This problem exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Take Democrats, for example: ideas like universal healthcare, free college and raising the minimum wage are attractive in theory but far more complicated in practice. Even when Democrats control both Congress and the presidency, they are rarely united on implementation.

Many support these policies in principle but prefer gradual rollouts. For instance, some oppose eliminating private healthcare — including union-negotiated plans — and instead favor a public option.

Political realities also make sweeping reforms difficult — Democrats would likely need 60 Senate votes, an almost impossible number in today’s climate. Attempts to reform or end the filibuster have also divided the party.

As a result, many Americans — especially young people — grow frustrated with Democrats’ inability to deliver on promises. This is not always because they do not want to fix problems, but because political and structural obstacles make sweeping change difficult. That frustration can fuel more anger and disillusionment.

Republicans face similar challenges. Donald Trump’s promise of a massive border wall across 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border proved far more complicated than campaign rhetoric suggested.

Beyond the immense cost and long timeline, there were practical barriers — shifting rivers, private land ownership, harsh desert conditions and the reality that traffickers and migrants already bypass walls through tunnels, ports and airports. Even if completed, the wall alone would not solve the deeper issues of immigration and border security.

Another example is the attempted crackdown on undocumented immigrants in both cities and rural communities.

While many Americans agree that undocumented immigrants who commit serious crimes should be held accountable and deported, this raises a difficult balance between two core American principles — civil liberties and law and order. In some reported cases, federal immigration agents have operated in ways critics say lacked clear identification, raising concerns about government overreach and accountability.

Complications grow when local and state law enforcement are asked to act as immigration authorities, despite immigration being primarily a federal responsibility. This can blur jurisdictional lines and expand federal influence over state and local agencies. It also risks confusion, where armed agents might be mistaken for criminals, leading people to react in fear — only to face charges for their response.

Critics also argue that aggressive enforcement tactics can open the door to profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion or language. In some reported incidents, immigration arrests have taken place at or near places of worship or community events — raising concerns about bias and civil liberties. Such actions would likely draw widespread outrage if applied to other groups or settings.

Finally, debates have emerged over federal funding used for migrant shelter programs administered through FEMA. While these programs are funded through separate congressional appropriations — not the disaster relief fund itself — critics argue that the arrangement can create confusion about how emergency resources are allocated.

In the end, American politics is not just two opposing sides. It is a tangled web of checks and balances, obstruction, bureaucracy and competing interests. Politicians increasingly rely on dramatic rhetoric — promising simple fixes to complex problems. This leaves voters frustrated, not just with the other side, but often with their own. The result is a hostile political environment, further shaped by the influence of special interests and major campaign donors.

Instead of moving the country forward, rhetoric often leaves citizens feeling stuck in the middle.

Isiah Sageman is pursuing a Master’s in Public Policy with a focus on agriculture, rural development, national security, elections and sports policy. He has served as a Michigan election inspector during the 2024 election and previously worked as a congressional intern in Washington, D.C., as well as in the Michigan Legislature in Lansing. The views in this article are his own and independent of The State News.

Have an opinion or expertise you want to share with the MSU community? The State News welcomes guest commentaries from students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members. If there’s an issue you care about or a perspective you think others should hear, we encourage you to submit a piece for consideration. To learn more, visit the portal for information.