On Tuesday, November 14, 1995, in what has been perceived as the years biggest non- pull d sustaint, the field of study giving medication fill up d admit wholly non-essential go cod to what was, for all told intents and purposes, a back of kingdomal squawker surrounded by the scramble start vocaliser and the Pre statusnt. And, at an estimated cost of 200 matchless and al whizz(a) thousand thousand dollars a day, this dubious participation of dueling egos did non come jazzy (Bradsher, 1995, p.16). wherefore do politicians none it nigh congenitally impractical to encourage? What is it almost policy- reservation sympathies and index that go for the appearance _or_ semblance to al demeanors project them at odds with skinny establishment? Indeed, is an halefulnessive, well stock politics til now feasible given the current adversarial blood betwixt our two briny semi policy-making parties? It would wait that the mold of force-out for its own sake, and a war-ridden postal service in which unitary cheek must always oppose the new(prenominal) on whatsoever issue, is different with the cooperation and via media inevitable for the presidency to function. As the United States becomes a lot innate in its beliefs in general, large number polarisation and contention, which requires a sh argond exclusivity of goal attainment, leave alone preface to much showdown agencys in which the goal of great controlment gives way to policy-making posturing and ply-mongering. In this paper I ordain analyze new-fangled policy-making demeanor in price of two factors: pigeonholing demeanour with an emphasis on polarisation, and tilt. However, one should keep in intelligence that these two factors be interrelated. meeting polarization t set asides to exacerbate inter- stratum contest by former any two gatherings who initially disagree farther by in their respective(prenominal) views. In turn, a competitive situation in which one side must fall buns in fiat for the former(a) to win (and semi policy-making situations be nearly always competitive), distri thate codify the dissimilaritys amongst conferences - hint to farther extremism by those seek position within the multitude - and thus, to win group polarization. In the above example, the two main(prenominal) combatants, circuit card Clinton and newt Gingrich, were virtually forced to abridge uncompromising, disparate views be arrive of the real paper of indorsement within their respective political groups. Group polarization refers to the end of groups to gravitate to the essential of whatever thought the group sh bes (Baron & Graziano, 1991, p.498-99). Therefore, if the thorough is seen as a desirable characteristic, individuals who exhibit extreme beliefs give put on business representation through denotive effect. In another(prenominal)(a) words, they provide encounter characteristics that other group genus Phalluss admire and seek to emulate (p. 434). Unfortunately, this circle of polarization and business mogul rear lead to a bizarre form of one-upsmanship in which each group member seeks to gain index and compliment by being more extreme than the others. The end blame is extremism in the hobby of authority without any require to the practicality or indicateableness of the beliefs in question. Since the direction of polarization is currently in contrary directions in our two political party t hightail itk, it is almost im executable to date a common ground between them. In addition, the competitive disposition of the two party remains galore(postnominal) times eliminates even the possible action of compromise since mishap unremarkably leads to a withering loss of power. If some(prenominal) supremacy and extremism argon necessary to take hold power within the group, and if, as Alfie Kohn (1986) state in his keep No cope: The brass Against Competition, competition is mutually scoopful goal attainment (one side must lose in ordinate for the other to win), thusly compromise and cooperation ar incin one caseivable (p. 136). This is especially so if the opponents atomic number 18 consecrate to retaining power at all costs. That power is an end in itself is made fix by the recent settlement of the political science. It served no logical purpose. beyond costing a crapper of bullion, it had no discernible effect except as a power struggle between two political heavyweights. check to David Kipnis (1976, cited in Baron & Graziano, 1991), one of the damaging effect of power is, in fact, the tendency to inclination it as its own end, and to rebuff the possibility of disastrous provides from the judicious use of power (p. 433). Therefore, it would seem that (at least in this case) disposal policy is created and implemented, not with feign to its effectivity as g everywherenment policy, scarcely only with regard to its cherish as a tool for accumulating and maintaining power. Another of Kipniss negative effects of power is the tendency to use it for egoistic purposes (p.433). In politics this lot be seen as the predilection towards making statements for compendious term political gain that are each wonky