Chaviess
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Public Works Planed by Obama
President Obama has revealed his intentions to create the largest public works program since the interstate highway program fifty years ago. This is part of his solution to fix the ailing economy. He has already begun designing his program to help the economy with collaboration of Congress, with the hopes of having it running shortly after he is sworn in. The jobs being created in this program will be in a variety of fields. From road, and bridge repair, to new technology, and green jobs for the middle class. An estiment of the expense of this program has not been released, but Obama does believe he will be investing record amount of money on the vast infastructure program. 533,000 jobs were lost in the month of November, and two million jobs were lost in the past year.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Electoral College editorial from NYT
I just thought this was interesting and more relevant to the conversations we had about whether elections are democratic. If you read this article, I would suggest looking at some of the comments because they add a lot. Hope you enjoy!
Electoral College editorial from NYT
I just thought this was interesting and more relevant to the conversations we had about whether elections are democratic. If you read this article, I would suggest looking at some of the comments because they add a lot. Hope you enjoy!
Electoral College editorial from NYT
I just thought this was interesting and more relevant to the conversations we had about whether elections are democratic. If you read this article, I would suggest looking at some of the comments because they add a lot. Hope you enjoy!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Cool article about Obama
Hi all! In thinking about (and reading) media, I found the following OP-ED from the NYT interesting. I think Kristof captures why I am so captured by our new President-Elect. Check it out here!
Dr. Berry
Friday, November 14, 2008
Public Opinion
Essential to the survival of American democracy is political participation of its citizens. The public opinion serves to influence and shape government actions and policies; however, there are many factors that create imbalances in political participation and therefore determine the public opinion, or the “distribution of the population's beliefs about politics and policy issues” (Government in America, pg 178). The American people are very diverse, and it is nearly impossible to speak for all 295 million of them. The least informed are least likely to participate in the political process, creating imbalances in who takes part in political action. For American government to work efficiently and effectively, the diversity of the American public and its opinions must be channeled through the political process.
We are a country of immigrants and waves of immigrants have brought along with them their own set of political beliefs. The rush of immigrants in recent decades, (Hispanics, Cubans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos, etc.) have brought groups that overall have a great appreciation for the individualism instilled in America, often because they are escaping a very controlling and manipulative government. The recent increase in immigration has led to talk of the minority majority, or the emergence of a non-Caucasian majority. In 2000 the Census Bureau estimated that by approximately the year 2060, minority groups will become the majority and outnumber white Anglo-Saxons. The emergence of this diverse conflicting minority majority is one of several demographic changes that have altered the face of American politics; however, despite the many ethnic backgrounds in America, we tend to share a set of values in society.
Americans form their political beliefs through political socialization, or the “process through which an individual acquires his/her particular political orientations” (Government in America, pg 184). The major contributors to political socialization are the family, the media, and the schools. Although people tend to become more socialized as they age because they grow firmer in their beliefs and attachment to their political party, they are often exposed early on to political socialization. The family’s role in socialization is central because of its “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (Government in America, pg 183). Typically, accurate predictions on how young people will vote can be ascertained based on the political position of the parents. The media, especially today, plays a huge role in the information that people, especially young people, receive about politics. Unfortunately though, the media is focused on entertainment value and often ceases to provide the people with substantial information. Arguably the most influential attributor to political socialization is schools. From a young age schools serve as a way for the government to promote national loyalty and support for the basic American values. However, the negative side is that by putting students in an environment were they are constantly exposed to one set of ideas, there is the possibility of the government utilizing this to manipulate or brainwash young minds, such as the Nazis did, but this is unlikely to occur in America. The government cares “that students learn the positive features of their political system because it helps ensure that youth will grow up to be supportive citizens” because “those children who begin to develop positive feelings toward the political authorities will grow into adults who will be less easily disenchanted with the system than those children who early acquire negative, hostile sentiments” (Government in America, pg 186). However, for people to be politically socialized does not necessarily mean that they are always in agreement with the government, and often well-socialized people will protest the government not to radically reform it or overthrow it, but to demand responsiveness. Better-educated citizens are more likely to vote in elections as well as protest against the government because they have more knowledge about politics. “Politics, like most other things, is thus a learned behavior. Americans learn to vote, to pick a political party, and to evaluate political events in the world around them. One of the products of all this learning is what is known as public opinion” (Government in America, pg 187).
Public opinion is measured through polls, which rely on a sample of people to represent the whole. To achieve accurate representation, everyone should have the equal chance of being chosen for the sample. With today’s technology most polling is done through random-digit dialing, or when calls are placed randomly to both listed and unlisted numbers, but there are downsides to this system. Firstly, the percentage of people that do not own phones are left out, and secondly, people may be less willing to talk on the phone or be honest for a survey. Polls can be used as an important tool for democracy because policymakers can keep in touch with changing opinions on the issues. This theoretically increases government responsiveness because politicians are dependent on a positive public opinion for re-election. Those who oppose to polls believe that it can undermine the leadership role of politicians, because politicians could become more focused on making the public happy rather than leading, but I believe that it is the job and responsibility of politicians to be aware and take into account public opinion, but ultimately to make decisions in the best interest of the country as a whole. Another criticism of polling is that pollsters can alter or manipulate the questions to get the results that they want; therefore, polls can be misleading.
Although Americans are generally not informed about politics, they do know what values they want upheld, and as a result many actively participate in government. There is conventional and unconventional participation in government. Conventional participation includes voting, going door to door to motivate others to vote, and creating and signing petitions, while unconventional participation includes protesting, civil disobedience, and violence. “Those who participate are easy to listen to; non-participants are easy to ignore;” (Government in America, pg 193) however, there are many limits on the role public opinion plays in the American political system, largely because it can be very contradictory, such as how people oppose the idea of big government, but favor it in practice, because they want aid to cities, health care, programs for education, etc. In recent decades especially, people have lost trust in the government and its ability to serve the people. As the essays by Shafer and Brooks show, times of crisis have the power to drastically transform public opinion and test democracy.
Shafer discusses that in the aftermath of September 11th, the Bush administration rallied for public support in the “war on terrorism” and in the face of a national crisis, many Americans united for the cause. However, as “new federal laws, including the Patriot Act, preventive detention of undocumented workers, and increased security measures in public places, shifted the nation’s focus from individual freedom to order” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq), public opinion began to shift. Americans were being pressured to suppress their skepticism about the war, ironic because the very democracy that we were claiming to establish in Iraq was being hindered on the home front. America began to censor its people and it was considered unpatriotic to question the war and the government. Instead citizens were supposed to be “good Americans” and unite beside their country. Brooks’ essay illustrates pro-war propaganda. He sees the issue as black and white, that Americans can either support the young men and women that serve the country, or have sympathy for the terrorists that “understand only force” that “must be crushed” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Brooks stereotypes anti-war protestors as college students with no grasp on reality, which is in his opinion is that the people in Iraq “ignore the basic rules of warfare and civilization” and “conflict with them is inevitable” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Despite this “false brand of patriotism” as the war continued a many Americans grew tired of their voices being silences, and growing skepticism about the administration’s motives for entering into war with Iraq began to emerge out of the darkness. “Was this really a war to end terrorism or was it about imperialism and transnational profits?.... there was a manipulative and even antidemocratic cynicism to these evocations of a new American patriotism…for those who care about civil liberties, measures like the Patriot Act, the detention of “enemy combatants” without rights to attorneys or trials, and the detention of immigrants initiated by the Bush administration and passed by Congress threatened the very basic civil liberties of freedom of speech and equality before the law, heralded as cornerstones of U.S. and western democracies” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq).
