Michael A. Ruotolo
Michael A. Ruotolo is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Boston, where he earned a B.A. in Communications.
He writes on a variety of topics, including politics, social trends, and current events. For inquiries, email michaelanthonyruotolo@gmail.com
AUG 01, 2024
Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro has claimed himself the victor of his country's recent election, despite losing. Unbiased third-party polls show Maduro, who is under investigation by the United Nations for crimes against humanity, as the loser of this election. In fact, his opponent in the race, Edmundo González, won the election by an embarrassingly wide margin, nearly 30%. What makes Maduro's defeat even more difficult to swallow is that his opponent, González, was never meant to be viewed as a legitimate candidate in the first place; rather, he was simply a placeholder for the more widely supported opposition leader, María Corina Machado, who was barred from running in the election by Venezuela's government (Maduro) for speaking critically of the Maduro regime.
Though polls show Edmundo González as the clear cut victor, the Venezuelan electoral body insists that Maduro has won and secured another six-year term in office. Consider this a page taken directly from the instruction manual on How to be a Tyrant. Step one, root oneself in a place of political power. Step two, deny free and fair elections. Step three,employ military force to oppose any and all naysayers. Given that history tends to repeat itself –– especially in the realm of geopolitics — one could only assume that the impending step of Maduro's tyrannical-journey will surely be a Venezuelan civil war, followed soon-after by divine western intervention. Cue the United States! Defender of freedom! Savior of democracy!
The United States was one of the first nations to condemn Nicolás Maduro’s blatant circumnavigation of the democratic process. Brazil, a longtime ally and trading partner of Venezuela, also expressed skepticism regarding the legitimacy of Maduro's victory. It wasn't long until countries all around the world began decrying Maduro for his abuse of power, which has directly resulted in a mass exodus of destitute Venezuelans.
In the midst of this widespread condemnation of Maduro, one nation stood out as a notable exception: Russia. While most developed countries denounced Maduro's questionable election, Russia went so far as to praise the Venezuelan leader. In a statement from the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin congratulated Maduro on his re-election, asserting that the relationship between Russia and Venezuela “fully meets the interests of our friendly peoples and contributes to building a more just and democratic world order". This endorsement not only underscores Russia's ongoing support for regimes that challenge Western democratic norms, but it also reminds us of an endorsement from decades past when the Kremlin aided a similarly tyrannical Latin American state located close to U.S. shores: Fidel Castro's Cuba.
History has a peculiar way of repeating itself, particularly in the realm of geopolitics—told you we'd get here. While communist Cuba once acted as a proxy for the Soviet Union in the 1960s, we now witness echoes of Fidel Castro in Venezuela's radically anti-democratic leader, Nicolás Maduro. The stark difference, however, lies in public sentiment: Castro was embraced by many Cubans, while Maduro is reviled by nearly every Venezuelan man, woman, and child. Much like Castro before him, Maduro has isolated both himself and his nation from the democratic world, resulting in a cascade of global sanctions and a further devaluation of the Venezuelan bolívar—a currency that has already plummeted to near worthlessness. His citizens now face a grim choice: flee to another country or plot a coup d'état. Meanwhile, Maduro finds himself at the helm of a crumbling economy, an enraged populace, and little time to seek refuge in an underground bunker. In this desperate scenario, where can a dictator with no global allies possibly turn? Enter Russia, the ever-present beacon for beleaguered autocrats.
In the ongoing Cold War—thankfully never having fully heated up, yet never truly resolved—the United States and Russia have consistently relied on proxies as a substitute for direct conflict. While neither American nor Russian boots have touched the opposing soil (thank God), proxy wars across the globe have been funded and perpetuated by both sides for over 70 years.
