Category: Political Culture

Individualistic culture is a general public that is portrayed by individualism, which is the prioritization, or accentuation, of the person over the whole gathering. It has the quality of the government’s job is restricted, essentially to keep the commercial center working. A traditionalistic political culture is the job of the government is the protection of convention and existing social request, the government is to keep up the current social and financial progressive system. Houston is both individualistic and traditionalistic in light of the fact that its way of life created from both the southern and the central provinces. The traditionalistic parts of city governmental issues are exemplified by the long history of one-party strength in state legislative issues, the low degree of voter turnout, and social and monetary conservatism. The individualistic idea of state legislative issues can be found in the help for private business, resistance to large government, and confidence in singular activity.

First and foremost, Dr. Elazar portrays that Houston’s political culture as a blend of individualistic and traditionalistic components. In this manner, Houston is the most racially and ethnically assorted city in the United States. “Houston is a worker magnet”, – said Glenda Joe, a Chinese-Texan people group coordinator whose more distant family came to Houston during the 1880s. At around 35 percent of the populace, Latinos make up the second-greatest gathering in Houston after non-Hispanic whites or Anglos. Therefore, according to statistics, Asian-Americans are the quickest developing gathering multiplying around seven percent between the years 1990 and 2010.

Moreover, individualism and traditionalism make Houston a politically moderate city, as opposed to government actions, particularly government obstruction in the economy. The government is required to avoid individuals’ undertakings, and when it gets included, it ought to be controlled locally. The government ought to spend pretty much nothing and assessment little, if by any means. Singular specialists should control their own destiny and the economy. Houston political culture blends financial conservatism in with a preservationist way to deal with public activity, in which the administration turns into an obstruction against any change to the political progression that may result from a singular challenge. Individualism and traditionalism mix with a way of thinking of social Darwinism, a faith in natural selection missing administrative obstruction, the individuals who ascend to the top merit it, and the individuals who tumble to the base likewise merit it. It isn’t the administration’s obligation to get them. Social Darwinists accept that neediness results from regular choice and are consequently not something to be fixed by the government.

Finally, beginning in 2012, 69% of the Houston metropolitan region’s residents voting-age populace revealed being enrolled to cast a ballot, just marginally underneath the national amount of 71%. When inquired as to why they decided not to enlist, the greater part of casting a ballot-qualified, yet not enrolled, Houston inhabitants questioned referred to their lack of engagement in governmental issues. Other normal reactions incorporated the 30-day enlistment cutoff time and disarray regarding where or how to enroll. As far as real democratic rates, Houston normally bests citywide voter turnout levels, however, it doesn’t coordinate its companion metro territories around the country. Voter turnout in the Houston metro frequently ventures into the high 50s during presidential races and floats around 40% in midterm decisions. When inquired as to why they shun casting a ballot, a fifth of Houstonians said that they didn’t accept their interest would have any sort of important effect on discretionary results.

Texas is blend of the individualistic and traditionalistic political culture. After getting independence from Mexico, the state mostly developed on effort of individual which still linger in Texas politics. Texas government has very limited power only to the extent that it creates opportunity for individual achievement. The state traditionally has been one party system. At present Texas economic and social conservatism, less voter turnout reflects the traditionalism. The belief values attitudes that make up Texas political culture and politics provide the context for state policy. Texas common political culture is intertwined with the country’s specific history, reflecting Texas regional influence and geographical and ethnic diversity. This history has shaped an apparently conservative political culture, especially in terms of tax, and government-scale restrictions. Democrats, republicans and libertarians are three of most prominent parties within Texas. Each political parties poses unique philosophy with specific viewpoints and recommendations for reforming government public policy. Such blend of politics and political culture has created unique public policies in Texas.

Though Texas is growing economically and reducing its unemployment rates, when compared to other states Texas ranks towards bottom in many service areas. According to report of Texas legislative study group, “Texas is dead last in percentage of high school graduates, has highest percentage of uninsured adults in nation, and produce more hazardous waste and carbon emission than other states” (Michal king, 2013). Thus, I believe that Texas public policies are hopelessly mired in the values of an era that has passed, harm many of its vulnerable citizens and cannot be a road map to the state future success.

Texas is one of the nine states that does not impose a wide-ranging personal income tax instead it relies on high sales, business tax, and severance tax. Despite the variety of taxes, Texas has become dependent upon non-tax revenue sources such as lottery, investment and interest, license and fees, including federal funding. Texas reliance on high sales tax is affecting its tax elasticity, it is not growing with economy as expected. This tax system is not helping states economy as a whole. The middle class to higher class family is tends to purchase goods and service which are not subject of sales tax which such as real estate transactions, legal service, accounting service, and brokerage transaction. If we see severance tax, the tax on extraction of nonrenewable sources which provide heavy revenue to state is steadily decreasing over time. Other government taxes like excise and property taxes are also not increasing as expected with rise of income of citizen. As a result, tax revenue is not increasing in Texas, even if the state is economically progressive. Beside this, due to regressive tax policy, lower income citizen ends up spending more on sales tax for daily needs rather than higher income citizen which place heavier burden on poor citizen. Thus, we can conclude that low tax system is particularly not helping economic raise of states rather it is favoring certain higher income people and tax burden is not equitable as every citizen end up spending equal amount of sales tax despite their income and social standing.