Essential to a true democracy is that accurate and truthful information is given to the public about the actions of their government. “Americans can’t participate in a system that only feeds them a steady diet of propaganda and mendacity, leading them to believe what isn’t true or is only part of a larger story” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). American’s must be guaranteed honest information in order to ensure that healthy and productive debate can occur, that the public is able to “reject the policies of their president and practice civil disobedience when they see nefarious policies coming to fruition and hurting others” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). In light of the war in Iraq, many people felt as though they had to either accept the war or be labeled un-American and unappreciative of their armed forces. “Where before there had been healthy and quintessentially democratic debate on the morality of bombing a nation because it might harbor terrorists an have weapons of mass destruction, suddenly there was an uneasy silence as many Americans were told to behave and support President George W. Bush” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The foundation of American democracy is the ability of people to protest against the government and more importantly have that disapproval translate into change, and if this is sacrificed then the United States becomes “yet another repressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadilloes. The United States becomes little better than the countries it seeks to ‘liberate’ when it stifles dissent and stymies protest” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). It shows how that the freedoms of Americans are not really that secure when in a time of national crisis. “Americans are often not as free as they think they are- or should be” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). We see that legislation like the Patriot Act, which allows the government to invade the private lives of Americans through the justification of investigating possible terrorism, have become a way to “thwart free expression” and “scuttle the voices of those who are unhappy with the government” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The media also plays a dangerous role when it not only censors and manipulates information, but refuses to question the government, much like Brooks’ essay, which illustrates blind and arrogant patriotism. The most important task of the media is to provide information from all perspectives and act as a tool to fuel deliberation and debate that encourages civic participation, forcing the government to be responsive towards the people’s wants. I agree with Shafer argument that as a result of the war in Iraq, the media and the government both exercise a censorship that stifles debate, silences public opinion, and puts democracy to the test. When Americans act on their political opinions they are participating in government and that is crucial to the existence of democracy. It seems as though debate and protest regarding the government thrives in times of peace, but in times of national crisis the public opinion is manipulated and unrepresentative of all Americans because of censoring and intimidation tactics. So if our voice is so easily quieted and our opinions so suppressed in times of conflict, how secure really are our freedoms?
We are a country of immigrants and waves of immigrants have brought along with them their own set of political beliefs. The rush of immigrants in recent decades, (Hispanics, Cubans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos, etc.) have brought groups that overall have a great appreciation for the individualism instilled in America, often because they are escaping a very controlling and manipulative government. The recent increase in immigration has led to talk of the minority majority, or the emergence of a non-Caucasian majority. In 2000 the Census Bureau estimated that by approximately the year 2060, minority groups will become the majority and outnumber white Anglo-Saxons. The emergence of this diverse conflicting minority majority is one of several demographic changes that have altered the face of American politics; however, despite the many ethnic backgrounds in America, we tend to share a set of values in society.
Americans form their political beliefs through political socialization, or the “process through which an individual acquires his/her particular political orientations” (Government in America, pg 184). The major contributors to political socialization are the family, the media, and the schools. Although people tend to become more socialized as they age because they grow firmer in their beliefs and attachment to their political party, they are often exposed early on to political socialization. The family’s role in socialization is central because of its “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (Government in America, pg 183). Typically, accurate predictions on how young people will vote can be ascertained based on the political position of the parents. The media, especially today, plays a huge role in the information that people, especially young people, receive about politics. Unfortunately though, the media is focused on entertainment value and often ceases to provide the people with substantial information. Arguably the most influential attributor to political socialization is schools. From a young age schools serve as a way for the government to promote national loyalty and support for the basic American values. However, the negative side is that by putting students in an environment were they are constantly exposed to one set of ideas, there is the possibility of the government utilizing this to manipulate or brainwash young minds, such as the Nazis did, but this is unlikely to occur in America. The government cares “that students learn the positive features of their political system because it helps ensure that youth will grow up to be supportive citizens” because “those children who begin to develop positive feelings toward the political authorities will grow into adults who will be less easily disenchanted with the system than those children who early acquire negative, hostile sentiments” (Government in America, pg 186). However, for people to be politically socialized does not necessarily mean that they are always in agreement with the government, and often well-socialized people will protest the government not to radically reform it or overthrow it, but to demand responsiveness. Better-educated citizens are more likely to vote in elections as well as protest against the government because they have more knowledge about politics. “Politics, like most other things, is thus a learned behavior. Americans learn to vote, to pick a political party, and to evaluate political events in the world around them. One of the products of all this learning is what is known as public opinion” (Government in America, pg 187).
Public opinion is measured through polls, which rely on a sample of people to represent the whole. To achieve accurate representation, everyone should have the equal chance of being chosen for the sample. With today’s technology most polling is done through random-digit dialing, or when calls are placed randomly to both listed and unlisted numbers, but there are downsides to this system. Firstly, the percentage of people that do not own phones are left out, and secondly, people may be less willing to talk on the phone or be honest for a survey. Polls can be used as an important tool for democracy because policymakers can keep in touch with changing opinions on the issues. This theoretically increases government responsiveness because politicians are dependent on a positive public opinion for re-election. Those who oppose to polls believe that it can undermine the leadership role of politicians, because politicians could become more focused on making the public happy rather than leading, but I believe that it is the job and responsibility of politicians to be aware and take into account public opinion, but ultimately to make decisions in the best interest of the country as a whole. Another criticism of polling is that pollsters can alter or manipulate the questions to get the results that they want; therefore, polls can be misleading.
Although Americans are generally not informed about politics, they do know what values they want upheld, and as a result many actively participate in government. There is conventional and unconventional participation in government. Conventional participation includes voting, going door to door to motivate others to vote, and creating and signing petitions, while unconventional participation includes protesting, civil disobedience, and violence. “Those who participate are easy to listen to; non-participants are easy to ignore;” (Government in America, pg 193) however, there are many limits on the role public opinion plays in the American political system, largely because it can be very contradictory, such as how people oppose the idea of big government, but favor it in practice, because they want aid to cities, health care, programs for education, etc. In recent decades especially, people have lost trust in the government and its ability to serve the people. As the essays by Shafer and Brooks show, times of crisis have the power to drastically transform public opinion and test democracy.