In the late 1950s and 1960s, the two superpowers clashed in a proxy war in Vietnam. The Soviet Union backed Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnamese nationalist forces, while the United States sought to stabilize a country it had previously destabilized during the 1954 Geneva Conference (but that's a story for another entry). It’s important to note that while none of the 60,000 American soldiers who lost their lives in Vietnam fell at the hands of a Russian soldier, Russia supplied the ammunition, artillery, and anti-aircraft missiles that fueled Ho Chi Minh's fight. In retrospect, Russia's culpability in the Vietnam conflict was undeniable. During this same period, the Red Wave washed over Cuba, less than 100 miles from American shores. Given its proximity to the United States, Fidel Castro and his regime, much like in Vietnam, became a critical geographical proxy in the Soviets' ongoing conflict with America.
Sidenote: had it not been for President John Kennedy's cool and composed demeanor, along with pivotal strategic discussions with former President Dwight Eisenhower, the de-escalation of the Cuban missile crisis might never have occurred. Imagine our leaders today navigating a crisis of that magnitude… yikes.
Today, the war between Ukraine and Russia seems to represent yet another proxy conflict between the U.S. and Russia. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, America has sent over $55.4 billion in military assistance—approximately 3% of our $1.61 trillion national deficit. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre justifies this involvement with the same patriotic rhetoric that has been used to defend global warmongering for nearly a century. Our government asserts that it is America's duty, as the world's protector of freedom, to uphold democracy and counter Russian aggression.
But is that the only reason we are sending billions to Ukraine? Or should we take Senator Lindsey Graham's comments at face value? He has candidly stated that our involvement is largely motivated by the $12 trillion worth of natural minerals and resources lying beneath Zelensky’s size-seven feet. It would be a shame for that wealth to fall into Vladimir Putin's hands… Oh, wait—what I meant to say is, it would be a shame if Russian aggression stifled the spread of democracy in developing nations like Ukraine, which seek NATO membership. But didn’t we promise Russia during the Treaty of Moscow in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” of Germany's border? It's all rather confusing, isn't it?
When will the war in Ukraine end? How do we define a militaristic conclusion? Some argue that the Cold War ended in 1991, when Mr. Gorbachev “tore down that wall.” Others contend that a lingering chill has enveloped the globe for the three decades since. As proxies emerge worldwide, reminiscent of the 1950s and 1960s, it increasingly feels as though that cool chill is turning frigid once more. Nicolás Maduro and his anti-democratic regime are merely the latest in a series of dictators leveraged as geographical pawns in a strategic chess game between two global superpowers. The question that now begs to be asked is: How far is Venezuela from the coast of Miami?
–MA
JUL 19, 2024
I just finished watching Team America: World Police, I mean, the Republican National Convention. Placing aside all subjectivity and political bias, I found it pretty hard not to wince at the absurdity of it all... When Hulk Hogan is an official keynote speaker introducing the man who is most likely to assume the nation's highest office, you know things in America are getting weird. I mean, for christ sakes, The Hulkster, at 70 years old, just tore his goddamn shirt in half and hyped up the crowd for being "Trumpsters" (he also incited a new movement he is coining as "Trump-a-mania"). Whichever branch of the multiverse we were formally on, it has officially broken and branched off into an entirely new direction. Whatever reality we're existing in now, it sure as hell isn't the one our forefathers dreamt of. With each new viral calamity and wild event, it becomes increasingly clear that we are living in some satirical representation of the United States; Something that feels like it was written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Nay, we're living in the satirical equivalent of All in The Family. Our Republican nominee is an ignorant traditionalist, like Archie Bunker, whose belligerent rhetoric is reflective of a population that's frustrated, desperate for change, and hopelessly incapable of the bipartisanship required to acquire it. Our Democratic incumbent is a senile old man who, like Archie Bunker, is unwilling to get with the times and let the younger generation have a say. Jesus, if folks from other countries were questioning whether or not the American empire was in decline before tonight, they've most certainly doubled down on that thought this morning. Anyone have a Mandarin dictionary I can study?
MA
MAY 30, 2024
OPINION: Social media is bad for your brain... Recent polls indicate that over 1/3 of Americans are concerned about the threat that social media poses to mental health. However, despite our collective consensus, we spend a daily average of two-and-a-half hours doom-scrolling, which amounts to nearly four years over our lifetimes. Yikes... Understanding the dangers of a behavior and yet still engaging in it sounds like textbook addiction to me. But are we willingly subjecting ourselves to this self-inflicted abuse, or have our devices simply stripped us of free will? Are we a society of self-loathing tech-masochists or helpless tech-addicts?
DYSMORPHIA
Of the many harmful effects of social media, perhaps none other is as damaging and prevalent as dysmorphic disorder, a mental distortion that leads an individual to compulsively critique one or more perceived defects or flaws in their appearance, social standing, or identity. Often, these perceived flaws are not only unwarranted, but not even based in reality. Dysmorphic disorder distorts the self-image, convincing healthy bodies that they're grossly out of shape, straight smiles that they're crooked beyond repair, and, for the sake of this article, well-earning individuals that they're somehow underachieving financially. In the past two decades, as social media addiction rates have surged, so too have cases of general dysmorphic disorder. Do I dare claim positive association?
EXPOSURE
In advertising, the rule of seven suggests that a consumer will become familiar with a brand and make a purchase after seven exposures (ads, billboards, commercials, etc). For instance, a commuter repeatedly passing by a billboard advertising Marlborough Reds is expected to become familiar with the Marlborough brand and eventually purchase a cart. In theory, this principle can also be applied to social media, whereas a high volume of exposure to content can be expected to build familiarity between a user and whatever is being projected to them. However, unlike billboards advertising cigarettes to a consumer, social media promotes more abstract concepts than one particular product. For example, a user scrolling through social media will be exposed to endless imagery of expensive skincare and synthetically flawless complexions, which in turn will build familiarity not with any particular product, but with the general aesthetic being promoted (in this case, perfect skin). While the consumer driving by a billboard can purchase the cigarettes being advertised to them, a social media user is often left desiring something they cannot purchase... Not only because what is being promoted to them is not a tangible product, but because it does not even truly exist.
HYPERBOLE
Social media has become a macrocosm of hyperbolized appearances, body types, and lifestyles. In social media land, all bodies are toned, career lucrative, and passports filled. Given the role that technology and social media play in our day-to-day lives, it should be common knowledge that such portrayals are often exaggerated and carefully sieved to conceal any semblance of real-life hardship, struggle, or failure. However, when users spend more time on social media than they do in the real world, the line between real-life and social media becomes blurred. Inundated by content displaying "gym-rats" with zero percent body fat, a user can quickly begin to believe that such physiques are the status quo, and that achieving anything less is inadequate. This type of thinking is distorted. Everyone on Instagram may have glossy skin, luminescent teeth, and a six-pack, but not everyone in the real world does.
INSECURITY
Financial insecurity in America is at an all-time high, with more than 62% of homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments on time, and over half of renters saying that purchasing a home is something they find unaffordable, undoable, and flat-out unimaginable. To cap it off, our homeless population has risen by 12% in the last two years, with over 653,100 people now believed to be living in shelters, outside in tents, or in their cars. We are living in one of the most financially insecure periods in American history, rivaling recessions and depressions of days past. All the while, during this time of mass financial insecurity, we're spending unhealthy amounts of our time scrolling through social media applications, which are known to prey on and exacerbate the insecurities of users. Smells like the perfect recipe for money dysmorphia to me.
MONEY DYSMORPHIA
While there's an abundance of research linking social media use to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), there's less known about the psychological impact that social media has had on working professionals. If Instagram can convince a generation of body-insecure teens that they're physically inadequate, what can it convince a generation of financially insecure adults of? Money dysmorphia, a concept recently brought to life by CNBC reporters Jessica Dickler and Ryan Ermey, is the distortion of an individual's perception of their financial status, career trajectory, and/or general money identity. Like other dysmorphic disorders, money dysmorphia is most prevalent in individuals with a predisposed insecurity––and who's more financially insecure than a recent college graduate? Gen Z, the age demographic consisting of our mid-twenty-something-year-olds just beginning to settle into their careers, has been hit by money dysmorphia the hardest. Members of Gen Z are 5 times more likely than adults aged 40 and above to receive financial advice from social media, which is why it's crucial for online finance influencers to publish content that is both accurate and informative. Thank god there remain the chosen few who actually adhere to both, wink wink.