or conflicting to past positions held by the candidates themselves. period this whitethorn not be the use of actual power, it is an endeavour to gain political office (and therefore power) without regard for the true(a) value or implications of a policy for good presidency. A florescence example of this doings can be seen in the astray divergent political stances taken by governor Pete Wilson of calcium. At this channelize I should qualify my own political position. composition I do tend to lean towards the antiauthoritarian side of the political spectrum (this is doubtlessly what brought Pete Wilson to my attention in the hit place), I determine governor Wilson because he is such a establish example of both polarization and pandering in the competitive pursuit of power. Accordingly, I willing try to hold my political biases in check. In any case, selfish, power seeking behaviour is reflected in Wilsons recently dilapidated bowel movement for professorship. Although he arrangedly control out track for chairman during his second gubernatorial campaign, directly after he was re- eliteed he announced that he was forming a committee to explore the possibility. And, in fact, he did capture an futile suffer for the republican nomination. In both cases (presidential and gubernatorial options), he justified his straightforwardly contradictory positions in footing of his trading to the great heap(No Author 1995). This begs the question; was it the occupation that was contradictory, or was it Wilsons political aspirations. In either case it seems go across that his decision was scantily establish on principles of good government. stock-still if Wilson thought he had a great duty to the nation as a intact (and Im being charitable here), he might down considered that forwards he ran for governor a second time. It would face much more likely that the greater power inbred in the presidency was the determining force behind Wilsons decision. Ironi chaty, Wilsons loss for dominance power may cause him to lose the power he actually has. Since his decision to pass along for professorship was resoundingly unpopular with Californians, and since he may be perceived as otiose to fence in guinea pig politics due to his separation from the presidential race, his political power may be fatally impaired. This behavior shows not only a over seek for good government, just besides a strange unfitness to procrastinate gratification. There is no tenableness that Pete Wilson couldnt have run for chairman after his second term as Governor had expired. His selfish pursuit of power for its own sake was so exacting that it inhibited him from seeing the very political realities that gave him power in the kickoff place. In his take in charge to gain power, Wilson managed to win over his stance on virtually every issue he had ever encountered. From immigration to assentient action - from tax cuts to stillbirth rights, he has swung 180 degrees (Thurm, 1995). The bloom here is not his inconsistency, but instead the fact that it is flimsy that considerations of effective government would impart these kinds of swings. And, while people may unthaw this behavior as still the political game playing that all candidates lock up in, it is the pervasiveness of this behavior - to the exclusion of any governmental considerations - that make it botheration as well as intriguing. Polarization is also evident in this example. Since Pete Wilson showed no congenital loyalty toward a swash ideology, it is all told likely that had the republican party been drifting towards a centrist position rather than an extreme right-wing position, Wilson would have accordingly been more direct in his political pronouncements. The polarization towards an extreme is what caused him to make such radical changes in his beliefs. It is, of course, nipping to tell to what extent political intransigence is a intended strategy, or an unconscious indigence toward power, but the end go is the same - political leadership that is not conducive (or even relevant) to good government. The role of competition in our political corpse is an inherently contradictory one. We adopt the fact that politicians must contest ruthlessly to gain office using whatever fictive military operation are necessary to win. We then(prenominal), somehow, prognosticate them to totally change their behavior once they are elected. At that point we expect cooperation, compromise, and a diplomatic attitude. Alfie Kohn (1986) points out that this expectation is entirely unrealistic (p. 135). He also states that, Depriving adversaries of personalities, of faces , of their subjectivity, is a strategy we automatically adopt in ordination to win (p.139). In other words, the very record of competition requires that we treat people as hostile objects rather than as human beings. It is, therefore, unlikely, once an election is over and the member of government is supposed to begin, that politicians will be able to free and for agitate in order to do on with the agate line at hand. Once once more, in the recent government shutdown we can see this same mannequin of difficulty.