Shafer discusses that in the aftermath of September 11th, the Bush administration rallied for public support in the “war on terrorism” and in the face of a national crisis, many Americans united for the cause. However, as “new federal laws, including the Patriot Act, preventive detention of undocumented workers, and increased security measures in public places, shifted the nation’s focus from individual freedom to order” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq), public opinion began to shift. Americans were being pressured to suppress their skepticism about the war, ironic because the very democracy that we were claiming to establish in Iraq was being hindered on the home front. America began to censor its people and it was considered unpatriotic to question the war and the government. Instead citizens were supposed to be “good Americans” and unite beside their country. Brooks’ essay illustrates pro-war propaganda. He sees the issue as black and white, that Americans can either support the young men and women that serve the country, or have sympathy for the terrorists that “understand only force” that “must be crushed” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Brooks stereotypes anti-war protestors as college students with no grasp on reality, which is in his opinion is that the people in Iraq “ignore the basic rules of warfare and civilization” and “conflict with them is inevitable” (The Collapse of the Dream Palaces). Despite this “false brand of patriotism” as the war continued a many Americans grew tired of their voices being silences, and growing skepticism about the administration’s motives for entering into war with Iraq began to emerge out of the darkness. “Was this really a war to end terrorism or was it about imperialism and transnational profits?.... there was a manipulative and even antidemocratic cynicism to these evocations of a new American patriotism…for those who care about civil liberties, measures like the Patriot Act, the detention of “enemy combatants” without rights to attorneys or trials, and the detention of immigrants initiated by the Bush administration and passed by Congress threatened the very basic civil liberties of freedom of speech and equality before the law, heralded as cornerstones of U.S. and western democracies” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq).
Essential to a true democracy is that accurate and truthful information is given to the public about the actions of their government. “Americans can’t participate in a system that only feeds them a steady diet of propaganda and mendacity, leading them to believe what isn’t true or is only part of a larger story” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). American’s must be guaranteed honest information in order to ensure that healthy and productive debate can occur, that the public is able to “reject the policies of their president and practice civil disobedience when they see nefarious policies coming to fruition and hurting others” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). In light of the war in Iraq, many people felt as though they had to either accept the war or be labeled un-American and unappreciative of their armed forces. “Where before there had been healthy and quintessentially democratic debate on the morality of bombing a nation because it might harbor terrorists an have weapons of mass destruction, suddenly there was an uneasy silence as many Americans were told to behave and support President George W. Bush” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The foundation of American democracy is the ability of people to protest against the government and more importantly have that disapproval translate into change, and if this is sacrificed then the United States becomes “yet another repressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadilloes. The United States becomes little better than the countries it seeks to ‘liberate’ when it stifles dissent and stymies protest” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). It shows how that the freedoms of Americans are not really that secure when in a time of national crisis. “Americans are often not as free as they think they are- or should be” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). We see that legislation like the Patriot Act, which allows the government to invade the private lives of Americans through the justification of investigating possible terrorism, have become a way to “thwart free expression” and “scuttle the voices of those who are unhappy with the government” (Lessons From the U.S. War on Iraq). The media also plays a dangerous role when it not only censors and manipulates information, but refuses to question the government, much like Brooks’ essay, which illustrates blind and arrogant patriotism. The most important task of the media is to provide information from all perspectives and act as a tool to fuel deliberation and debate that encourages civic participation, forcing the government to be responsive towards the people’s wants. I agree with Shafer argument that as a result of the war in Iraq, the media and the government both exercise a censorship that stifles debate, silences public opinion, and puts democracy to the test. When Americans act on their political opinions they are participating in government and that is crucial to the existence of democracy. It seems as though debate and protest regarding the government thrives in times of peace, but in times of national crisis the public opinion is manipulated and unrepresentative of all Americans because of censoring and intimidation tactics. So if our voice is so easily quieted and our opinions so suppressed in times of conflict, how secure really are our freedoms?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Arsalan's Blog: Public Opinion
One of the most basic principles people observe in life is that everyone is “entitled to their opinion”. Contrary to what most people think, an opinion does matter; the culmination of various opinions forms the “public opinion”, defined as the “distribution of the population's beliefs about politics and policy issues” (Government In America, 178). Public opinion and polls taking account of them (generally known as the Gallup), can have quite an impact on politics, with concern to elections, presidential approval ratings, or even the national inclination towards an overseas conflict America is engaged in. All Americans take comfort in their First Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right of free speech, and America is a nation that professes to uphold and value these ideals, but is there a point where the nation becomes hypocritical? Past and present events have shown that the the right of free speech – the right to express your beliefs, your opinion – have been being slowly curbed by the government (and even certain citizens) of a nation that professes to uphold and firmly believe in these values.
Many people, whether it be old, young, teenager, parent, associate with a political ideology. Generally, it is considered to be either Republican or Democrat, but that is merely a generalization, as Independents and various other ideologies exist. Now with concern to how people choose their political affiliation is a completely different situation. There are various factors and scenarios that can make someone choose which side of the political spectrum they are on. The main examples are: family, the mass media, and school. Family is an obvious example, and can sometimes be the most prevalent, as family has a “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (GIA, 185). As a result, many children associate their beliefs with those of their parents, and a generational “inheritance” of beliefs occurs.
Sometimes, parents must compete with the new “parent” of the media, as studies have shown that kids spend more time watching TV then spend time at school. As a result of certain television shows (such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Chocolate News, or even Fox News), impressionable youngsters will associate themselves with the beliefs of the shows rather than their family's, or even formulate their own. School can have a profound effect on the beliefs of a child, both in and out of the classroom. Governments can use school to educate students in belief systems (the disturbing example of Nazi Germany's school system page 186 comes to mind), but in America that is not as prominent. What is prominent in America, however, is the social aspect of school; in the 2008 Presidential Election, it became “trendy” to support politicians like Ron Paul, and more importantly, Barack Obama, while supporting John McCain was seen as “uncool” and often frowned upon. This alone shows how impactful the social life can be on formulating political belief.
So we have seen how political opinions can be formed, and now we will analyze how they can affect politics. The sample is a small proportion of people who are chosen to participate in a survey as a representative of a greater number. Polls are often used to project opinions on issues, both domestic and national. Something that is generally taken into account during polling is the sampling error, which is the “level of confidence in the findings of a public opinion poll” (GIA, 189). The sampling error account for how inaccurate or accurate a poll's results can be. With concern to poll accuracy and how it can be important in politics is taken into account with the results of an exit poll, which is a survey “used by major media pollsters to predict electoral winners with speed and precision” (GIA, 193). The major criticism of the exit poll is the fact that it can be used by major news shows to project, sometimes inaccurately, the electoral vote of a state; this is usually to build up excitement for the viewers, instead of reporting accurate news, news sources try to build up anticipation by simply using the exit polls as a final result, rather than a “preview”. Another concern with public opinion polls is that politicians will attempt to use them to find out their “standing” within the nation, and instead of “leading” will “follow” the polls because people's approval means that they could be reelected.
It is clear that opinions and beliefs of citizens are formed through various externalities and that these opinions can also be very important in swinging the outcome of a political matter (an election being the predominant example). Public opinion can be expressed in other ways other than polls or voting. Protesting, a “form of political participation designed to achieve policy chance through dramatic and unconventional tactics” (GIA, 203), is a form of expressing opinion that has existed since the early days of America. The major example used in that time period was that of the Boston Tea Party, which was the colonist's method of protesting the heavy tax placed on tea products by the British Parliament. Protesting was quite common during the days of the Vietnam War, where many citizens worked to express how important the ending of hostilities and Vietnam to preserve lives was. A tragic incident was that of the Kent State Massacre, where state troops opened fire on college student protesters. This is regarded as a form of government oppression to the citizen's right to expressing their beliefs.
It did not end with Vietnam. For the past eight years, America has been involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; both fronts serve as the base on the “War on Terror”. Many citizens protest against the usage of American troops and advocate a swift withdrawal of troops, primarily from Iraq as of late, which is seen mostly as a disaster. People who do support the war tend to brand those who protest as “un-American” or “anti-military”. Another problem, brought up in Miroff's writing is that “advocates for peace [are given] the moniker of apostates, of radicals who don't love their country, of people who didn't appreciate the sacrifice of their soldiers.” (Miroff, 168). Another problem is seen in Stephen Downs, who was was wearing an anti-war shirt and was arrested for wearing it on the charge of being “disruptive”. He was expelled from the mall he was patronizing when the incident occurs. When incidents like this occur, America becomes a very hypocritical nation, and becomes “yet another oppressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadillos. The United States becomes little better than the counties it seeks to “liberate” when it stifles dissent and stymies protest.” (Miroff, 168). Another example of “branding” people for their personal opinion was that of accusing CNN owner Ted Turner of being sympathetic to the enemy during the first Gulf War due to a new report of an Iraqi milk factory being destroyed by American forces. “Billionare Ted” was branded under the moniker of “Baghdad Ted” due to this simple report of the truth. Again, the US government displays a fear of the freedom that citizens are meant to enjoy.
America professes to value and uphold the right of free speech, the right to having an expressing an opinion, and attempts to “save” those nations that do not do the same (Iraq and Afghanistan...), and when these values are restricted and barred like they were in Kent State, Stephen Downs, and other incidents, America becomes no better than those oppressive regimes that they have sought to bring down for not having those values. The accurate term here is the “land of hypocrisy”, as Rage Against The Machine describes America in their song “Wake Up”.
Putting down protesters for utilizing the right granted to them by their own Constitution is just one manner in which the American government has restricted rights. Another manner in prohibiting certain facts and evidence from being open to the public. For example, people are usually unaware of the fact that America, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, illegally supplied Iraq with the same weapons of mass destruction Bush wanted to move into Iraq and remove (as they were a threat to international peace and security). Not only were the Iraqis supplied by the US government, but they also received training in how to use those weapons as well. This seemingly convenient “omission” of the facts alone is a threat to democracy; how can a democracy – a government run for and by the people – flourish and continue to thrive if the government itself is willing to hide certain (and this case, extremely important) truths from the people. The government seemingly fears to let the people know about the “darker, more shadowy side” of American foreign policy.
Personal opinions and expressions of those opinions are often shown to be truly “impotent” as Miroff says because they are tested during times of national crisis. In response to the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration enacted the Patriot Act, which allows the government to further scrutinize citizens and potentially gives the government the authority to detain those without just cause Again, this is an easy way to “thwart free expression, to scuttle the voice of those who are unhappy with the government.” (Miroff). It is indeed quite worrisome when liberties are thrown “out the door” and ignored due to the government's paranoia, especially in what is meant to be the “land of the free”. We have seen what influences political association, how it is expressed, and the government's response to that expression during times of crises. Is it truly democratic? When the people are not allowed to express their beliefs in the society for the people, there is a serious problem. It is serious irony that should not exist. Indeed there is a problem, and if this keeps up, indeed America is no longer the “land of the free, home of the brave”, but really the “land of hypocrisy, home of the fearful”.
Many people, whether it be old, young, teenager, parent, associate with a political ideology. Generally, it is considered to be either Republican or Democrat, but that is merely a generalization, as Independents and various other ideologies exist. Now with concern to how people choose their political affiliation is a completely different situation. There are various factors and scenarios that can make someone choose which side of the political spectrum they are on. The main examples are: family, the mass media, and school. Family is an obvious example, and can sometimes be the most prevalent, as family has a “monopoly on two crucial resources in the early years: time and emotional commitment” (GIA, 185). As a result, many children associate their beliefs with those of their parents, and a generational “inheritance” of beliefs occurs.
Sometimes, parents must compete with the new “parent” of the media, as studies have shown that kids spend more time watching TV then spend time at school. As a result of certain television shows (such as The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Chocolate News, or even Fox News), impressionable youngsters will associate themselves with the beliefs of the shows rather than their family's, or even formulate their own. School can have a profound effect on the beliefs of a child, both in and out of the classroom. Governments can use school to educate students in belief systems (the disturbing example of Nazi Germany's school system page 186 comes to mind), but in America that is not as prominent. What is prominent in America, however, is the social aspect of school; in the 2008 Presidential Election, it became “trendy” to support politicians like Ron Paul, and more importantly, Barack Obama, while supporting John McCain was seen as “uncool” and often frowned upon. This alone shows how impactful the social life can be on formulating political belief.
So we have seen how political opinions can be formed, and now we will analyze how they can affect politics. The sample is a small proportion of people who are chosen to participate in a survey as a representative of a greater number. Polls are often used to project opinions on issues, both domestic and national. Something that is generally taken into account during polling is the sampling error, which is the “level of confidence in the findings of a public opinion poll” (GIA, 189). The sampling error account for how inaccurate or accurate a poll's results can be. With concern to poll accuracy and how it can be important in politics is taken into account with the results of an exit poll, which is a survey “used by major media pollsters to predict electoral winners with speed and precision” (GIA, 193). The major criticism of the exit poll is the fact that it can be used by major news shows to project, sometimes inaccurately, the electoral vote of a state; this is usually to build up excitement for the viewers, instead of reporting accurate news, news sources try to build up anticipation by simply using the exit polls as a final result, rather than a “preview”. Another concern with public opinion polls is that politicians will attempt to use them to find out their “standing” within the nation, and instead of “leading” will “follow” the polls because people's approval means that they could be reelected.