Talking about the social service and welfare Texas rank towards the bottom in this area. Despite being large industrial states, Texas has third highest percentage of its population living in poverty than overall US average. Increasing employment opportunity is not helping to decrease poverty as majority job is low wages and majority of adult population has only high school diploma. As well, it has a large uninsured population. For addressing this issue, the states provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicated, and Children Health Insurance Program (CHIP). These programs are jointly funded by state and federal government but administer by state. Federal provide the basic guideline for qualifying the eligibility for the program, but state has some flexibility to adjust it. Due to increasing population and low tax policy makes difficult for funding these programs. Besides, Texas constitutional spending limit on debit, social welfare (limiting welfare expenditures to 1 percent) of the state’s budget, and pay-as-you go limit shrinks the budget on social service and welfare. So, state makes strict policy for aid which does not cover all needy population. And skyrocketing medical cost makes it even harder which results increase of uninsured population. Majority of revenue goes on other funding like highway maintenance which decrease the fund for vital services like education and health welfare. So, current policy is affecting the majority of poor vulnerable citizen which are almost half population of the state.

When comes to energy and environmental policy, among all states Texas ranks high on producing pollutants into land, air and water. With over a third of the nation’s oil and gas wells, compressor stations, and gas processing facilities spread throughout the state, Texans bear a huge portion of health risk caused by oil and gas industry air pollutant. Though states, already has existing huge pollution problem, Texas government political culture emphasize economic development over environment protection. Texans enjoy their open spaces and their natural resources but been hesitant to protect them at expenses of other interest. They don’t like to pay high tax and as well they don’t like being told what to do. But protection of environment requires strict rule to be followed and comes with high expenses which is a big challenge as it cannot be achieved without raising tax. Several agencies Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Commission on Environment Quality (TCEQ), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department participates with environment protection policy but all these agencies are bound to follow the rules set by federal government. At the federal, state, and local level policy makers consistently face a compromise when it comes to protect surrounding at expense of non-public property rights and different pursuits such as business, and transportation which makes it complicated in political level.

Finally, we can conclude the Texas tax system has more burden to poor citizen which makes half population, with overall less revenue collection for states to run. Texas dependency on non-renewable resources oil industry including huge chemical plant is polluting the environment, and less revenue and constitutional law restriction on social welfare and social service is hurting the vulnerable, minority citizen. Economic achievement and growing industrialization are not helping the state as a whole to enjoy new income progress rather it is confined to limited high class people. Thus, current political environment and public policies is hurting vulnerable population which need to be recognized and addressed soon for development of states as a whole.

Regarding this thematical essay, the discussion being covered regards the ‘ideal political system’, in which I will analyze, as well as investigate, the ideal political system with the support of real-life examples from real-world political systems, in addition, to support my arguments, the use of academic debates and literature on the topic will be prominent in aiding whether, for example, a parliamentary system is more practical and efficient compared to a semi-presidential. The four key areas discussed are the following: system, constitution, legislature, and electoral system.

System

About a political system, the process of the system involves decision-making and governing, which is done in various ways throughout the world, a clear example of a political system is a parliamentary system this system involves a democratic form of government that consists of a governing party whose leader becomes prime minister. On the contrary, the minority party serves as an opposition to the governing party and regularly contests decisions made by the government allowing for legislations proposed by the government to be dissected and criticized, which could appear to be undermining, as in a parliamentary system MPs (members of parliament) generally take a vote in favor of or against bills proposed by the government, in which they are also capable of blocking bills being passed, as well as stalling bills proposed by the prime minister, illustrating the capabilities MPs have, with regards to restricting the influence of the prime minister, but also them being able to have a major role in the decision-making of the country.

Generally, in most cases, MPs tend to vote based on party allegiances, which further highlights the divide between the values and principles held by members of parliament, indicating frailty in the parliamentary political system, as there are cases in which MPs are forced to vote with their party, even if the bill proposed doesn’t resonate with their beliefs and ethics. The consequences which occur if they breach the party whip can include reduced prospects of promotion within the party or appointment to an MPs preferred committee, a less desirable parliamentary office, or selection for unpopular parliamentary duties, demonstrating an undemocratic style of governance as members of the party must adhere to strict guidelines or face punishment.