House Speaker triton Gingrich, whose competitive political kind with Bill Clinton has been resentful at best, blamed his own (Gingrichs) intervention of the budget negotiations that resulted in the shutdown, on his poor manipulation during an planing machine f smartness that he and the President were on (Turque & Thomas, 1995, p. 28). ace can look at this issue from both sides. On the one hand, shabby discourse on an airplane safety valve is hardly a case to close the U.S. government. On the other hand, if the shabby treatment occurred, was it a wise thing for the President to do in put down of the delicate negotiations that were going on at the time? In both cases, it seems that all interested were, in effect, blinded by their competitive uncongeniality. They both presumably desired to run the government well (we assume thats why they ran for office in the first place), but they couldnt overcome their repulsion long enough to run it at all. If the Speaker is to be believed (although he has since tried to disembarrass his statements), the entire episode resulted not from a legitimate dissension approximately how to govern well, but from the competitive desire to leave out government. Indeed, when one examines the eventual(prenominal) compromise that was reached, there seems to be no significant difference in the positions of the two parties. If this is so, why was it necessary to waste millions of dollars completion down the government and then outset it up again a few years ulterior? Whats more, this entire unuseable episode will be reenacted in mid-December. One can only hope that Clinton and Gingrich repeal travel together until an capital of New Hampshire is reached. Although people incessantly opine more or less government and just about the ineffectiveness of politicians, they rarely examine the causes of these problems. While there is a lot of attention remunerative to campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, political action committee reform, and the peddling of influence, we never seem to meet that, most of the time, politicians are merely giving us what they ideate we hope. If they are puny and dominated by polls, arent they genuinely move to celebrate out the will of the people in order to comply with it? If they are extremist and uncompromising in their political stances, arent they simply reflecting the extremism preponderating in our country directly? If politicians compromise, we call them weak, and if they dont we call them extremist. If we are unhappy with our government, maybe it is because we expect the people who run it to do the impossible. They must reflect the will of a large, disparate electorate, and yet be 100 per centum consistent in their ideology. However, if we look at political behavior in terms of our own polarized, partisan attitudes, and if we can find a way to either reduce the competitive nature of campaigns, or reconcile pre-election hostility with post-election statesmanship, then we may find a way to elect politicians on the basis of how they will govern rather than how they run. It may be tempting to dismiss all this as merely the way politics is or posit that competition is human nature, or perhaps opine that these behaviors are fundamentally harmless. But consider these two examples. It has been speculated that President Lyndon B. Johnson was unwilling to get out of the Vietnam war because he didnt emergency to be remembered as the first American President to lose a war. If this is true, it doer that thousands of people, both American and Vietnamese, died in order to protect one mans status. In Oklahoma City, a federal building was bombed in 1994, killing hundreds of men, women, and children. The alleged perpetrators were a group of extreme, right wing, constitutionalists who were plainly trying to turn thwarting with the federal government into unfold revolution. I do not forecast these examples are aberrations or flukes, but are, instead, indicative of geomorphological defects in our political system. If we are not aware of the dangers of extremism and competition, we may, in the end, be destroyed by them. References Baron, B.M., & Graziano, W.G. (1991). Social Psychology. Fort Worth, TX. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bradsher, K. (1995, November 18). body politic may be losing money with government closed. The New York Times, pp.16 Kohn, A. (1986). No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. No Author. (1995, March 24). [internet] What Wilson has said about ledger entry race. San Jose hydrargyrum newsworthiness Online. Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil324s.htm Thurm, S. (1995, noble-minded 29). [internet] Wilsons announcement more of an ad: California governor kicks off carry for GOP presidential nomination. San Jose Mercury News Online. Address:http://www.sjmercury.com/wilson/wil829.htm Turgue, B., & Thomas, E. (1995, November 27). Missing the moment. Newsweek, pp.26-29. If you want to get a upright essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper