Trump, Pelosi, and the Decline of Institutional Roles

                      The Context

President Trump’s State of the Union address yesterday was highly partisan and triumphant, filled with more than the usual amount of stagecraft and “reality show” moments. But it was bookmarked by two unprecedented events that overshadowed the speech itself: Trump refusing to shake Speaker Pelosi’s hand, and Pelosi ripping the president's speech in half.

Perhaps both events were calculated, as some have speculated; perhaps they reflected the emotions of the moment. But I would argue that they also signified a recent and distressing trend in American politics: the erosion of respect our political leaders have for each other and for the constitutional roles they play.

Many people have spoken out about the numerous ways that Trump has broken norms of presidential behavior and acts “unpresidential.” Trump has particular contempt for other officers of American government, including the speakership. His failure to return Pelosi’s handshake follows months of insults against the Speaker on Twitter and a remarkably personal and bitter December letter to Pelosi accusing her of “violating your oaths [sic] of office.” Lest one is tempted to chalk this up to mere partisanship, or Trump’s lingering bitterness about impeachment, recall that Trump was willing to attack Speaker Paul Ryan when he perceived him as disloyal, such as on the issue of birthright citizenship. (Green)

The Social Science Facts 

Let's discuss the social science behind the current reality TV presidency and administration we live in, and try to understand if there is hope for the future. Although social science cannot be proven as facts, the following “facts” are simply evidence and conclusions based on statistical analysis

Let's discuss how our two party system got us to this reality and try to understand the role political parties play in American politics. First off we ought to understand the significance of political parties and why we have them. What is a party? Contemporary scholars view parties as teams of politicians whose paramount goal is to win electoral office.  These teams make promises about what they will do if elected, standing for re-election based on their records of implementing their programs. Parties in the US are best understood as coalitions of interest groups and activists seeking to capture and use government for their particular goals, which range from material self-interest to high-minded idealism. (Bawn) 

Throughout history we keep seeing changes in what the definition of a party ought to be, party beliefs, policies and where they stand on the political spectrum. We have also witness how our two parties in our two party system have change and shifted to complete opposites. During the time of Lincoln, the  Republican Party was the "progressive and liberal" party and the Democratic Party was the party of conservative values and white supremacy.

Fast forward time to 2020, The Democratic Party is now the party of liberal and progressive ideas, and the Republican party is the party of conservative policies, and although it is not a party that openly supports white supremacy, the now Republican party can be affiliated with such ideals and policies, especially after the election of Donald Trump. This two party system has created bigger problems, it has created a polarized political atmosphere, and the State of the Union is an example that best describes where we are standing now in our political world.

Party identity is currently playing a major role in our political atmosphere, as we draw closer to the 2020 Presidential Elections we will see how party identification will help elect a new president or re-elect the first impeached president of the United States. Party identification is central to the study of American political behavior, yet there remains disagreement over whether it is largely instrumental or expressive in nature.  Partisanship according to Campbell as defined in The American Voter is both, a set of beliefs and feelings that culminate a sense of “psychological attachment” to a political party. (Huddy, Mason, Aaroe 2015) I don't think that never in the history of modern American politics we have seen this phenomenon, and that is voters' loyalty not just to a party but to a candidate as well.

There are two competing views of partisanship, Instrumental perspective, partisanship is a running tally of party performance, ideological beliefs and proximity to the party in terms of one’s preferred policies. The expressive approach in partisanship is an enduring identity strengthened by social affiliations to gender religious, and ethnic or racial groups. These social affiliations with a party and its associated groups promote an emotional attachment to the party, generate stability over time in partisan identification and vote choice.  Social identity theory provides a strong foundation for the study of partisanship and political involvement. It seems that we tend to let our emotions rule over our critical thinking and we often let our emotions make our decisions when it comes to party affiliation; emotion is a prelude to our actions. (Huddy, Mason, Aaroe 2015) The results of the 2016 elections is a good example that can best describe how party identity and emotions helped elect a man without a specific political agenda but a slogan.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, "is there hope to seeing an end to extreme political polarization?" When it comes to political theory, all answers to such questions can be subjective. The reality is as long as we have parties, especially a two party system we will never see an end to polarization. We could however, come to a more "civilized" atmosphere where the two sides can find common ground and work together, if voters become more educated in politics. Voter ignorance gives parties the opportunity to win with candidates more extreme than swing voters would like if they know better.  (Bawn)