Whereas a presidential political system, a system which also adheres to a democratic form of government, enables the head of state to have more independence as they do not need the confidence of the legislature, e.g., the Senate and the House of Representatives, as in a presidential system the head of state cannot be removed by the legislature, this can only occur in situations in which he/she has committed a crime or in circumstances in which they have violated the constitution allowing for more stability and security in the presidential political system. In comparison to that of the parliamentary system, an argument can also be proposed that the presidential political system enables the head of state to be held directly accountable, this differs from systems such as directorial political systems due to the multiple members in the executive branch there is a lack of accountability as multiple individuals will decide on matters creating confusion, which is therefore not ideal, in comparison to a presidential system where there is a clear mandate set.

With regards to the removal of the prime ministers in circumstances in which they do not have the confidence of parliament, the parliamentary political system bases the legitimacy of the prime minister on whether parliament has confidence in the prime minister, not because the individual has been elected in office, in addition, the fact that election schedules are not fixed further forces voters to be put in harsher positions, on the contrary, systems such as presidential systems have fixed elections, allowing voters to vote without the pressure of having an un-scheduled illustrating a more ideal, as well as stable system compared to the rushed parliamentary format.

Constitution

Constitutions depict the rights which citizens hold, in addition, they also illustrate the limitations held by the government. The basis of constitutions are statutes, as well as the common law of the state. Codified constitutions consist of provisions written in a single document, while an uncodified constitution is an unwritten document, yet is illustrated in a variety of official documents, and is also less authoritative and not as entrenched when compared to a codified constitution, which views the constitution as more powerful than standard legislations, making it more of an ideal form of the constitution as this form of the constitution makes it easier to establish when the government has breached the constitution, while also protecting the rights such as freedom of speech placing them on a higher pedestal than legislation. While uncodified constitutions are more relaxed as legislations and the constitution share the same status highlighting that codified constitutions place more value and authority on the constitution, making it more ideal in comparison to an uncodified format.

Legislature

An assembly with the capabilities and authority to put forth laws, a legislature is a vital part of the state. Members of the legislatures are elected individuals who oversee governing these individuals form important parts of government. The legislature can be classified into two classes: bicameral and unicameral. Bicameral legislatures involve two branches, chambers, or houses. As a legislative body, this form of the legislature is the system depicted in the United States of America, in addition, the bicameral legislature enables laws to be thoroughly debated before they are made in the country. Moreover, this legislature also allows for more experienced individuals to be a part of the decision-making of laws, for example, doctors and scientists in cases where laws involve the health and well-being of the public, making this form of the legislature more efficient and ideal.

While the unicameral legislature involves only one house or chamber, allowing for bills to be passed quicker, these bills are insufficiently debated in comparison to bicameral, which go through various stages before bills are passed, therefore making it more ideal as these bills are looked through in detail. In addition, the bicameral legislature spreads the influence and reduces domination of the executive arms within the two chambers, whereas the unicameral legislature allows for unfair representation and also enables the ruling government to influence decisions as they generally have the majority in the house, indicating major flaws in this form of legislature.

Electoral System

A system of voting which decides on the outcome of an election, an electoral system is used in determining electoral results the various forms of an electoral system include: a PR list (open or closed), single transferable vote, mixed member system/additional member system, alternative vote, and first-past-the-post. In a PR list, also known as a party-list proportional representation system, this electoral system allows for parties to construct a list of candidates to be elected, in which their seats are distributed in proportion to the number of votes received by the party. This system is notably used in countries such as Turkey and Argentina. Yet under this electoral system, parties with radical ideologies can gain official representation, even though they don’t provide direct representation to specific communities, as in this format seats are not awarded based on the district voting but on the number of votes gained by the party which creates under-appreciated voters and can lead to increases in crimes, as communities or individuals may feel neglected as issues in their communities aren’t being addressed, this could include issues such as social issues, crimes or even pollution, highlighting how this electoral system under-values voters, therefore, making it not as ideal in comparison to a single transferable vote system.

