Important Trends Missing In American Discourse
“For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to choose their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent…without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war.”
― John Locke, Second Treatise
Depiction of serfdom, c1300-c1325 © Global Look Press / Heritage-Images
All that we are today is the accumulation of what has come before us. All men are born into a society which forces them to abide by preordained rules which they neither had a part in creating nor have the ability to alter. When the American colonies were first brought together as one nation, its people willfully joined together. Now, two centuries later, U.S. citizens do not have the liberty of deciding whether or not they will accept being subject to American principles and laws. Without members of the general public being able to shape the guidelines that govern our way of life, they are born enslaved to government. It is important to acknowledge the nation’s structure that has allowed for the contract to be sustained and perpetuated generation after generation. The American government has been built upon the oppressed voices of its citizens and does not provide opportunities for these citizens to contribute to the government’s ever-evolving structure because the experiences of the common man are inconsequential. This is due to society’s political elite, this being “politicians, higher-level govt officials, journalists, activists, specialists”[1], and their desire to maintain control.
What is it about humans that we must be controlled? The Hobbesian State of Nature looks at the capacity of mankind when placed in an environment of scarce resources and matched competition. When all resources can be considered excludable and every person must fend for themself against equally capable parties, a trusting environment cannot be established. This was true when Europeans first came to America and it is still true today. In 2013, archaeologists discovered physical evidence of cannibalism that took place during the winter of 1609 when Jamestown English settlers scarcely had any food. During that season 80 percent of the settlers died, including one colonist who was executed for murdering and consuming his pregnant wife [2]. Adopting Hobbes’ assumption that it is man’s instinct is to survive — even if that requires killing others that stand in our way. The colonist’s wife was equally capable of killing him since they were in matched competition, whether she was physically able to overcome him or able to rely on her intellectual might to scheme his demise; however, clearly one partner was more desperate than the other. Today, we don’t face instances of cannibalism in America, but we do face the possibility of great conflict as nations race to obtain control of the remaining non-renewable resources on Earth. From 1964 to 1990, “73 civil wars over resources occurred…. and at least 18 international conflicts have been triggered by competition for resources since then”[3]. During the 2016–2020 Trump Administration, oil and gas drilling have been expanded and gas mileage standards and appliance energy efficiency standards have been diminished [36]. America is feeling the heat of competition and global climate change as it successfully begins implementing the exploitation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in opposition to the 37-year ban on drilling [37]. When every man is pitted against every man for their possessions, there is a need for the fair distribution of resources. Some entity must be willing to ensure that this order is maintained. Thus, for humans to live within a peaceful society, government is necessary. Provided this understanding of human nature, government can be defined as the political body that maintains order through the distribution of scarce resources. However, the government is only able to obtain legitimacy through its citizens willingingly giving up their freedom. America’s founding fathers had been scarred by what they had experienced as subjects of a tyrannical monarch [4]. They feared giving complete power to the government and so constructed a regime that the world falsely perceived to be near the status of a polity rather than a republic. Nevertheless, John Locke heavily influenced the foundational requisites for the American government and his ties to liberalism and the concept of basic rights gave birth to a democratic republic [38]. Unfortunately, when it came to the real-life manifestations of their idealized system, America’s government was only a perverted reflection of liberty. There was no grandeur form of democracy that came to be.
The idea of a democratic government goes beyond the basic functions that Hobbes established. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a democracy is a “government by the people”[5]. Given the definition of a government, a democracy becomes a political body responsible for allocating goods and maintaining order by means which are established by its citizens. Given that Locke believed that the only legitimate government, despite regime type, is one that has the consent of the people [38], it is clear that a strong government must not only permit but also encourage public participation through communication channels. From its inception, America’s government proved unable to meet Locke’s standards. A prime example is the history of suffrage for its citizens. The U.S. was founded in 1776 [7]. It was 94 years later when Congress ratified the Fifteenth Amendment with the goal of removing barriers to voting for African American men [8]. It was not until 1920 that women would gain the right to vote. It is now 100 years later, in 2020, and the voice of every U.S. citizen is still not heard due to the subversion of these amendments and mass voter suppression campaigns run by the political elite that target low-income, minority communities. Thus, marginal progress has been made towards providing channels for the American people to voice their dissent. Today’s American government not only falls short of earning consent from its people but also finds itself unable to even fulfill the basic role of a government. Instead of fulfilling its responsibilities as a government and democracy, the U.S. regime directly suppresses the voices of the people; in turn, suppressing democracy as a result of its political elite creating a politically polarized society.
