Why American People have Lost Faith in their Government


american electionsAs the days roll pass the 2016 presidential election is growing nearer. Some people are trying to decide who is it that they wish to take on America’s steering wheel. Others have already decided, while there are those that are still waiting it out, looking for someone who’s worthy of their time when Election Day arrives.

But there is a last group, those are the people who aren’t going to participate.


No, I don’t mean the underage citizens that aren’t yet qualified to vote. I’m talking about those that are qualified and yet unwilling to vote.

What exactly is their reason for not voting? Well, some of them just don’t care. But I’m willing to bet they aren’t like that before. As George Carline put it, “Behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist.”

People who seem no to care about political issues in this country have once been optimist. They thought that their vote matters. But each time they partake in the elections, those that are seated has time and again under-delivered, or hasn’t delivered at all, with their promises.

There are also those that feel helpless. It’s no secret that behind every campaign, every candidate, and every speech of that candidate – moving though it is sometimes– is a huge corporation funding the entire run.

And best believe that when their frontrunner wins, it’s those corporations that will be prioritized lest that candidate wishes to lose funding when the next election rolls in.

Bernie Sanders

But there seems to be a glimmer of hope for these cynics. Bernie Sanders. That’s right. To his supporters, Sanders embodies almost every optimist’s ideals, young and old alike.

For instance, he stands for Net Neutrality, his ideas in making college affordable is sound and should be explored, taxing the wealthy as they should be, raising the country’s minimum wage to a living wage, rebuilding the country’s decrepit infrastructure – are just some of his ideas that he will be addressing should he hold this country’s highest office.

But these aren’t just ideas. Sanders have already acted on some of it and being consistent on his stand. While the Vermont state senator might not be leading the poll, he’s extremely popular on different social media platforms.

Cynical heart

However, a cynical heart isn’t easy to win over. “How do we know he isn’t a puppet?” Well, for the first part, he’s electoral campaign is grassroots, funded by small donor contributions and those contributions can be publicly viewed. That means no corporation is hiding behind him.

Wealthy individuals and large corporations have been given tax breaks by political figures for years. Sanders vow to demolish that oligarchy. This is why the 1 percent of this country is going to do everything they can stop him from winning. For if he does, there will surely be drastic changes that will occur; changes that would end the privileges that are being enjoyed by the wealthy at the moment.

The Heavyweights Contending for Higher Office


higher office
With Obama’s impending departure out the White House, and the 2016 American election closing in, Republican and Democratic parties are tidying their suits and readying their speeches left and right. It’s going to be an arduous journey for those who are running. There certainly are a lot of big wigs who have thrown their name inside the ring.

So who’s currently on top?

Hilary Clinton. Yes. The former Senator from New York and first lady, as well as the former United States Secretary of State is currently the leading candidate according to polls and surveys. Clinton is poised to be the first female president of the United States should she win. This novelty alone is giving a lot of people to think about. Some positive, some negative, and the rest are just waiting what the future holds.

Would a female president finally bring the change that everyone is looking for?

That is question that remains to be answered. First, Clinton needs to maintain her present steam with her Democratic party. Early polls aren’t going to decide who will hold next the highest office of the country. It’s merely a baseline on the popularity of that candidate, not to mention that early polls are quite volatile and may change as time passes.

But Clinton and the force behind her is confident that that steam will last until the election’s culmination.

Familiarity and association

Perhaps one of Clinton’s biggest assets is that people already know her. Familiarity comes a long way when it comes to election. But there is also the risk of association. Association of the negative aspects regarding her past role in the government.

Additionally, Quinnipiac University has recently conducted a poll where Clinton emerged on top. However, the same poll found out that more than half of those who participated felt that the Democrat frontrunner isn’t to be trusted.

This sentiment may largely be based on her scandal, which she admitted, that her and former U.S. President Bill Clinton did used a private email server protected by the Secret Service. There’s also the matter of allegations regarding her handling of the murder of a U.S. diplomat situated in Libya, as well as involvement in foreign donations to the Clinton Family Foundation.

The other side of the pond

Meanwhile, in the Republican faction, Florida Senator Marco Rubio is leading with a 15 percent support based on the polls. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio has youth on his side, and to his detractors’ opinion, is the only one worth noting as Rubio is fairly inexperienced to step up to the big leagues.

It can also be remembered that the Floridian Senator is among one of the most influential figure who took part in the failed bipartisan attempt to fashion a broader immigration reform bill that would have carved the way to citizenship for about 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

While it’s definitely early to see who will stand victorious to hold the highest office in America, analyzing the popularity, past achievements, and the influence backing the heavyweights that have stepped into the fray can certainly shed some light in the matter.

American Perspectives that Center on Political Dynasties


political dynasties

The probability of a Bush – Clinton matchup this coming 2016 is increasingly possible. After several weeks of speculation, ex-Florida Governor Jeb Bush declared that he’s keenly exploring a bid for the Republican nomination. On the other hand, Hillary Rodham Clinton also announced her bid for Republican nomination. Both parties are widely being discussed for a second and third round of presidency. Given the recent announcements and speculations, more and more people are beginning to wonder: what do political dynasties play in the US government?

The Founding Fathers of the United States cautioned against the perils of dynastic cycle in American politics. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Washington that “a hereditary aristocracy will change the form of our Government from the best to the worst in the world.” During that time, he mentioned ancestral political rule a “scourge” that had restrained the astounding population in France. Yet, the instances of political dynasty are as old as the United States. In the book America’s Political Dynasties, author Stephen Hess mentioned that no less than 700 families (in which two or way more members) had a job in Congress since 1774 – and it was only during 1966, when the book was initially released.

This can be backed up by the study published in The Review of Economic Studies in 2009 by Ernesto Dal Bo, Pedro Dal Bo, and Jason Snyder that posts comparable suggestions. Particularly, when it comes to Congress, the study concludes that “political power is self- perpetuating,” meaning that the more power one individual holds, the greater the possibility that his/her power will be passed on to his/ her respective family.

Political power in democracies becomes inheritable de facto for reasons other than permanent differences in family characteristics

This highlights that the preference of such individuals is not a result of their skills, but rather “contacts or name recognition may play a role”. It’s true that brand alone won’t win an election, but it sure brings instant name recognition. And so in this era of big, costly campaigns, name recognition is deemed very valuable. Besides, it is obvious that political scions are an advantage over candidates of lesser lineage.

A political pedigree can have its negative sides though. A popular surname sometimes carries sickening associations and the risk of a fatigue factor. Party activists said that Bush name would help Jeb attract early money, talent and supporters around the country. However, Jeb Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, became hugely unpopular at the end of his presidency because of issues concerning the Great Depression and many past controversies; thus, creating a “not-so-good” image on his part. Clinton, a former secretary of state, senator, and first lady, is also threatened by familiarity and some fatigue factor.

Political dynasties impact the US politics in many and various ways. Name recognition and apathy are always present; however, political dynasties come at a cost, such as a higher sense of expectation from the public and possible overfamiliarity factors.

After all, there’s nothing inherently unethical with dynasty politics. However, the current proclivity of American voters to be so indifferent to political dynasties appears to be so connected with their lack of interest in politics and governance.