Memorandum

To: Becky Strauss

From: Caroline Caporossi
Date: 13 October 2015
Subject: The Permanent Campaign
Voters agree that congress is dysfunctional. And so do members entrenched in the system.
Everything about Americas current congressional system discourages functionality and
long-term success and survivalfrom the structure of congressmens workdays, to the
dissolution of party leaders authority and power, to the constant quest for partisan
advantage. Each of these elements discourages working across party lines, preventing
effective governance and encouraging new politicians to go it alone, beholden to no
one.
The permanent campaign we now see has led to a new and growingly extreme political
culture of polarization, leading elected presidents to be forced to use executive power to
do their jobaffect policy. Although some argue that this muddling through is better
than an incompetent government passing policy that does accurately reflect the desires of
the population, the current system encourages growth in the wrong direction. The more
polarized and inefficient American politics becomes (a clear trend), the more the entire
political system is undermineddisallowing American policy innovation that the public
supports and barring any type of democracy in American politics.
At an almost record high, congressional gridlock has moved past the point of being
occasionally, inevitable. Congress is dysfunctional and incumbent re-election is evidence
of the American publics total loss of faith in the system in its entirety. They just dont
care anymore. Between the strategic agenda setting, and the constant back and forth of
partisan power, congress is being forced to be too moderate. On controversial issues they
pass continuing resolutions, stalling decisions; and in other cases, such as that of
President Obama, Republicans have gone as far as to form explicit policy to vote against
everything he puts forth, undermining the presidents power completely.
Although polarization is present, possibly even more so, in other systems such as the
parliamentary, the issue in America is that our system is moving in the wrong direction.
Kevin McCarthy is an example of this movement. Speaker of the House is not a policyguided position. Instead relations are important. McCarthys fight to win strategy is
evidence of an indifference to work with others. While Boehner at least had relationships
with democrats, McCarthy exemplifies the desire to amplify party differences, which,
unless we are presented with Republican leadership in congress as well as in the White
House, will be ineffective.
This dysfunctionality is the culture of the new generation in politics. Party members are
no longer encouraged to reach across the table and are instead, very much encouraged
to magnify differences whenever possible. Previous coalitions have given way to new
tensions and unless structural changes (such as the Frenchs ending of cohabitation or

Richard Pilds campaign finance reform) are made, the system will continue to worsen
until some anti-establishment newcomer changes American government entirely.
Subject: The United States Supreme Court
When our founding fathers envisioned what the Supreme Court would be, they had in
mind an effective an unbiased check on the governmentand a reliable reading of the
constitution. Today, however, the modern world has evolved far past conditions the
founding fathers could have ever imagined, leading the Supreme Court to have become
something that it was probably never intended to be. Whether the Supreme Court has
done more harm or good is unclear, and largely depends on voters ideological
preferences, as do all aspects of political life. It is clear however; that as American
society continues to modernize; the Supreme Court too will have to make some changes.
One of the key issues we have with the Supreme Court is inherent in any institution
whose sole decision influences our constitutional landscape so dramatically. Its absolute
power. While the Supreme Court was designed to be a check on governmental and
presidential power, it seems that nowhere is anyone checking the Supreme Court.
Sessions that shape the future of American life are closed to cameras, protecting
anonymity, and members are guaranteed life tenure, presenting the new issue of our
Supreme Court members (possibly many) being decrepit while making these lifechanging decisions. So the question remains, can we trust this very traditional American
institution?
In terms of the ethos of the Supreme Court, life tenure is only one of two major concerns.
Another comes with the Courts homogeneous nature. Although the Court is one of the
most ethnically diverse in our history, the people themselves in terms of experience have
never looked so similar. All come from Ivy-League schools, none have served as elected
officials; none have served in the military, or been capital defense attorneys. The result is
a group of adults with the same lofty, narrow set of experienceswhich will surely
influence how they vote.
Many say that the Supreme Court has done more harm than good and many say the
opposite. Polls show that the public is split; and as much as this could be due to the shift
in political leaning that has occurred in many decisions; it could also be due to the lack of
transparencywe, the people dont really know or understand what goes on in there. One
clear victory (in my opinion) was that in which preventing gay marriage was affirmed to
be unconstitutional. While many say that they Supreme Court was just taking credit for
the work of grassroots organizations; the Supreme Court was a necessary step in
solidifying that decision. Because, although we may not approve of the absolute power of
the Supreme Court; once a decision has been made it is extremely difficult for Americans
not to live by it.
In America today, how should an institution that is charged with making such
ideologically divisive decisions run? One of the greatest insights of the founding fathers

was to establish an institution that would be free from political influence. The last thing
we need in America is another polarized institution. The fact that we have an extremely
conservative Court leaning liberal on cases of civil issues is a huge achievement for
effective American government. The life tenure however as well as how the justices are
chosen needs to change; and limited elections may be the best way to do that. The fact
that in some presidencies, the task of picking the new life-long members of the Supreme
Court falls into your lap is nonsensical. I think that instead, Supreme Court members
should come from a large pool of eligible candidates and should be elected by peers,
much like the popewho is also chosen to bare the job of interpreting doctrine and
upholding morals. In my opinion, the idea of the Supreme Court is a very necessary part
of American government. As with all things however; as the world continues to
modernize, so must the Supreme Co
Subject: The Future of the US Economy
The economy of the United States has always been in flux between periods of innovation
and stagnation. In recent years, as we recover from the Great Stagnation, politicians
have pitted against each other, explaining to Americans how the other has effectively
ruined the American Dream. This has caused Americans, in a period when some kind
of government economic reform would greatly help, to instead become more
conservative on the issuesupporting the theory that economic crises cause a decline in
all kinds of government activism. Economists, scholars, and CEOs of major American
companies alike have outlined a range of ideas on what large, Nation-wide changes the
American economy needs. These changes focus on utilizing and improving upon its two
most quickly growing sectors: low income and the invisible/sharing economy. Although
they cannot seem to agree on one plan, it is clear that the only way that the great change
(which we require) will be implemented, is through some sort of government
intervention; and the sooner, the better.
In the last twenty years, the economy has changed drastically. One of the key differences
causing public mistrust of the government is the increasing income gap between the
very rich, and everyone else. One of the reasons why we have seen this gap increase is
that, while there has been very little creation in the category of the middle-class getaway
job, we have seen a very high rate of low-wage job creation, which is expected to
increase greatly in coming years. One solution put forward to counter this trend is to put
money into education, creating higher skilled workers, thereby making these workers
more productive, and raising wages. Another plan, which I find very proactive, is for
universities work with business owners to emphasize the value in uplifting their workers,
encouraging innovation, thus also increasing wages.
While these trends point to a growing wage gap in America, many consumers feel quite
positively about the economic recovery. This poses the question: is it really as bad as it
looks on paper? By all current measures of the economy we see a period of stagnation
that is not recovering the middle class; but we may need to begin to use a new measure,
which would take into account the invisible economy. This new measure would include
money saved by consumers through the fast growing shared economy. This movement of

access trumps ownership has great economic impacts. Consumers are spending less on
hospitality, retail, and travelthereby making the value of their lower paycheck that
much higher.
Looking forward, a drastic government plan will have to be put forward to support this
new age of the American economy beginning with a new way to measure the extent of
the problem. While the age of computers has encouraged the success of the shared
economy, it has also increased extreme job competitiveness; and only about fifteen
percent of the lucky future success stories are expected to have the skills to profit in this
new age if nothing is done. In an age where the highly skilled will hold the best and most
secure jobs, it has never been more important for our government to encourage a high
standard of education, put money into research, and therefore, support the type of largescale innovation that creates the most jobs.