American government was created and has been maintained solely by society’s upper echelon for the benefit of themselves. Beginning their journey as the federalists and anti-federalists, respectively developing into the Democratic and Republican parties, the reigning political parties have perfected a system in which the members of the public perceive them to be in opposition to one another. With two sets of polarizing beliefs, it is effortless to paint the political scene to be composed of two arch-nemesis warring to defeat one another. However, one without the other would be powerless. Both the right and the left wing parties collaborate to sustain one another and to suppress the voices of the American people. A direct method through which this has been accomplished is campaign finance regulations. Whether Democrats established regulations against corporations or Republicans attacked worker unions [9], realistically members of Congress used these regulations as a means to limit the extent that citizens may participate in elections. If public opinion is quieted through legislative and informal methods, the political elite have greater power to do as they please. This deceitful dynamic allows for the political elite of the Republican party to harm their own followers while simultaneously leading its victims to believe that the Democratic party is completely at fault. Any action that the Republican party takes against their Democratic counterparts will only result in retaliation, which negatively impacts all of their devotees, and heightens resentment from Democrats. Due to the increasingly polarized political beliefs that members of the general public hold, the Democratic party feeds off of the animosity built by its partner to convince its own following that the Republican party is the equivalent of the antichrist. This loop continuously builds momentum until the U.S. regime is no longer able to voice the general opinion of its people but instead has created a conjoined upper echelon puppeteering the masses.
The two-party system’s negative feedback cycle is perpetuated by the manipulation of news and information to be presented through the perspective of one political ideology over the other. This forces the American people to conform their beliefs to fit within a single party description. It is possible that many individuals are unable to express their actual beliefs because of the pressure they feel to fulfill the criteria of a model party member. As a result of such pressure, political parties coerce people to turn something irrelevant within their lives into a salient issue. The individuals responsible for tailoring available information are the political elite. Given the manufactured polarization of beliefs, the elite frame issues in a way that ties their new ambitions to a strong political ideology. Despite whether or not the new idea being presented is agreeable to the general public, if specific aspects of the topic are connected to issues that their party already deems to be salient, these qualities can be emphasized while other detrimental components are ignored [1]. For example, the Republican party champions economic frugality at the expense of environmental sustainability; whereas, the Democratic party prioritizes social welfare benefits at the expense of those who work hard to succeed in their profession. The political elite can polarize beliefs because citizens that have set opinions that align with one party’s ideologies will remain devoted to that party. Conversely, when someone is not politically inclined, they are likely to agree with whatever information is put in front of them, given that it is a well-constructed argument [1]. Thus, America’s current formal institutions have created great strife among its people, and they will continue to oppress the ability of citizens to think for themselves.
The two-party system has inhibited progress in addressing critical issues and continues to polarize American citizens, failing to permit expression of beliefs and government accountability to the public. In fact, in 2015 a group of individuals were surveyed on “whether or not they supported bombing in Agrabah”, a fictional country [10]. Despite being made up, 19 percent of the respondents that identified as Democrats opposed doing so and 30 percent of respondents that identified as Republicans said they supported the bombing. Only half of the survey respondents were willing to admit that they were not sure rather than taking a stance [10]. This reinforces the idea that the polarization effect that occurs as a result of political elitist dissemination of national media causes a large portion of the general public to be unable to think for themselves. The option presented to the American people to join one of two political parties does not align with democratic ideals. In all of American history, there have been a total of 1,984 senators [11]. A total of 76 of those senators came from a third or minor party [12], which is equivalent to less than four percent. The minority that is supposed to be protected by the system of democracy is unable to be represented within public opinion. The American regime claims to be a government by the people but does not desire to hear their voices.
