Introduction
Political ideologies are views of what it means to have an idea, or at least desirable, socioeconomic framework. There is a correlation between geography and the attitudes of the residents. For instance, while such states as Mississippi and Alabama are considered deeply conservative, Chan argues that a liberal candidate would almost always win a race in Massachusetts and Hawaii (812). Apart from geography, however, there are other important factors for consideration. As an illustration, strong beliefs that something bad is happening and that the existing order is unable to have it addressed have been proved to trigger the emergence of an ideology. Perspectives may as well change if people presume that reprieve has resulted from a paradigm shift (Fry 235). A political ideology is informed by a variety of issues impacting the life of an individual or the members of society in general.
Influence of Life Cycle Events on the Emergence of Political Ideology
Individuals’ perspectives of socioeconomic ideals change as they age. When one is young, their life experiences might compel them to have a certain ideological leaning. Youths are, for instance, concerned about student loans and owning a home. As such, they are inclined to embrace liberal principles, and they would prefer progressive political candidates to conservative ones. This is particularly true if the former promise to redress the cost of college education or eligibility for a mortgage.
As an individual advances in age, such views could change in a remarkable manner. Such a transformation is informed by experience, growth in income, and homeownership. Individuals in generation X do not face the same kind of challenges as those in subsequent generations. Their aspirations and priorities are also remarkably different, with the former being most likely to be concerned about high taxation rates. They could also be alarmed by the number of regulations they are expected to meet prior to opening a business venture. Consequently, they could be persuaded to prefer conservative politicians to those holding liberal views.
Influence of Emergent Political Events on Political Ideology
In addition to taxes and what one considers to be their immediate needs, emergent events may cause one to reconsider their ideology. For instance, the administration of President Richard M. Nixon is remembered for two serious and distinct scandals. The first involved the conviction of Vice President Spiro Agnew for tax fraud, which compelled him to resign. The second was about a burglary that President Nixon ordered into the Watergate complex in a bid to plant listening devices into the Democratic National Committee’s offices. Even after the arrest of the intruders, the President sought to cover up the crime (Shon and Cho 200). Those who were mature enough to comprehend what was happening might have started to distrust the government.
The actions of President Nixon and Vice President Agnew may not have affected a majority of Americans personally. Nonetheless, the belief that governments lie, or at least do not relay the whole information, is what has triggered the rise of anarchism in the US. A significant number of those who do not embrace such extreme views may start to consider voting as inconsequential, and that could reduce the citizenry’s participation in the political process. Therefore, the events happening at a certain period of time are bound to impact people’s ideological leanings.
Influence of Personal Experience on Political Ideology
Personal experiences such as being a victim of a crime or getting arrested unjustly may cause one to have a certain ideology and not the other. Those who get traumatized by violent offenders prefer tough approaches to address delinquency. They could be driven by the need to ensure that such harm is kept at bay, and hence opt for conservatism since this is a belief system shared by individuals advocating for tough-on-crime policies. African American juveniles who feel being unfairly targeted by police officers would most probably favor liberalism (Fry 230). Personal experiences, or those of people a person identified with, impact their sociopolitical paradigm.
Influence of Generational Politico-Economic Events on the Emergence of Political Ideology
Generational events are developments that impact an entire age group. They, therefore, influence how those people perceive various political issues. For instance, a remarkable number of those who grew up or were adults in the course of the Great Depression tended to over-emphasize the need to save. They always feared that challenges may recur, hence the need to always be on guard. Apart from saving, those who appreciated that the policies of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped turn the economy around may be inclined to favor the Democratic Party’s political positions.
Concerning President Roosevelt, a significant number of those who felt that he was an effective leader during WW2 became Democrats for life. Nonetheless, there are others who may have disagreed with his delay in joining forces with the Allies before December 1941. Perceiving this as a weakness might have compelled some individuals into becoming Republicans because this is the party that has traditionally favored pre-emptive attacks (Shon and Cho 191). The Great Depression and the Second World War were events that happened over several years and hence were generational in nature.
Events of the Cold War
Smith would agree with this view as they argue that socioeconomic changes have always resulted in the emergence of corresponding political developments (557). He might say that those who were adults at that time, or anyone who understood what was happening, might have lived through the period between the 1950s and 1980s, fearing the possibility of a nuclear war. Indeed, President John F. Kennedy urged Americans to construct bomb shelters in case an atomic war broke out. The tensions only subsided when President Ronald Reagan took office, and hence Reagan was perceived as the leader who ended the Cold War. Reagan prompted a significant number of Americans to lean towards conservativism for the rest of their lives. Even those who may not have become Republicans might have felt that the country needed a strong military coupled with effective diplomacy.
Conclusion
Political ideologies are influenced by several factors apart from where an individual grew up. Many people tend to say that their families have traditionally had particular political leanings. Although familial backgrounds play a part in regards how individuals perceive the world, there are also several micro and macro events which shape their political ideologies. The former includes life-cycle events and personal experiences. Examples of the latter are the Great Depression, WW2, and the Cold War. All these developments are bound to influence someone’s political views in one way or the other.
The State and Governance: Influence of the Separation of Powers in Averting Tyranny
Governance in the United States is multilayered, and it is constituted of federal, state, and local levels. Each of them has institutions and officials tasked with specific roles. First, every government has three arms, including the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Within the executive are several agencies which help with administrative duties (Shon and Cho 203). The separation of powers into not just branches but also levels reduces the probability of the emergence of tyranny.