It is clear that opinions and beliefs of citizens are formed through various externalities and that these opinions can also be very important in swinging the outcome of a political matter (an election being the predominant example). Public opinion can be expressed in other ways other than polls or voting. Protesting, a “form of political participation designed to achieve policy chance through dramatic and unconventional tactics” (GIA, 203), is a form of expressing opinion that has existed since the early days of America. The major example used in that time period was that of the Boston Tea Party, which was the colonist's method of protesting the heavy tax placed on tea products by the British Parliament. Protesting was quite common during the days of the Vietnam War, where many citizens worked to express how important the ending of hostilities and Vietnam to preserve lives was. A tragic incident was that of the Kent State Massacre, where state troops opened fire on college student protesters. This is regarded as a form of government oppression to the citizen's right to expressing their beliefs.
It did not end with Vietnam. For the past eight years, America has been involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; both fronts serve as the base on the “War on Terror”. Many citizens protest against the usage of American troops and advocate a swift withdrawal of troops, primarily from Iraq as of late, which is seen mostly as a disaster. People who do support the war tend to brand those who protest as “un-American” or “anti-military”. Another problem, brought up in Miroff's writing is that “advocates for peace [are given] the moniker of apostates, of radicals who don't love their country, of people who didn't appreciate the sacrifice of their soldiers.” (Miroff, 168). Another problem is seen in Stephen Downs, who was was wearing an anti-war shirt and was arrested for wearing it on the charge of being “disruptive”. He was expelled from the mall he was patronizing when the incident occurs. When incidents like this occur, America becomes a very hypocritical nation, and becomes “yet another oppressive regime when it penalizes the voices of the minority and tries to squelch those who expose its peccadillos. The United States becomes little better than the counties it seeks to “liberate” when it stifles dissent and stymies protest.” (Miroff, 168). Another example of “branding” people for their personal opinion was that of accusing CNN owner Ted Turner of being sympathetic to the enemy during the first Gulf War due to a new report of an Iraqi milk factory being destroyed by American forces. “Billionare Ted” was branded under the moniker of “Baghdad Ted” due to this simple report of the truth. Again, the US government displays a fear of the freedom that citizens are meant to enjoy.
America professes to value and uphold the right of free speech, the right to having an expressing an opinion, and attempts to “save” those nations that do not do the same (Iraq and Afghanistan...), and when these values are restricted and barred like they were in Kent State, Stephen Downs, and other incidents, America becomes no better than those oppressive regimes that they have sought to bring down for not having those values. The accurate term here is the “land of hypocrisy”, as Rage Against The Machine describes America in their song “Wake Up”.
Putting down protesters for utilizing the right granted to them by their own Constitution is just one manner in which the American government has restricted rights. Another manner in prohibiting certain facts and evidence from being open to the public. For example, people are usually unaware of the fact that America, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, illegally supplied Iraq with the same weapons of mass destruction Bush wanted to move into Iraq and remove (as they were a threat to international peace and security). Not only were the Iraqis supplied by the US government, but they also received training in how to use those weapons as well. This seemingly convenient “omission” of the facts alone is a threat to democracy; how can a democracy – a government run for and by the people – flourish and continue to thrive if the government itself is willing to hide certain (and this case, extremely important) truths from the people. The government seemingly fears to let the people know about the “darker, more shadowy side” of American foreign policy.
Personal opinions and expressions of those opinions are often shown to be truly “impotent” as Miroff says because they are tested during times of national crisis. In response to the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration enacted the Patriot Act, which allows the government to further scrutinize citizens and potentially gives the government the authority to detain those without just cause Again, this is an easy way to “thwart free expression, to scuttle the voice of those who are unhappy with the government.” (Miroff). It is indeed quite worrisome when liberties are thrown “out the door” and ignored due to the government's paranoia, especially in what is meant to be the “land of the free”. We have seen what influences political association, how it is expressed, and the government's response to that expression during times of crises. Is it truly democratic? When the people are not allowed to express their beliefs in the society for the people, there is a serious problem. It is serious irony that should not exist. Indeed there is a problem, and if this keeps up, indeed America is no longer the “land of the free, home of the brave”, but really the “land of hypocrisy, home of the fearful”.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
About the New Energy for American poll
Obama’s New Energy for America Plan combines the economy and the environment in an ambitious, but long-term plan to heal both. Biden and Obama aim to do this through providing "short term relief to Americans…facing pain at the pump" and investing in renewable energy sources, (ensuring that "10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25% by 2050"). This goal aspires to end our dependence on foreign oil – seeking to save more oil within the next 10 years than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined, and investing 150 billion over the next 10 years in private efforts "to build a clean future." Another goal is to put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars (that get 150 mpg) on the roads by 2015, cars that will be built in America, as one component of the plan to provide 5 million new jobs. Lastly, the New Energy for America plan hopes to "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."
From http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Reading Your Minds...
I brought up this last class (on the new screening machine designed for better airport security) but didn't really elaborate on it, so here goes!
The new machine that Homeland Security has devised in order to "make America safer" is known as MALINTENT, which was developed by the Human Factors division in the Department of Homeland Security. This machine, unlike screening machines in the past, does not detect for any specific devices that would cause terrorism (such as bombs, knives, knitting needles...), but instead searches for non-verbal cues in your body which show potential terroristic actions. MALINTENT does not hook up to your body with sensors or anything like that; it is more like an x-ray machine that you can walk through. This machine has sensors that measure your body temperature, heart rate, respiration, and other such body functions. In addition to quantitative measurements, the machine also has something called micro-facial scanning, which "measures minute muscle movements in the face for clues to mood and intention."
If the sensors determine that you are indeed suspicious of terroristic intent, the machine then notifies those working in the security area. They then can decide whether to detain you for further questioning.
Issues have already arisen on this machine, such as the idea that all your medical problems and emotions are open to the analysts watching the machines, and whether your measurements will be remembered and kept. Apparently, though, the machine immediately gets rid of your data--it will not track who you are.
Personally, I think the idea of this machine is horrifying. Although it is meant to better secure our country, the idea that every time I walk through security, a machine will read me and determine whether my thoughts are appropriate for me to get on a plane without endangering other passengers is appalling! I feel that this is just one more way that the government can gain control over our lives, and who knows?! Perhaps one day the government will decide to keep our data--our emotions, our medical problems, everything the machine can read--for some yet to be determined important reason (most likely regarding Homeland Security). The article (which I will link at the end of this) ends with this: "Once MALINTENT is rolled out in airports, it could give us a future where we can once again wander onto planes with super-sized cosmetics and all the bottles of water we can carry — and most importantly without that sense of foreboding that has haunted Americans since Sept. 11."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426485,00.html
So I'm interested...what do you guys think??