To understand how political elites are able to possess oversight of news dissemination, it is necessary to take a closer look at the mechanics of America’s media industry. Because America’s political elites are able to establish corporate ties, America’s government has failed to even feign that its citizens had or have the opportunity to voice their opinions. The first colonial newspaper was established in 1690 but only survived long enough to release a single edition before the British Governor shut it down. No future attempts were made to create colonial news companies until 1704 and the mainstream publications were all pro-British until 1776 [13]. Although a new voice would be featured in publications, it was not the voice of the people. Individuals that were able to read, write, and purchase newspapers were society’s upper class citizens. Therefore, America’s political elite were able to establish news publications by and for themselves. Maintaining a media monopoly became increasingly difficult for the political elite due to technological advancements and the resulting increased accessibility to information. According to the Pew Research Center, newspapers are now the least utilized method of receiving information for the American people. Conversely, the television is most preferred while social media news outlets are on the rise as preferred news sources (Figure 1), especially among members of younger generations (Figure 2) [14].
However, increased accessibility to information and social media feeds has bred a desire for instant gratification. Receiving the news on current social and political events now comprises scrolling through headlines and being spoon-fed polarized propaganda in the place of general consensus on political, social, and economic issues. Information about such issues and events are presented in a manner that includes few facts that are rooted in truth and construct persuasive pieces that turn opinions into what the masses perceive to be reality. This can be seen in the most recent framing of protests against racial injustice. Republican news stories emphasize the need for officers to make split-second decisions and prioritize self-protection. Democratic news stories capitalize on the excessive use of force by policemen and their abuse of protestors. Although all Americans are able to experience the civil unrest taking place in their cities, each person views the Black Lives Matter Movement through a Red or Blue lens. This is because the short clips of information featured on social media, promotional videos, and television are selected by the political elite and are meant to persuade viewers of their preferred political perspective. This selection is done with ease and disseminated to all corners of the U.S. because of the few corporations responsible for most American media sources. In 1983 the list of corporations that owned the media consisted of 50 companies. This number dwindled to about half of that by 1992 and today comprises five companies [15]. According to WebFX, these key corporations are National Amusements, Disney, TimeWarner, Comcast, NewsCorp, and Sony [16]. With all movies, magazines, news, and other forms of media coming from five despot organizations, the American people have little say in what should be featured in the news or have access to objective accounts of current events.
Even for people that claim to be civically engaged and eager to avoid fake news, there are no sources available for them to truthfully educate themselves about candidates and governmental affairs. The University of Michigan defines fake news as new stories that are “fabricated, with no verifiable facts, sources or quotes” that fall within the larger realm of misinformation and disinformation [17]. While readers may be able to avoid fake news, they cannot escape false information created “to influence public opinion or obscure the truth” [18], otherwise known as disinformation. When everything must be taken with a grain of salt, how can we fully taste true democracy?
Political elites have pressured media outlets and journalists to focus coverage on disinformation and little else. This leaves journalists with the “free will” to publish insignificant pieces that do not reflect the importance of political discourse. The organizations that serve under the five aforementioned corporations are required to deny their right to freedom of expression. This has led to coverage being centered on social spectacles [19], such as which politicians are deciding to wear masks or what were the best one-liners of the presidential primary debates.
As America entered the 2020 presidential election season, having access to reliable information about candidates and their platforms was crucial for citizens to make a decision for themselves about who they will support. Unfortunately, news sources and many grassroot organizations centered their information on the aforementioned social spectacles and reverted to their reliance on political polarization. Leading up to the primary elections, Democratic voters rallied around removing Trump from office with little concern as to who would be his replacement. Rather than searching for solutions to the decomposing healthcare system or the nation’s suicide rate that has risen drastically due to the global pandemic, news sources and the general public wanted Trump front and center. Democratic voters convinced themselves that “the high road isn’t going to win this time,” and that “If we go high when they go low, we will lose” [Blake Caldwell, 71 Democratic supporter] [20]. Coming to the public stage with similar heat, supporters of President Trump extolled an unopposed candidate and rallied for a strong display of political power during the primaries. President Trump did not disappoint as he cast aside talk of policy and embraced attacking his political opponent. Both political parties failed to address what they would like to achieve if elected and instead broadcasted the idea that their opponent should not be in office. Due to the nation’s carefully crafted political divide, this form of electoral campaigning has proven to be sufficient. While members of the general public blindly fight one another rather than seeing past disinformation, society’s elites are able to perpetuate their dynasty.