[43% of Gen-Z and 41% of millennials feel as though they are "behind financially" while only 14% self-identify as "wealthy"]
TOXIC
Social media has become saturated with Jordan-Belfort-wannabe salesmen like @officialandyelliot, scoffing at the idea of making anything less than 250k a year despite less than 30% of Americans having ever broken the 100k/year mark––which is in itself a major accomplishment. Just as the rule of seven suggests, repeated exposure makes a consumer familiar with a product or brand. Given social media's profusion of lavish lifestyles, super yacht walkthroughs, and Tahitian excursions, it's no wonder how users have become so familiar with inflated portrayals of the world, and, in turn, had their perceptions of real life distorted. In the real world, hard-working men and women earning a steady paycheck should be commended and made to feel proud of themselves. On social media, skipping university and becoming a self-made drop shipper is the "quickest and easiest way to make seven figures by age 21!"
Being a young professional with a presence on social media, I've personally fallen victim to the comparison complex that comes as a result of high social media usage. In the past I would downplay my achievements, seeing little to be proud of when compared to the achievements of strangers online. When I graduated from university, there wasn't much to be proud of, not when some seventeen-year-old in Miami was making 25k a month day trading, or something of that matter. Under the guise of hyper-success, I came to hold a general feeling of discontent and impatience with how long my path to success was taking. I had fallen into the same bucket as 1/4 of Americans who admit to being obsessed with the concept of "becoming rich" and the 52% who doubt that they'll ever attain such wealth. Had TLC taught me nothing? You cannot go chasing waterfalls, or, whatever social media tells you waterfalls are.
[Approximately 1/4 of American consumers say they feel "less satisfied with the amount of money they have because of social media"]
BENCHMARKS
It can become incredibly easy to believe that you are standing small when measuring yourself up to those on stilts. Social media is no more than a human highlight reel and far less than an accurate reflection of daily life. The benchmarks we set for success are where we set them for ourselves, not where Instagram sets them for us. Those American Income videos, where super-wealthy attorneys and anesthesiologists working in Manhattan are flagged down and asked to share how much money they make in a year, that's not the benchmark. Those "how much do you pay in rent" videos, which are almost exclusively shot in major metropolitan cities where the cost of living is exorbitantly high, that's not the benchmark. Those "here's my day working in [INSERT ROLE]" videos, where a corporate-higher-up-by-day & influencer-by-night offers a private tour of his/her company's Michelin-star lunchroom, that's not the benchmark. Horseback riding on the beaches of Bali. Retiring as a multi-millionaire by age twenty-five. Eating wagyu steak and eggs for breakfast. None of this is the benchmark. The benchmark is where we set it for ourselves, at least, that's where it should be...
GRACE
Social media may have convinced you that you're not achieving enough, earning enough, or doing enough by such and such age, but TikTok & Instagram don't know about all of your big and little wins. They don't know about all those weekends you spent working to pay off your student loan debt. They have no idea about that vacation you saved up for and all the memories you made on it. The time you purchased your first car. Your first home. That anniversary gift you bought your parents after landing your first salary position. Your money wins are uniquely your own and are something you should be proud of––indicators of a life's worth that social media could never appraise.
I'm not huge on cliche adages, but there's one that rings particularly true in today's digital age... comparison is the thief of joy. You are the architect designing your own dream life, don't let outside influences convince you to scrap the blueprint all together. Stay on the path toward your goals and focus on what's ahead of you, not on the screen beneath you. Give yourself time to reach your goals, even if it only took a 19-year-old real-estate-guru one year to make their first million. Give yourself grace when you stumble, because people online stumble too, they just don't tell you about it. Above all else, do your brain the favor and stay the hell off of social media.
MA
JUL 8, 2023
John Williams' imperial march emanates from a distance as Mark Zuckerberg leads his evil empire toward complete world domination (I.E. monopolizing social media). Meta's launch of its newest platform, "Threads" has not only been successful, it's been historically dominant. In just five days the app has amassed over 100 million user sign-ups, making it the fastest-growing of all time. Even before launching Threads, Meta held the lion's share of the social media market with 66.94%. Now, only 48 hours removed from launch, Meta has engulfed another 100 million users, which equals 1/4 of Twitter's total market share. One can only wonder... If it only took a couple of days for Threads to amass 1/4 of Twitter's total user count, then how long will it be before the new girl steals the crown from our reigning prom queen?
RECORDS
While Threads' 100 million user sign-ups is impressive, a complete coup d'état would require an additional 350 million, which is a substantial shift in user preference just to call this contest a tie. However, in the famous words of Kevin Garnet, anything is possible. No record is unbreakable, ask Kareem Abdul Jabar. Not too long ago, his all-time NBA points record was seemingly an untouchable mark. That was until this past year when we witnessed LeBron James shatter the 38,387 career points record with a one-legged fadeaway shot. Like all great benchmarks, Kareem's was bound to be broken. The difference between Kareem's record and Twitter's user count, however, is that his points mark was surpassed long after he had retired, by a player he'd never faced directly. For Twitter, the threat of a takeover comes from a direct adversary who just so happens to compete in the exact same playing field.
[Meta has 2.09 Billion monthly active users]
REPLICANT
By the end of 1982's Blade Runner, we as an audience are left to wonder whether the film's central character, Rick Deckard, has or has not been a humanoid replicant throughout the film—spoiler, he is. What is far less debatable is the question of whether Threads is a Twitter replicant, because, like Deckard, it is. Aside from a minimalist logo shaped like an @ sign, Threads offers little in the name of technological ingenuity. There's practically no point of differentiation between it and Twitter. Both apps are designed to have an endless vertical scroll of live text posts. Both have strikingly similar home pages with two columns, one for you and one for following. Even the goddamn blue check is the same... Couldn't they have made it green or something?
Should we be surprised? Meta has drawn inspiration (copied) from direct competitors plenty of times before, taking the popular functions of other successful apps, like Snapchat's stories, and repackaging them as their own, like with Instagram's & Facebook's adaptations of a stories function. Today, we it is Twitter's IP that is being frankensteined into a product that claims novelty in the same way that Greta Van Fleet claims to be anything besides a Led Zeppelin cover band. But they aren't fooling anyone.
MOSQUITOS
Prior to Meta's xeroxing of Twitter, there had been several warnings from Twitter legal. In a formal letter issued to Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter warned, “[Twitter] reserves all rights, including, but not limited to, the right to seek both civil remedies and injunctive relief without further notice to prevent any further retention, disclosure, or use of its intellectual property by Meta”. Simply put, Twitter owns exclusive rights to its own IP—circa its 2013 patent—and holds the right to litigate against any firm that creates an offshoot app that resembles its design. Despite the warnings, Threads is now available to the general public, leaving us to wonder whether Twitter's bite will be as strong as its bark has been. And even so, can a lawsuit do anything to slow the evil empire down?
In 2017, EU Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager levied a $122 million dollar fine against Facebook for lying about its ability to share user data between Facebook and WhatsApp. The reprimanding, which would've been devastating for a firm of any other size, turned out to be flat-out inconsequential. The $122 million dollar fine amounted to merely 0.6% of the total acquisition price that Meta paid for WhatsApp several years prior. Meta spent $16 billion dollars to purchase WhatsApp in 2014. Today, the private messenger platform is now valued at $105.6 billion. Proves that sometimes the parking ticket is worth the spot.
Meta is currently valued at $744.55 billion dollars. Can we blame Zuckerberg for caring little about a $122 million dollar fine or the threat of a lawsuit from Twitter legal? He woke up Thursday morning $1.5 billion dollars richer than he was the night before, all thanks to the immediate success of Threads. At this point, fines and lawsuits are mosquitos on the back of an elephant...Not to mention, Twitter is currently valued at $14 billion dollars, which is less than 2% of Meta's total market value. Although the firm's sitting CTO, Elon Musk, is the world's richest man, his net worth is not an indicator of financial strength for the firm he now controls.