The new machine that Homeland Security has devised in order to "make America safer" is known as MALINTENT, which was developed by the Human Factors division in the Department of Homeland Security. This machine, unlike screening machines in the past, does not detect for any specific devices that would cause terrorism (such as bombs, knives, knitting needles...), but instead searches for non-verbal cues in your body which show potential terroristic actions. MALINTENT does not hook up to your body with sensors or anything like that; it is more like an x-ray machine that you can walk through. This machine has sensors that measure your body temperature, heart rate, respiration, and other such body functions. In addition to quantitative measurements, the machine also has something called micro-facial scanning, which "measures minute muscle movements in the face for clues to mood and intention."
If the sensors determine that you are indeed suspicious of terroristic intent, the machine then notifies those working in the security area. They then can decide whether to detain you for further questioning.
Issues have already arisen on this machine, such as the idea that all your medical problems and emotions are open to the analysts watching the machines, and whether your measurements will be remembered and kept. Apparently, though, the machine immediately gets rid of your data--it will not track who you are.
Personally, I think the idea of this machine is horrifying. Although it is meant to better secure our country, the idea that every time I walk through security, a machine will read me and determine whether my thoughts are appropriate for me to get on a plane without endangering other passengers is appalling! I feel that this is just one more way that the government can gain control over our lives, and who knows?! Perhaps one day the government will decide to keep our data--our emotions, our medical problems, everything the machine can read--for some yet to be determined important reason (most likely regarding Homeland Security). The article (which I will link at the end of this) ends with this: "Once MALINTENT is rolled out in airports, it could give us a future where we can once again wander onto planes with super-sized cosmetics and all the bottles of water we can carry — and most importantly without that sense of foreboding that has haunted Americans since Sept. 11."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426485,00.html
So I'm interested...what do you guys think??
Split America? Really cool article!
Check this article out on the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/politics/30trail.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
It's a cool article that compares the differences at Obama and McCain rallies and Biden and Palin rallies. I thought it was fitting because we talked about Brooks' article the other day in class, which is about whether or not America is divided into "red" and "blue."
After I read this article, I felt that the general conclusion was that the Obama rallies seemed to be very upbeat, non-traditional, and mostly young people or families; while the McCain rallies seemed to be more traditional, conservative, and mostly older people with the occasional young hard core republicans.
I thought it was a cool analysis of the different rallies and tags along to critiques of style, clothing, etc. It is very interesting to see the stark differences that appear on TV at rallies between democrats and republicans.
6 days!!! :)
It's a cool article that compares the differences at Obama and McCain rallies and Biden and Palin rallies. I thought it was fitting because we talked about Brooks' article the other day in class, which is about whether or not America is divided into "red" and "blue."
After I read this article, I felt that the general conclusion was that the Obama rallies seemed to be very upbeat, non-traditional, and mostly young people or families; while the McCain rallies seemed to be more traditional, conservative, and mostly older people with the occasional young hard core republicans.
I thought it was a cool analysis of the different rallies and tags along to critiques of style, clothing, etc. It is very interesting to see the stark differences that appear on TV at rallies between democrats and republicans.
6 days!!! :)
Chaviess' blog: Elections
What would our democratic system be like without elections? I dought anyone has ever stopped to consider that thought. Athens political system is a beacon for American democracy. However their ways were not as democratic as history leads us to believe. Although white men could vote, women, and slaves were excluded from this democratic right. The Athenians also never had the intent for an ordinary citizen to ever hold office, but they did have to right to choose, from aristoi. Hudson argues that the difference in ancient Greek mentality, and modern mentality, comes from the form of representation the systems used. Athenians used a direct democracy seen in the assembly of all citizens, which directly illustrated the concerns of the people. The Assembly had the responsibility to debate, and decide public policies. The officials that were elected into offices in Athens, did not actually do any policy making, they simply acted out of the will of the people. The common citizen could speak in the forum, and had their concerns heard and rule directly. Modern democracy is vastly different because the public officials have a different role in democracy. The responsibility for decision making is shared between the public officials and the public, which makes the right to vote more important in today’s democracy. Unlike the Athenians, modern representatives posses actual policy making power. “Election is the mechanism that makes the system democratic-that is, it assures rule by the people.”(180, Hudson). To maintain a democratic government it is crucial that every individual’s voice is heard, and vote is counted. It is the American citizen’s obligation to vote and keep democracy as a representative of the people. Because votes are important, it in turn makes elections important. The United States could not do a direct democracy because of the size of society. Without elections officials would be more susceptible to the influence of a single person. However representative democracy does leave more room for discrepancies between the will of the people, and the will of the representative. “The equal right to vote alone cannot provide equal representation: it must be exercised through an election process that provides meaningful choices and channels for translating voters into the expression of political influence”(183, Hudson).
It is during the campaign that the Athenian way of direct democracy is emulated. This is the time when the common man has the opportunity to go to the microphone, and ask the candidate how they intend put his constituent’s concerns into action. They also allow the voter to direct the topic of discussion to better illustrate the candidate’s beliefs in subjects important to the voters. Hudson argues that there are three things essential to creating a truly democratic election. The first being equal representation for everyone. The ability to have a clear choice between candidates is also vital to democracy. The second necessity is to have citizens discuss and deliberate public policies since modern democracy is not direct. By voicing your stance on public policies, those decisions made should be put into action after the election, which gives citizens control of government. However, Hudson feels that many of this aspect of maintaining democracy have been tarnished. Institutions such as special interest groups, political action committees, large corporations, and wealthy individuals have created more competition and made election unrepresentative by giving support and money, in return for favors. The Electoral College system also increases the level of unrepresentation. Should the Electoral College was put into action by the founding fathers, when they feared rule by the masses. Many people feel the Electoral College is outdated, and should be reformed or disbanded all together. Campaigns have also become less focused on politics. Deliberation has become useless with the competition of loud entertainment and media coverage, and elections have morphed into something resembling the MTV awards show, with P. Diddy, and the Dixie Chicks as the guests. Many people believe this is an attempt to gloss over the important issues until Election Day. This is also a disservice to the voters, because even if they are having fun bobbing their head’s to the Dixie Chick’s “Cowboy Take me Away,” they forget to ask the candidate’s beliefs on Medicare, or education so when election day comes around, they still have no clue if the candidate supports their concerns. Election outcomes have also become less important because they do not affect policies as much as they should. Policies are made largely in the beauacracies, courts, and lobbying firms. “Although the United States satisfies well the simple criterion of selection millions of public officials through competitive election, the more demanding criteria of truly democratic elections are far from being achieved. In the United States, elections have become a major challenge to our democracy, rather than an indicator of it”(181 Hudson).
Whether elections have ruined democracy is a personal opinion. Elections have gone farther from the path of true democracy. It is rare that issues that actually effect the American people are discussed in depth, and when question are asked, politions manage to not answer the questions. In recent elections more and more energy has been put into unimportant things like, which celebrity is supporting who, and which politician has a pregnant, or alcoholic daughter. However, I believe that the subject matter of the campaign mirror the interests of the voters, and the United States is a nation of people who care more about the superficial issues. So until the interests of the common American changes, elections will always be geared to suit them, which means having to hear about how much money the candidate spent on shopping, instead of what they plan to do to fix the economy.