The general public is complacent with not receiving innovative election platforms and every four years is willing to stand by the same party that they stood by in the prior election. This is the case despite the general public having seen little to no change occur in how they are able to interact with the governmental system and overall well-being of society. During the presidential elections of the 19th century, it was unprecedented that presidential candidates would campaign to persuade voters. Honorable men had better things to do than plead with citizens that they should be elected [21]. Although the idea of using demonstrative efforts as a means of gaining the support of the public seems like a noble strategy, it was not actually utilized by presidential candidates. Instead all of the persuading and coercing took place behind closed doors. President Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of the treasury claimed that while externally Lincoln feigned being unconcerned with his re-election, he was actually “too busy looking after the election to think of anything else” [21]. Although the right of political leaders to compete for support was not endangered, public opinion was egregiously neglected. With various political deals being made and support being weighed amongst states, citizens selected their leaders based on false outwards appearances.
Today’s presidential elections stand in stark contrast to those of centuries past. Presidential candidates now pour millions of dollars into their campaign efforts and speak outwardly of their desire to take office. However, this does not mean that the nation’s democracy was able to be brought to life because the voice of the people is still not heard. Recently, the Democratic Party decided to support Kamala Harris to serve in the capacity of Vice President. More consistent than any other Democratic candidate that graced the debate stages of this election season, Harris devoted herself to attacking Trump. During the September Democratic Debate, her opening statement began with the following: “First, I have a few words for Donald Trump” [22]. She focussed her limited time on highlighting Trump’s use of lies and distraction to cover up his policy failures. Although she received a large applause, she did not do her job as a candidate to educate viewers on how she intends to address many of society’s current crises. Little changed during the remainder of her performances this election season. Nevertheless, she was able to make it on the ballot by doing so, demonstrating the consistent shortcomings of the American governmental system. Democratic news sources are crying out for the end of Trump’s political career and citizens that identify as Democrats have been persuaded that this is what the 2020 presidential election is about. They have failed to remember that the nation needs a leader that will depend on the people for guidance and encourage their involvement in political processes.
The Republican party, too, fulfills its responsibility of maintaining a polarized system. President Trump does so by taking a hard stance on select matters that make for catchy headlines. This works efficiently because people have set beliefs about comprehensive issues such as abortion or gun control [23]. A tweet displaying such tactics was posted on July 17, 2018: “The Democrats want to abolish ICE, which will mean more crime in our country. I want to give ICE a big cheer! Vote Republican in November” [24]. Although only three simple sentences were used, Trump’s audience registers the following information as: (1) Democrats are associated with something bad; (2) Trump is against what the Democrats stand for; (3) Agreeing with Trump is the equivalent of supporting the Republican party. Three simple sentences were able to serve as the manifestation of the polarization effect. When more technical political, social, or economic issues do arise, Trump tweets messages that frequently target members of the Democratic party rather than addressing the concern [25]. This has allowed Trump to fall below his call of duty as President. If the American people cannot look to their leader in times of crisis, then it is doubtful that the government is functioning in its proper capacity. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many citizens are concerned about both their health and personal finances. However, Trump has been flagged for retweeting false information about how the virus is not as bad as media sources are making it out to be [26] and speaking about tax cuts for which he has provided no logistical information [27]. The combination of strategic attacks and diversion rallies Republicans behind Trump and infuriates Democrats, allowing for the continuation of polarized belief sets.
