Transformation of the American Government and “Tradition of Exclusion”

The United States of America is a country known for its pride in its democratic government, where the American Dream encourages everyone to strive for the very best. That rhetoric is deeply rooted in every aspect of life in this country from its conception until now. Although the American Dream was not conceptualized until the latter half of this country’s existence, from the Independence until now, there is an essence of power and significance within everyone. Unfortunately, that is historically not the case- from its very beginning there has been a clear definition of the “superiority” of white males and how the minority groups have been ultimately left with challenges that will never put them in equal standing, this labeled as “Tradition of Exclusion”. Because of this, white males have had the advantage to become wealthier, more powerful, and more pervasive in every identity that runs this country. In other words, the way that this country’s political system was created, has benefited wealthy, powerful, and organized people, which have been predominantly the white males in this country, which translates into an unequal representation in the system of government.

To begin, it is necessary to introduce the statistics of racial minorities in the presidency, Congress, and federal courts. The first Black president was elected in 2008. That is more than two hundred years without having a minority president even though ever since the first decades of the country, there have been Blacks, Native Americans, and Latin Americans. In Congress, only 22% of representatives are from racial or ethnic minorities. Actually, the 116th Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse in the United States history, but this is still low considering that according to the 2010 census, of the 327 million people, only 60.4% are “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino,” and the other 30.9% is non-White. That means that there is still a representative gap of 9% in Congress currently. Similarly, in the Supreme Court, there has been some progress, but equal representation is still not the case. The first African American to serve on the court was Thurgood Marshall in 1967, but unfortunately, there have only been six total justices out of the 113 that have not been white males. By order of appointment, the six justices are, O’Connor, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The Court is different from the other two branches of government because unlike those, these justices had to be appointed by the presidents. This is crucial to one of the difficulties minorities face in government that will be discussed in a later paragraph.

Now that the numbers have been identified, it is important to discuss why it is so hard for racial minorities to gain a seat in the system of government, which continues the cycle of the unequal representation of the American demographics. There are three major factors that are necessary to succeed in elections or appointments to the government, wealth, education, and connections. None of these are required officially in the constitution, but they have been implied as necessities throughout the years. Wealth, education, and connections are all related because wealth usually leads to better education and to what is now referred to as “networking” or referencing, therefore only wealth will be discussed in this context.

First, it takes an immense amount of money to run a campaign for office. In the latest numbers, President Trump’s 2016 campaign cost $957 Billion to run, 26% in donations and the rest from endorsements, the party funds, and other means. Most information regarding the cost of congressional campaigns is totaled up, with an amount to a staggering $5.7 billion. Since the justices in the Supreme Court are appointed, there is no need for a campaign. This is an extremely high cost, not everyone can run a sustainable campaign. Asian Americans and Whites are statistically wealthier than the Black and Latino population. This means that it is less likely for minorities to successfully run and win a campaign if they do not have the financial power to do so in the first place. Also, a wealthier person is more likely to and pursue higher education in prestigious universities. An average of 97% of Congressmen have Bachelor's degrees, from the 116th Congress, 46 members attended Ivy League Universities, which is needless to say some of the most prestigious universities. It takes money to get an education like this, and these degrees play a big role in the credibility of these candidates. In the case of the justices on the supreme court, in order to get appointed, it is implied that it is just as necessary to get an extraordinary education in order to be successful in the justice system to be appointed to such an important position. Those without wealth, which are often minorities, that results in the financial ability to get an education or finance a campaign leads to a weaker chance of winning a seat. In order to put these inequalities in representation in perspective, it is important to mention some examples.

From the beginning, unequal representation has caused a lot of harm in the past. When people are not accurately represented in race or ethnicity, it becomes more difficult for their voices to be truly heard. This is not saying that White representatives cannot represent minorities well, as there are plenty of representatives that do advocate for minorities, but until the numbers of minority representatives align with the demographics of the country, there will never be truly equal representation. Although it is not as harmful now compared to the past, it is still important to look at the dangers of misrepresentation. It would not be possible to mention every single incident, considering that it was until the ratification of the 13th through 15th amendments in the 1860s when slavery was abolished, and a lot of horrible wrongdoings in representation occurred then, therefore only a few cases will be discussed. To begin, in 1896, every person in the political system was white and thus ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that the “separate but equal” principle was necessary. So much suffering was caused due to this and although farfetched considering how racist America was in those times, there could have been less harmful if there was more equal representation in government. Equally, with Brown v. Board of Education, a more representative Congress would have given input before even leading to a supreme court decision like this. This continues with the misrepresentation of Puerto Rico in Congress, that although the people are considered citizens, there is no representative that votes in important issues. Although two are extreme examples from the past, and one is current, unequal representation happens currently, not all citizens have true equal representation.

Although minority representation in the political system is growing, it is still necessary to improve it and its accessibility to minorities. One of the reasons why it is not growing as fast as it should be is because of the low minority voter turnout. It is highly probable that a lack of representation and the feeling of an insignificant voice is the motivation for a low minority voter turnout, which further continues the cycle of the slow growth of representation. This is why it is important to consider this phenomenon in the improvements for representation. The most likely sustainable and realistic options to a more equal representative political system are both an outreach system that connects minority candidates with campaign coordinators that have ways of getting more innovative public funding programs. As mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, the minority voter turnout is also important for these minority candidates to be successful. The outreach system should also provide educational services that help these voters be able to make informed decisions as well as have more accessibility for when the voting is happening.

In sum, the way that the government was morphed from the very beginning, from The Constitution to unofficial prerequisites, there has been a disadvantage for the poor and powerless in all branches of the government. It is difficult to truly represent people that are not as likely to have the same types of lives, thus not have the same necessities and priorities. Fortunately, as mentioned above, there is hope for change. Although it feels like it is a very divisive moment in history, every election year this country is striving for the equality that has been needed all these years.