-Chaviess (posted by Ariella)
It is during the campaign that the Athenian way of direct democracy is emulated. This is the time when the common man has the opportunity to go to the microphone, and ask the candidate how they intend put his constituent’s concerns into action. They also allow the voter to direct the topic of discussion to better illustrate the candidate’s beliefs in subjects important to the voters. Hudson argues that there are three things essential to creating a truly democratic election. The first being equal representation for everyone. The ability to have a clear choice between candidates is also vital to democracy. The second necessity is to have citizens discuss and deliberate public policies since modern democracy is not direct. By voicing your stance on public policies, those decisions made should be put into action after the election, which gives citizens control of government. However, Hudson feels that many of this aspect of maintaining democracy have been tarnished. Institutions such as special interest groups, political action committees, large corporations, and wealthy individuals have created more competition and made election unrepresentative by giving support and money, in return for favors. The Electoral College system also increases the level of unrepresentation. Should the Electoral College was put into action by the founding fathers, when they feared rule by the masses. Many people feel the Electoral College is outdated, and should be reformed or disbanded all together. Campaigns have also become less focused on politics. Deliberation has become useless with the competition of loud entertainment and media coverage, and elections have morphed into something resembling the MTV awards show, with P. Diddy, and the Dixie Chicks as the guests. Many people believe this is an attempt to gloss over the important issues until Election Day. This is also a disservice to the voters, because even if they are having fun bobbing their head’s to the Dixie Chick’s “Cowboy Take me Away,” they forget to ask the candidate’s beliefs on Medicare, or education so when election day comes around, they still have no clue if the candidate supports their concerns. Election outcomes have also become less important because they do not affect policies as much as they should. Policies are made largely in the beauacracies, courts, and lobbying firms. “Although the United States satisfies well the simple criterion of selection millions of public officials through competitive election, the more demanding criteria of truly democratic elections are far from being achieved. In the United States, elections have become a major challenge to our democracy, rather than an indicator of it”(181 Hudson).
Whether elections have ruined democracy is a personal opinion. Elections have gone farther from the path of true democracy. It is rare that issues that actually effect the American people are discussed in depth, and when question are asked, politions manage to not answer the questions. In recent elections more and more energy has been put into unimportant things like, which celebrity is supporting who, and which politician has a pregnant, or alcoholic daughter. However, I believe that the subject matter of the campaign mirror the interests of the voters, and the United States is a nation of people who care more about the superficial issues. So until the interests of the common American changes, elections will always be geared to suit them, which means having to hear about how much money the candidate spent on shopping, instead of what they plan to do to fix the economy.
-Chaviess (posted by Ariella)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Elections!
Elections in America today have become trivialized, and William Hudson, in Chapter Five of American Democracy in Peril, outlined the specific issues with today’s elections. Hudson’s thesis is that in order for “elections to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria:” opportunity for equal representation, mechanisms for deliberation, and control over what government does. Hudson analyzes the three criteria in depth and for the most part, I agree with him. Hence, this blog will be an elaboration of his argument and at times, disagreements on his stances.
Unfortunately, over time elections have diminished the opportunity for equal representation of the American people. Hudson states that “voting rights are a political resource distributed equally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth or social status…they provide each citizen with the capacity to influence public decision” (Hudson, 182). Yes, it is true all citizens 18 years and older have the opportunity to vote and participate in government; however, there are cricks in the voting system that trouble potential voters. The issue of cost-benefit, which was brought up in chapter four of Hudson, affects many citizens in America. For citizens with more than one job, children that need care, and not enough money for gas, it is a difficult choice to figure out whether it is not worth going to the polls on November 4th. Citizens are forced to weigh out the pros and cons of voting to figure it is vital to vote. One issue that is commonly brought up in these citizens’ heads is whether or not their vote on the ballot will actually receive representation.
Unfortunately, with the Electoral College system, if your vote is not the majority vote, then technically, your vote does not count. The Electoral College system has two main problems. The first, is that the number of electoral votes is not based on population; the number of votes is taken from the number of Representatives plus two Senators. The second, is that it is a “winner takes all” system, which means that the majority receives all of the vote. The Electoral College is addressed in the Constitution: “Article II gives states the power to “appoint,” in a manner determined by the state legislature, electors who the cast their votes for president” (Hudson, 199). The Founders created the Electoral College system because they were worried that the common people would have too much power over elected officials and government. Because the Electoral College has been present since the found of the United States, I feel that instead of completely diminishing the system, it needs to be reformed. First of all, the number of electoral votes needs to be proportional to the population of the state. That way, the state will gain the proper representation in accordance to the other states. Secondly, the “winner takes all” system needs to be removed and changed into a percentage system. With a percentage system, all votes will be properly represented and the American people wont feel resentment toward the Electoral College system.
In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College ran into trouble. Al Gore had won the majority of the popular vote through the United States; however, because of the different number of electoral votes per sate, George W. Bush won the electorate vote. I believe that because American government is a democracy, the popular vote should have been the vote that decided that president. It makes no sense why electoral votes can determine the presidency if the popular vote (representation of the American people) had a different result.
Another argument in equal representation of elections is the role of political parties. Hudson states that “political parties have provided the means of structuring equal representation” (Hudson, 183). I do agree with this because political parties give Americans an opportunity to voice their opinions and take a stance with other citizens. The role of parties in elections has diminished overtime because elections have shifted from party-centered elections to candidate-centered elections. The reason that modern, candidate-centered campaigns cannot provide equal representation is because of the four main steps of modern campaigns: “deciding to run for office, raising campaign funds, building a professional campaign organization, and marketing the candidate to the voters” (Hudson, 186). With the first, candidates can technically self-select themselves and create their own political platform. Many self-selected candidates have little or no experience and in turn, voters have no idea whether or not the candidate is true to his/her policies. The issue with raising campaign funds is the “hidden election.” In order, to have an effective campaign, candidates have to seek out contributors. Many elections are dependent on whether or not the campaign has raised enough money. There have been many government reforms trying to regulate campaign fundraising; however, special interest groups and political parties have found ways to get around the laws. Campaigns becoming professional organizations devote all their time to winning the election. Campaign directors are usually not active community participants and are strictly business personnel. Lastly, marketing a candidate has become the main goal of campaign because of the media constantly reporting on issues (read on for more about the media!).