The polarization of political beliefs serves as the backbone of elitist strategy and results in populism. As defined by Fareed Zakaria, populism is fueled by “suspicion of and hostility toward elites, mainstream politics and established institutions in a way that speaks for the forgotten ‘ordinary’ person imagining itself as the voice of patriotism” [28]. Evidently, political parties are strongly ingrained within U.S. institutions, frequently causing citizens to become restless when the nation’s legislature is unable to work with the President to improve current societal issues. When members of society become increasingly supportive for action to be taken, it is more plausible for populism to arise because the public is tired of the current system not being able to put into action their desires. Given this understanding of populism, it inadvertently sounds like a reasonable political strategy for politicians to use: supporting anti-establishment sentiments for the sake of reforming the state’s institutions to reflect the needs of the people. However, when put into action by elites, this is not what actually occurs. Rather than being a means of identifying key issues in today’s society and implementing innovative solutions, extremist politicians parade about egregious ideas that, as expected, highlight salient issues within their political party. For instance, when discussing the complexities of the U.S. healthcare system, Democrats hope to establish universal health care whereas Republicans believe the exact opposite as demonstrated by Trump’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act [29]. This allows for both parties to create a divide between their supporters and the rest of the nation, which is viewed as wrong for their opposing beliefs, thus perpetuating political polarization.
In an election between an extremely liberal candidate and an extremely conservative candidate, the nation’s population is drawn farther and farther from one another due to contrasting voter preferences. In the presidential election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln, who did not overtly stand in opposition to slavery during his time running for office but was known to disagree with the institution, ran against three other candidates [30]. Although the other parties varied in the degree to which they supported slavery, one thing was clear in the nation: the north was against it and the south was for it. Although Lincoln received less than 40 percent of the popular vote, he won by an electoral landslide. Before Lincoln took office, Southern states had begun to secede [30]. Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, we have yet to have states secede but we have had months of rioting and two populist candidates attract great support from the public. Representing the Republican party, Trump has attempted to create an anti-establishment brand alongside Bernie Sanders who was a Democratic candidate competing in the primaries. In reality, both men only stand for what is undemocratic. Trump has capitalized on both left and right-wing populism [28]. Centered on immigration and economic policy, Trump has managed to create a platform that seems to prioritize the interest of only real Americans, opposing the political elite. This has resulted in growing sentiments of American nationalism and racist ideology being harnessed against American citizens who are not white. Rather than use cultural differences as a way to polarize the general public, Sanders emphasized the need for the nation’s working class to overcome the oppression of the upper class so that society’s economic gap could be mitigated [31]. This has cultivated a mass identity for members of the working class and their desire to deprive the wealthy of their riches and revoke their political voice. In a state where every voice is supposed to matter, the suppression of minority ethnic groups and ostracization of the nation’s financially stable is a direct violation of democratic ideology. If the polarization of political beliefs stems from the suppression of American voices and elimination of sources of information, nothing that comes from it can be the solution to inspiring democracy. Therefore, populism has only contributed to making it impossible for groups of people with opposing viewpoints to work together in coalitions, resulting in the country’s inability to fulfill public demand.
America — the land of the free — has failed to create channels through which its citizens can express their discontent and ways in which they can educate themselves on social and political matters so that they can contribute to political discussion. Therefore, the liberties which are provided by the government are merely chains in disguise. As demonstrated throughout the course of this paper, this has been the case since the government’s conception. However, few people are just now realizing the extent to which corruption and suppression have been woven into our society. The only way in which American citizens will be able to free themselves is to establish a true democracy. In order to do so, a civil society must first be formed. Given that there is a unified general public, in the sense of trustworthiness and amiability rather than political beliefs, a semi-presidential parliamentary system with proportional representation should be established to combat the elitist polarization strategy.
If the new American government is to be by the people, the people first must find their identity apart from the current political parties through the cultivation of civil society. Political scientist Robert Putnam researched regional civil societies and was able to identify a causal relation between the growth of civil society and the reinforcement of democratic institutionalization. When citizens are able to be involved in organizations and socialize outside of the constraints of their families, the government is more likely to be held accountable by its people [32]. If citizens are able to establish bonds with their fellow community members through recreational activities, the contrasts among their beliefs will simply be a small part of what does not connect them which dulls in comparison to their shared interests. It is crucial that members of the public are the beginning of this new democracy in order to build a strong foundation for the governing structure that they will play a key role in maintaining as well.