A system that aims to prevent cases in which one single party takes all the seats, the single transferable vote system reduces the chances of parties or candidates with extremist views from being elected, as this system takes into account which candidate is least favorable and also allows voters to have various preferences in whom to vote for if there chosen candidate is eliminated from the election, yet the major flaw in this system is that it is time-consuming, yet appealing in that voters have various choices and aren’t closed in options and can vote for various candidates. Similar in ways to the party-list proportional representation system, the first-past-the-post electoral system also elects the highest polling candidate, in addition, this system allows for MPs to get elected with only 30% of their constituency in favor of them yet the remaining 70% didn’t vote for this candidate as their MP, sharing further similarities with the party-list proportional representation system, as the lack of representation of underrepresented voters can result in increases in social issues in the said area such as unemployment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, with regards to the ideal political system, I have concluded that as a system the presidential political system displays the most ideal attributes, in relation to which is the most ‘ideal political system’. This is due to a lack of accountability regarding other systems such as the one-party system, directorial system, and also absolute monarch, as these political systems allow for a lack of accountability. As in the case of absolute monarchs the unchallengeable political power held makes it hard for individuals to hold them accountable for actions as they may face discrimination if they challenge the authority. Similarly in the one-party system, the people have no power to change the government as other parties are limited in participation, which therefore makes it hard for them to hold the government accountable as their vote cannot make a difference. Whilst the directorial system differs majorly from absolute monarchs and one-party systems, this political system leads to confusion in that various individuals share the decision-making role and accountability can be shifted. Yet the presidential political system allows for one individual to be elected head of state where they are held accountable to the people who are able to vote in favor or for another candidate once the presidential term has finished, highlighting the power held by the public, which makes the presidential system a more appealing political system as the separation of powers in a presidential system reduces the chances of a corrupt government. Contrastingly, hybrid political systems are much more susceptible to a tyrannical as well as corrupt government due to the president being an un-elected president, therefore, illustrating the practicality of a presidential political system that offers stability, accountability, and freedom of choice. With regards to the ideal constitution, the codified constitution illustrates a more comprehendible format in that the codified constitution establishes cases in which the government has breached the constitution, indicating that this form of constitution adheres to a strict form and also protects the rights of the people. In the case of the legislature, the bicameral legislature enables for a more efficient and stable form of law-making as the process allows for laws to be looked into in detail by various experienced individuals also allowing for thorough debate before passed making it highly ideal in comparison to other forms of the legislature. Lastly, the electoral system, which displays the most rational system of voting, the single transferable vote system indicates a form of voting where the voters aren’t restricted in options but can have to choose various candidates if their first choice has failed to allow for voters to be represented extensively.

The famous activist and leader in the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., once said: “We are not makers of history. We are made by history”. I completely agree with this idea because the truth is that not only did events in history define our society and the ways we think and live, they also shape the political culture of our nation. In the same way, when the New Deal came out from 1933 to 1936, it transformed the American political culture.

For example, let’s look at two of the most important programs of the New Deal, the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Wagner Act. In 1935, the Social Security Act was created to provide supports for unemployed workers and old-age insurance (Dr. Gonzalez’s, 11/07/19). This was a very big surprise for Americans, especially the elderly since they can now actually feel a sense of safety and assurance because the federal government will provide for them in their old age after retirement as long as they paid social security while they worked. This transformed the American political culture because, never before, the connection between the federal government and its people is this strong, but now it started to show a more direct focus on everyone, especially the less unfortunate ones. Through the program, the government provided a sort of safety net, which protected people from unemployment, disability, poverty, and old age (Oakes, pg. 698). This was the opposite of the time before the Great Depression when there was no backup plans or direct federal support, which was part of the cause of the depression. With the creation of the SSA, the government began to take more responsibility for the people’s economic security, and at the same time allowing people the freedom they always have, with which they can use to decide whether they want the government’s help or not (Oakes, pg. 705).

Besides the SSA, in the same year of 1935, the National Labor Relations Act, commonly known as the Wagner Act, was also put in action. This program’s purpose was to strengthen, support, and enforce worker’s basic rights such as unionize and bargaining (Dr. Gonzalez’s, 11/07/19). Before this, labor unions were already a thing that workers knew about, however, not many dared to join because it did not look good in the eyes of employers, and most importantly, there wasn’t anything that stood behind and backed up these unions. By using this program, the government made it very clear that it stood by the workers, supported them, and guaranteed that their rights are being respected. This was a shift in the American political culture because, in the past, the government was sometimes against labor unions and even sent troops to oppose them, but now the government officially recognized them, stood with them, and were willing to defend them against unfair treatments from businesses. In just 11 years from 1933, union memberships went from 3 million to 14 million, which was equivalent to 30% of the whole workforce being in unions at the time (Dr. Gonzalez’s, 11/07/19). Before, the government cared about the economy, but it seemed like they only cared about the rich part of it, instead of the major part, which was workers. Via the program, FDR made America saw the fact that workers are pretty much the backbone of the economy and made up most parts of productivity and consumers, and that meant that the government should care more about workers and give them more power both economically and politically. Again, with the cause of the Great Depression, this tragic event happened because people, mostly made up of workers and their families, ran out of money to buy things, which led to overproduction. But to prevent this in the future, the government used the Wagner Act to grant workers the right to organize and speak their minds along with other improvements such as limited hours and better wages (Oakes, pg. 705-706). This made America a better place for workers, where the federal government put in efforts to protect them and started taking more responsibilities when production, workers’ rights and conditions went downhill.

Even though the New Deal wasn’t what got America out of the Great Depression, it still played a big part in changing the way Americans think, the way government works, and American political culture, and it also improved the connection between the people and the leaders, which proved to be essential in every situation.