The Founders’ Motivation towards the Separation of Powers
Each layer and, consequently, an arm of government in the United States is meant to perform designated responsibilities. While the composition of governance seems complex and confusing, there are no overlaps. Every official and institution has distinct responsibilities, and therefore, conflicts rarely occur. Moreover, states, as well as communities, have room to design institutions that serve them best, and they may also create offices to facilitate the execution of the roles they create. This possibility has transformed the US’ political structure into a host of laboratories for leaders at all levels to experiment and determine which system is most successful and hence worthy of adoption across the board (Fry 221). This is a positive phenomenon because it makes it possible for the continuous reinvention of American politics.
Justification for the Continuation of Separation of Powers
It is important to allow people at the local levels to determine how they wish to be governed. Besides, states had their own systems of laws before the enactment of the Constitution of the United States. Even after that milestone was achieved, states have always had the independence to write their own constitutions, and, indeed, some do that frequently. It is imperative for this tradition to continue because it helps the citizens determine the structures and roles of their statewide and local governments, as well as how financing is accomplished. In addition, issues are addressed more specifically than is the case under federal law.
It is beneficial for states not to be copy-cuts of one another. Every one of them has a unique culture, demographic composition, geography, challenges, opportunities, and aspirations. If everything was decreed at the federal level, a lot of chances to improve people’s lives would be missed, and pertinent difficulties overlooked. The actions of the government would be far removed from the ordinary lives of the residents, and that is bound to sow discord similar to what happened when Edward Snowden shared his revelations with the media (Orren and Skowronek 22). The government may never solve every problem or satisfy every person’s needs. However, at least more issues are addressed in an effective manner when authority is closer to the residents than it would be the scenario if lower levels of government never existed.
Arguments Against Lower Levels of Government
The states, as well as local governments, are organized in different ways as they handle varied issues. Chan argues that while there are common features, the essential organizations are dissimilar (815). Opponents of multileveled government state that it is unfair to subject citizens of the same country to a broad array of laws and regulations. Someone moving between states and other smaller jurisdictions is often required to familiarize themselves with the legal frameworks of everywhere they traverse. They may also be required to alter their routines or behavior to avert the risk of being arrested, fined, or prosecuted. To opponents, placing such extra demands on an individual moving and living within the national borders undermines their happiness.
Opponents have also expressed concerns about how the penal code is applied. Some liberals, for example, argue that the death penalty should either be legal or illegal throughout the country and not have jurisdictions choose to do as they like. Similarly, a number of conservatives deem it to be wrong that local and state authorities can opt not to apply the immigration laws. According to them, sanctuary cities would most probably not exist if America had a single level of government. While views on both sides have merit, it must be appreciated that the idea behind a multilayered system of government is to allow the locals to choose what they perceive as their best interests.
Rebuttal of Arguments against Lower Levels of Government
The constitutional order in the United States is unique in the sense that there are adequate checks and balances. The fact that local administrations have powers does not give them the right to make and apply laws arbitrarily. Every law must at least not violate the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution of the United States. Second, governments at the borough, town, city, and county levels rule only as mandated by the state authorities (Orren and Skowronek 45). Considering that these lowest levels of administration impact the lives of an overwhelming majority of Americans, enough safeguards have been put in place to avert the enactment of unsound laws. Moreover, residents have more say when dealing with a local administration than when participating in federal affairs.
It is unlikely that states and local governments will ever be abolished. This is primarily because their priority and, indeed, sovereignty precedes that of the federal government. The states ceded only the powers expressly stipulated in the US Constitution, and the 10th Amendment is clear about this (Shon and Cho 191). The government is intentionally ordered the way it is in order to increase the likelihood that what it does on the ground accurately and fairly reflects what the citizens will. The United States is a huge country, and communities are, therefore, far-flung. It is only the members of these communities who understand what their prime concerns are.
While I do not consider myself a Republican, I believe that states should retain their authority. The United States’ success as an economy as well as sociopolitical power is strongly correlated to the decentralization of powers. As far as governance is concerned, I am of the opinion that diversity should be encouraged. Being an American is all about living one’s life as one sees fit. Communities in the US should continue having the ability to determine their own futures. Countries across the world, including in Africa, are adopting the American model of governance as they appreciate that its benefits far outweigh the costs.
Conclusion
If there are problems with the multileveled model of government, they should be dealt with without necessarily requiring the abolishment of state and local authorities. Otherwise, the US could risk sliding into the same kind of tyranny the Founders sought to prevent when they established the separation and several layers of power. This is a model that increases citizenry participation in determining how laws are passed and applied. An individual has the chance of optimizing their potential, and a community is free to exploit opportunities as they come by while also handling the unique challenges it faces.
References
Chan, Eugene Y. “Exposure to the American Flag Polarizes Democratic-Republican Ideologies.” British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 56, no. 4, 2017, pp. 809–818. EBSCOhost.
Fry, Earl H. “The Role of U.S. State Governments in International Relations, 1980-2015.” International Negotiation, vol. 22, no. 2, 2017, pp. 205–238. EBSCOhost. Web.
Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. The Policy State: An American Predicament. Harvard UP, 2019.
Shon, Jongmin, and Yoon Kyoung Cho. “Fiscal Decentralization and Government Corruption: Evidence from U.S. States.” Public Integrity, vol. 22, no. 2, 2020, pp. 187–204. EBSCOhost. Web.
Smith, Rogers M. “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in America.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3, 1993, pp. 549–566. Web.