The new governance structure should be a semi-presidential parliamentary system with proportional representation so that it is able to accurately represent the people and the array of political perspectives in which they may have. Currently, America has a presidential system that uses a single-member district method of electing representatives. This translates to a system where there is one executive leader who along with the members of the legislative body are voted into office by a majority vote [33]. In contrast, a semi-presidential parliamentary system has a Prime Minister that serves as the head of state and an elected President that serves as the head of government, effectively dividing the responsibilities of the American president into two roles [34]. This system allows for public mandate and the ability for parties to form a coalition meaning that the consensus of the general public is always taken into consideration. Because the U.S. is a Presidential system, there is no way in which the national leader can be easily removed from office, allowing for political unrest to build. Although the president can technically be impeached, there is no great historical precedence allowing for this to occur, unlike in a Parliamentary system [33]. The institution through which the general public can express their discontent and preference for a new Prime Minister, even before their term is completed, is a vote of no confidence. This process is initiated by the legislature and unless a majority of this political body is in favor of the Prime Minister, they can remove them from office. [34]. In a governmental system where the positions of the leading politicians are not set in stone, there is increased accountability that allows for democracy to be sustained.
In a Semi-Parliamentary system, democracy is taken to a new level because citizens are able to select a political party based on their personal beliefs. Germany is an example of a state with a Parliamentary system where there may be up to six or seven parties that work together. Each of these parties lie on different points of the political spectrum so that individuals with specific concerns can find smaller factions that suit their beliefs. It is also common for individuals to switch which party they support over time as the parties develop and so do voter beliefs based on their life experiences. Having a dynamic governmental system that is able to reflect public concerns fulfills the democratic requirement of having open channels of communication since all opinions will be represented in the state legislature. Antithetically, America’s two parties are static and hold beliefs that are relatively close to one another when compared to the variety of political parties in Germany [35]. Not only does the current legislative body lack representation in regards to political perspectives but it also lacks proper ethnic, gender, and religious representation in proportion to the demographics of the U.S. population. A governance system that allows for the election of representatives through proportional representation allows for the percentage of votes that goes towards one party to receive the equivalent percentage of seats [33]. Because there are various political parties that end up comprising Parliament, they create coalitions that work together and work to find a way to benefit the whole state population.
Until the American people are able to find their voice, there is no hope for democracy. As the past two centuries have demonstrated, the current governmental system has continuously failed to meet the minimum standards of a democracy. Instead members of society that have wielded exorbitant levels of power, ranging from politicians to persuasive activists, have actively worked against the general public. Between constantly filling today’s means of communication with polarizing disinformation and irrelevant social spectacles, the political elite have managed to keep the masses silent. Throughout the course of the 2020 election thus far, the American people have bowed to the will of the political elite, perpetuating a faulty governmental system. Now, you may find yourself torn between which political party to support or dead-set on one candidate, but beware, you are voting for the same person. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are just symbols of the corrupt governmental system its citizens are slaves to.
Bibliography
[1] Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature & Origins of Mass Opinion (pp. 6, 96, 8–9). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511818691
[2] Neely, P. (2013, May 03). Jamestown Colonists Resorted to Cannibalism. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/5/130501-jamestown-cannibalism-archeology-science/
[3] Conflict over resources. (n.d.). Retrieved September 05, 2020, from https://www.sharing.org/why-nations-need-to-share/conflict-over-resources
[4] The Constitution of the United States (1787). (2019, August 02). Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://kr.usembassy.gov/education-culture/infopedia-usa/living-documents-american-history-democracy/constitution-united-states-1787/
[5] Democracy. (n.d.). Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
[6] Dahl, R. A. (1973). Democratization and Public Opposition. In Polyarchy participation and opposition (pp. 1–3). New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Pr.