STORIES
In 2013, Meta offered Snapchat $3 billion dollars for a complete buyout, an offer that surely could not be refused. But Snapchat refused. Economists at the time forecasted that the rejection would haunt Snapchat CEO, Evan Spiegel, for the rest of his days. But it didn't. Today, Snapchat is valued at $18 billion and continues to thrive as an independent trailblazer within social media. Life lesson kids, bet on yourself.
The Zuck couldn't buy out Snapchat, so he decided to mimic it. In 2016, just three years after Snapchat's rejection, Mark Zuckerberg held an all-hands meeting where he told employees not to let their pride get in the way of doing what is best for users, even if that meant copying rival companies. Less than a year later, Facebook launched its stories function, blatantly copying Snapchat's stories. Why didn't Snapchat sue you ask? Because they failed to patent their IP, leaving them helpless to tech scavengers like Meta. Zuckerberg may have ripped off Snapchat, but at least he acted with the best interest of the user in mind.
MOATS
Should Threads succeed in surpassing Twitter, the moats surrounding Meta HQ will become far too deep for any challenger to cross. With TikTok skirmishing with the DOJ and Snapchat too niche to care, the death of Twitter may be the final word in the story of rebellion. Evil Emporer Zuckerberg sits high in his ivory tower, looking down at us all, one step closer to becoming supreme ruler of our attention spans. But wait, it's not all scum and villainy! In 2019, Meta launched its Oculus Goggles, a product that lacked an established market and had no promise of success. The firm took a risk, for the first time in a long time, blazing the trail for virtual reality. Despite how you may feel about the product, it was original.
Maybe we should all quit playing Monday morning quarterback and realize that creation is born from influence. Maybe Zuckerberg isn't so much stealing IP as he is simply capitalizing on a market that has proven to be robust (doublespeak). Users liked Snapchat's stories, so he gave us Facebook and Instagram stories. Users liked short-form TikTok videos, so Instagram gave us Reels. And today, with users showing an interest in constant updates and notifications, Meta gives us Threads. Perhaps it's just the natural order of things. Maybe we should just accept that Twitter's reign as social media's prom queen is coming to an end, while the new girl in school leaves all the boys drooling over her. And maybe, just maybe, that entire closing paragraph was entirely sarcastic.
MA
JUN 16, 2022
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013––Republican Senator Ted Cruz concludes a speech on the Senate floor that clocks in at an astonishing 21 hours and 19 minutes. During his marathon oration, the Senator reads to the crowd Dr. Suess’s Green Eggs and Ham, in its entirety... Ask Cruz about the near day-long speech and he'd insist that every second was justified. Ask the Democrats who sat across the aisle and they'd tell you it was a massive waste of time. So who's right? Who's wrong? Or maybe the question we should be asking ourselves is: why was it even allowed?
HISTORY
In 1801, Thomas Jefferson, and, less notably, others, drafted the House Rules and Manual, the nation's first rule book on parliamentary procedure. With Jefferson's framework for procedural behavior, Senators & Representatives had bounds of reason to be kept within. Thereafter, voting on legislature was to be kept orderly and efficient—emphasis on efficiency. Then, three years later, in 1804, Vice President Aaron Burr found himself on the wrong side of history, again... Burr was an outspoken opponent of the Previous Question Motion (PQ motion), a motion within the House Rulebook that allowed debates to be called to an immediate vote. With a PQ motion, Senators could expedite lengthy debates and protect against intentional verbosity, a tactic often used by members of the minority party to delay voting on an inevitable bill. Burr, the sitting Vice President at the time, held the belief that the PQ motion was unfair and stifled minority viewpoints, arguing that Senators deserved unrestricted time to express themselves on the Senate floor. Burr feared that the PQ motion silenced dissenting voices and gave an unfair advantage to majorities.
