without much doubt, want to be viewed as a champion of the people.  Political champions in contemporary America are derived from competitive procedures.  If bipartisanship was actually conducted and the public servants actually made policies that are wanted by the citizens from both sides of the social spectrum, there would be a huge host of champions in our culture.  Which means that the glory of being a champion would be distributed and not be a singularity only for politicians.  Even with claims by politicians that suggest that this is what their behaviors are all about, they do not want this dispersal of victory in society, as it would make their organizational donors saddened because the people – and not money or business interests – would be more persuasive in politics (Bøggild, 2015; Prindle, 2006; Woodiwiss, 2003).  So, the political heroism is generated by delivering ideas about public policies by public officials without much research into the opinions of the public prior to the delivered politically-construed beliefs by the politicians (Bøggild, 2015; Prindle, 2006; Shantz, 2012; Woddiwiss, 2003).  In other words, politicians deliver political stances for the public and the public is forced into a decision of who to side with based on their political affiliation (Bøggild, 2015; Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Edwards, 1989, 2009, 2012; Krehbiel, 1998; Lee, 2009).  Once more, the heroism is guided by dictated political virtues that are dispensed by the leaders of the two political parties in the United States.  It is a top-down approach to public service and brings questions about how much public service is really being conducted because of this structure (Bøggild, 2015; Prindle, 2006; Woodiwiss, 2003). 

            A massive amount of social harm takes place because of this political structure in the United States.  Purple politics does not exist, that is, and citizens are forced to wave either a blue or red flag or become outcasts in the political arena if they reject both parties’ postulations.  The top-down approach to governance in this country causes many Americans to blindly support political parties without much concern for themselves.  Citizens are required to evaluate their beliefs and choose which side of politics that they fit in to, rather than evaluating their beliefs and requiring politicians to represent them based on these perceptions in other words.  This discourse by the politicians is the transition of dumbness mentioned in the title and serves as example of the passive mobility in political issues by civilians.  More specifically, political dogma is being established by the politicians and accepted by the citizens because of the normalcy of propaganda in the United States that causes individuals to disregard their desires for the desires of a political party that have been created by the politicians of the specific political party (Bøggild, 2015; Prindle, 2006; Shantz, 2012; Woodiwiss, 2003).  Social harms come about in various facets and can be categorized as acceptance of hypocritical governance by citizens for public officials, outrageous and moronic dissidence toward outward criticism about the status quo politics mentioned in this piece, and passive mentalities that subjugate individuals from seeking public service that is based on their needs and desires.  As previously mentioned, much of this is driven by social elites – which includes politicians – and through wealthy donors who pay politicians and their associated parties to induce ideations that serve their interests.  Until the capitalistic influences are removed from politics in the United States, the citizens and others will continue to view their governance with a passive mentality that includes being told how to vote and what to stand for or seek in the political arena.  Social issues of significant importance ought to be delivered by the public and not only the public officials.    

References

---- (2018, November 8).  Democrats need to see immigration as a campaign issue.  That is how

Donald Trump sees it.  The Economist.  Retrieved from

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/11/08/democrats-need-to-see-

immigration-as-a-campaign-issue. 

Bøggild, T.  (2015).  How politicians’ reelection efforts can reduce public trust, electoral

support, and policy approval.  Political Psychology, 37(6), 901-919. 

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B.  (1996).  An integrative framework for explaining reactions to

decisions:  Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.  Psychological Bulletin,

120(2), 189-208.    

Edwards, G. C.  (1989).  At the margins:  Presidential leadership of congress.  New Haven,

CT:  Yale University Press.

Edwards, G. C.  (2009).  The strategic president:  Persuasion and opportunity in presidential

leadership.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press.

Edwards, G. C.  (2012).  Creating opportunities?  Bipartisanship in the early Obama presidency. 

            Social Science Quarterly, 93(5), 1081-1100. 

Krehbiel, K.  (1998).  Pivotal politics:  A theory of U.S. lawmaking.  Chicago, IL:  University of

Chicago Press. 

Lee, F. E.  (2009).  Beyond ideology:  Politics, principles, and partisanship in the U.S. senate.

Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. 

Mutz, D. C., & Martin, P. S.  (2001).  Facilitating communication across lines of political

            difference:  The role of mass media.  American Political Science Review, 95(1), 97-114. 

Prindle, D.  (2006).  The paradox of democratic capitalism:  Politics and economics in American

            thought.  Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins University Press.   

Shantz, J.  (2012).  Crime punishment power:  Sociological explanations.   Dubuque, IA: 

            Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.   

Tanfani, J., Lange, J., & Stein, L.  (2018, October 26).  How Republicans are using immigration

fears to get voters to the polls.  The Globe and Mail.  Retrieved from

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-how-republicans-are-using-

immigration-fears-to-get-voters-to-the-polls/.   

Woodiwiss, M.  (2003).  Organized crime and American power.  Toronto, CA:  University of Toronto

            Press.       

                         Source:  Public Domain