[7] History.com Editors. (2010, September 01). Congress renames the nation “United States of America”. Retrieved September 05, 2020, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-renames-the-nation-united-states-of-america
[8] 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870). (n.d.). Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false
[9] Council, F. (Director). (2017, March 11). [Video file]. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.frc.org/events/the-intimidation-game-how-the-left-is-silencing-free-speech
[10] Bier, D. (2015, December 18). 30% of GOP, 19% of Dems Support Bombing Aladdin’s Country: Daniel Bier. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://fee.org/articles/30-of-republicans-19-of-democrats-support-bombing-aladdin/
[11] Total Members of the House & State Representation. (n.d.). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://history.house.gov/Institution/Total-Members/Total-Members/
[12] Senators Representing Third or Minor Parties. (2020, February 11). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_thirdParties.htm
[13] Shedden, D. (2014, November 24). Today in media history: First colonial newspaper published in 1690. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2014/today-in-media-history-first-colonial-newspaper-published-in-1690/
[14] Shearer, E. (2018, December 10). Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news source. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/
[15] Independent Lens . DEMOCRACY ON DEADLINE . Who Owns the Media? (n.d.). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/democracyondeadline/mediaownership.html
[16] WebFX Team. (2020, January 30). The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media [INFOGRAPHIC]. Retrieved September 05, 2020, from https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
[17] University of Michigan. (n.d.). “Fake News,” Lies and Propaganda: How to Sort Fact from Fiction. Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://guides.lib.umich.edu/fakenews
[18] Disinformation. (n.d.). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation
[19] Joseph M. Scanlon, M. (n.d.). American Government. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-monroecc-americangovernment/chapter/the-impact-of-the-media/
[20] Peoples, S. (2019, August 27). Democrats navigating nasty race against Trump. Detroit News. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/26/election-democrats-trump/40033607/
[21] Ellis, R. J., & Dedrick, M. (1997). The Presidential Candidate, Then and Now. Perspectives on Political Science, 26(4), 208–216. Retrieved September 4, 2020, from http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/ellis.htm
[22] ABC News Democratic Debate — WATCH THE FULL DEBATE (2019) [Video file]. (2019, September 12). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UWVO0Trd1c&feature=youtu.be
[23] Buchler, J. (2019, October 11). Voters often parrot the party line, even when polls suggest otherwise. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/voters-often-parrot-the-party-line-even-when-polls-suggest-otherwise-120145
[24] Trump, D. (2018, July 18). Retrieved September 04, 2020, from https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1019378119671730176?lang=en
[25] Shear, M., Haberman, M., Confessore, N., Yourish, K., Buchanan, L., & Collins, K. (2019, November 02). How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000 Tweets. New York Times. Retrieved August 13, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html
[26] Bomey, N. (2020, August 31). Twitter removes Trump retweet sharing false information on COVID-19 deaths. USA Today. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/08/31/twitter-removes-trump-retweet-coronavirus-deaths/5678300002/
[27] Davison, P. (2020, August 31). Trump, Biden tout contrasting economic plans. Which will restore jobs lost in the pandemic faster? Retrieved August 03, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/31/trump-biden-who-has-better-plan-recover-jobs-destroyed-covid-19/5667337002/
[28] Zakaria, F. (2016). Populism on the March. Foreign Affairs, 95(6), 9–15. Retrieved 2019, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.neu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=639fb9ca-c507-4e30-bb78-6d0bee6696d6@pdc-v-sessmgr02
[29] Hudak, J. (2019, July 12). Health care is an opportunity and liability for both parties in 2020. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/07/12/health-care-is-an-opportunity-and-liability-for-both-parties-in-2020/
[30] History.com Editors. (2017, December 01). Election of 1860. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/election-of-1860
[31] Espenshade, D. (2020, June 10). Populism in American Elections: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/06/populism-in-american-elections-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump/
[32] Putnam, R. (1992). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7
[33] Brown, C. (2019, September 30). Democratic Institutions. Lecture presented at Comparative Politics 1115 in Northeastern University, Boston.
[34] Mattgolder.com. (n.d.). Parliamentary, Presidential and Semi-Presidential Democracies. Retrieved from http://mattgolder.com/files/teaching/chapter12_black.pdf
[35] Annalizhaz. (2017, August 30). Six Charts To Help Americans Understand The Upcoming German Election. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/six-charts-to-help-americans-understand-the-upcoming-german-election/
[36] Eilperin, J. (2020, August 17). Trump finalizes drilling plan for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/08/17/trump-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge-alaska/
[37] Collins, M. (2017, November 19). Congress moves to ‘drill, baby, drill’ in Alaska’s ANWR. Here’s what you should know. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/19/congress-moves-drill-baby-drill-alaska-anwr-refuge-heres-what-you-should-know/874187001/
[38] McLean, J. (2019). History of Western Civilization II. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/john-locke/