Given his position of influence over the Senate, Burr's stance on the matter ultimately led to the elimination of the PQ motion altogether. Though he had hoped that the elimination of the PQ motion would bring fairness to the Senate, it instead led to an even greater evil... the creation of the filibuster.
FILLIBUSTERS
As it turns out, when there are no restrictions on how long a senator can debate, they tend to debate for as long as they can! Since Burr's abolishment of the PQ motion, the tactic of "talking a bill to death", or filibustering as it is now known, has become ingrained in American politics. During the 1950s, South Carolina's Strom Thurmond broke the record for longest individual filibuster, clocking in at an impressive 24 hours and 18 minutes, delaying the the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Then, in 1964, a group-led filibuster stretching over 57 days again stalled the progress of the Civil Rights Act in the Senate. Fast forward to 2013 and Senator Cruz is giving Senator Strom a run for his money with his infamous Green Eggs and Ham filibuster speech—a true masterclass in deliberate time-wasting. The elimination of the PQ motion mutated into the modern filibuster. What was once meant to be a protector of political minorities is now an impediment to progress.
When the Senate is faced with a filibuster, the only combatant is motioning cloture, a legislative motion similar to the PQ motion, but only attainable by attaining the votes of 60 Senators (three-fifths supermajority) all agreeing to end debate on a bill. When invoked, Cloture can be quite effective, like in 1919 when a vote of cloture ended a filibuster during the Treaty of Versailles. That said, the process of invoking cloture can be both difficult and tedious, given the division in the Senate. Finding bi-partisan agreement in today's political climate is difficult as is. Acquiring 60 votes from Democrats and Republicans alike? Highly unlikely...
CHANGE
Filibustering has infected the Senate and both political parties shoulder the blame for its exploitation. In 2021-2022, Congress filed for cloture 286 times, with Republicans and Democrats alike contributing to that total. These filibusters have occupied days, weeks, and even months of the Senate’s time. In turn, senatorial efficiency has plummeted. The 116th Congress, America’s Congress from 2019-2020, enacted 283 laws within its two-year term, marking the fewest amount by any Congress since Harry Truman’s presidency in 1948. When Congress is inefficient, bills sit on the Senate floor. When bills sit on the Senate floor, change is delayed. When change is delayed, the American people suffer. For instance, stubborn Senators deliberately filibustering bills that have the potential to remedy our increasingly urgent gun-control crisis...
PESSIMISM
Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that bars the sale of semi-automatic weapons to people under the age of 21 and bans the sale of large-capacity magazines. Though the first half of our legislative branch has pulled its weight, many Americans remain pessimistic. Why? Because they know that far too many members of the Senate place their ties and affiliations with the NRA above passing stricter gun laws. Therefore, it is safe to assume that filibustering will ensue.
Following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the Senate was tasked with voting on a gun safety bill that mandated universal background checks on gun purchases. Though the bill had an approval rating of over 90 percent, filibustering was employed to pirate debate until 46 Senators ultimately voted against the bill (43 of whom accepted money from the NRA). Now a decade removed, the American people have come to expect more of the same from their elected officials. I'd be willing to bet that filibustering will again delay a gun safety bill from being voted on...
Following the most recent mass shooting in Uvalde, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 59 percent of registered voters found it very important or somewhat important that lawmakers pass stricter gun laws. Even before the Uvalde mass shooting, gun control was a pressing issue on the minds of many Americans. In 2021, PEW Research Center concluded that 48 percent of Americans found gun violence to be a very big problem. We as citizens have demanded that our elected officials pass safer gun laws, and yet, filibustering continues to delay voting on such bills. Aaron Burr may be directly responsible for the creation of the filibuster, but he isn't culpable for its exploitation in modern politics. Culpability lies in the laps of those who abuse this loophole in our political system to delay voting on bills that we as Americans demand be passed. Demand more from your elected officials. Expect nothing less when they filibuster their way to killing a bill.
MA