The second issue that makes elections undemocratic, Hudson says, is deliberation. Deliberation is the political discussion of the issues. In order for proper deliberation, “candidates must articulate issue positions clearly and address directly the view of their opponents, and the media must report extensively on these contending views in a manner that assists voters in making judgments about them” (Hudson, 202). Unfortunately, the media has become so involved in today’s (at least the 2008) elections that voters become engulfed in array of false and true information about the presidential candidates. Hudson states that “too little attention [of the media] is given to elections” (Hudson, 203). I will have to disagree with this statement. I can turn on the news, be it CNN, FOX, or MSNBC, as about any time of the day and see some type of news story relating to the presidential campaigns. I can agree with Hudson when he says that because media has to focus on entertaining their audiences, they stay away from policy issues and focus more on imagery issues. I believe that the media has become a third opponent in the 2008 election. For example, Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential nominee , has been constantly bashed for her unintelligence and style. Although it is necessary to appear respectful as a vice presidential nominee, I feel that the media has focused to much on unnecessary issues in the campaigns. Voters should be worried about policy issues, not style issues. Hudson also says that “the Internet provides an opportunity for improving public deliberation in elections” (Hudson, 207). I definitely agree with this statement. I think that in our day and age the Internet has played a large role in elections and voter education. There are countless sites providing citizens with candidate information and policy issues and there are also countless blogs that provide an opportunity for citizens to debate and discuss issues. There is also the negative part of the Internet, like YouTube, which can focus on negative parts of campaigns. I can only hope the uneducated voters don’t follow false videos. The last part of the media are the televised debates. Hudson says that “even the televised candidate debates are primarily regarded as opportunities to project images and strike poses rather than to discuss public policy issues seriously” (Hudson, 209). I agree with this statement to an extent. I do believe that many people watch the debates to become educated about the candidates’ stances; however, what goes along with that is criticism of the candidates’ images. Again, it is important to appear respectful, but it is interesting to me how style affects many voters’ opinions on a certain candidate. The opportunities for deliberation of policy issues is scarce, but if a voter cares enough, they will seek opportunities to do so.
The last reason that Hudson argues that elections are undemocratic is that they do not provide an opportunity to control what government does. Elections have begun to lose their affect on government policies and have commonly failed to solve political issues. This is because “nonelected officials and processes unconnected to elections have come to play an increasingly important role in making important policy decisions” (Hudson, 211). I don't think this is the fault of elections, I think it is the result of increased bureaucracy and judicial power. Also, special interest groups have found many ways to needle themselves in and pressure the voting direction of representatives. This cannot be changed in the course of elections.
Although elections have become increasingly undemocratic, I still feel that it is important to vote. Who actually knows if your vote counts? And how will you ever find out? The answer is no one and never. I believe that voting, even if your vote doesn’t count, is an awesome way to show that you care about government and project your feelings towards policy issues. Yes, there are many obstacles that elections have to tackle, but overall, having the opportunity to elect the next President is special and not all people have that opportunity (I don’t, yet!). For elections to change, major changes would have to be made and I don’t think it is actually worth it do to so. So do your part, and go to the polls on November 4th to elect the next President.
Unfortunately, over time elections have diminished the opportunity for equal representation of the American people. Hudson states that “voting rights are a political resource distributed equally to all citizens, irrespective of wealth or social status…they provide each citizen with the capacity to influence public decision” (Hudson, 182). Yes, it is true all citizens 18 years and older have the opportunity to vote and participate in government; however, there are cricks in the voting system that trouble potential voters. The issue of cost-benefit, which was brought up in chapter four of Hudson, affects many citizens in America. For citizens with more than one job, children that need care, and not enough money for gas, it is a difficult choice to figure out whether it is not worth going to the polls on November 4th. Citizens are forced to weigh out the pros and cons of voting to figure it is vital to vote. One issue that is commonly brought up in these citizens’ heads is whether or not their vote on the ballot will actually receive representation.
Unfortunately, with the Electoral College system, if your vote is not the majority vote, then technically, your vote does not count. The Electoral College system has two main problems. The first, is that the number of electoral votes is not based on population; the number of votes is taken from the number of Representatives plus two Senators. The second, is that it is a “winner takes all” system, which means that the majority receives all of the vote. The Electoral College is addressed in the Constitution: “Article II gives states the power to “appoint,” in a manner determined by the state legislature, electors who the cast their votes for president” (Hudson, 199). The Founders created the Electoral College system because they were worried that the common people would have too much power over elected officials and government. Because the Electoral College has been present since the found of the United States, I feel that instead of completely diminishing the system, it needs to be reformed. First of all, the number of electoral votes needs to be proportional to the population of the state. That way, the state will gain the proper representation in accordance to the other states. Secondly, the “winner takes all” system needs to be removed and changed into a percentage system. With a percentage system, all votes will be properly represented and the American people wont feel resentment toward the Electoral College system.
In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College ran into trouble. Al Gore had won the majority of the popular vote through the United States; however, because of the different number of electoral votes per sate, George W. Bush won the electorate vote. I believe that because American government is a democracy, the popular vote should have been the vote that decided that president. It makes no sense why electoral votes can determine the presidency if the popular vote (representation of the American people) had a different result.
Another argument in equal representation of elections is the role of political parties. Hudson states that “political parties have provided the means of structuring equal representation” (Hudson, 183). I do agree with this because political parties give Americans an opportunity to voice their opinions and take a stance with other citizens. The role of parties in elections has diminished overtime because elections have shifted from party-centered elections to candidate-centered elections. The reason that modern, candidate-centered campaigns cannot provide equal representation is because of the four main steps of modern campaigns: “deciding to run for office, raising campaign funds, building a professional campaign organization, and marketing the candidate to the voters” (Hudson, 186). With the first, candidates can technically self-select themselves and create their own political platform. Many self-selected candidates have little or no experience and in turn, voters have no idea whether or not the candidate is true to his/her policies. The issue with raising campaign funds is the “hidden election.” In order, to have an effective campaign, candidates have to seek out contributors. Many elections are dependent on whether or not the campaign has raised enough money. There have been many government reforms trying to regulate campaign fundraising; however, special interest groups and political parties have found ways to get around the laws. Campaigns becoming professional organizations devote all their time to winning the election. Campaign directors are usually not active community participants and are strictly business personnel. Lastly, marketing a candidate has become the main goal of campaign because of the media constantly reporting on issues (read on for more about the media!).
The second issue that makes elections undemocratic, Hudson says, is deliberation. Deliberation is the political discussion of the issues. In order for proper deliberation, “candidates must articulate issue positions clearly and address directly the view of their opponents, and the media must report extensively on these contending views in a manner that assists voters in making judgments about them” (Hudson, 202). Unfortunately, the media has become so involved in today’s (at least the 2008) elections that voters become engulfed in array of false and true information about the presidential candidates. Hudson states that “too little attention [of the media] is given to elections” (Hudson, 203). I will have to disagree with this statement. I can turn on the news, be it CNN, FOX, or MSNBC, as about any time of the day and see some type of news story relating to the presidential campaigns. I can agree with Hudson when he says that because media has to focus on entertaining their audiences, they stay away from policy issues and focus more on imagery issues. I believe that the media has become a third opponent in the 2008 election. For example, Sarah Palin, Republican vice presidential nominee , has been constantly bashed for her unintelligence and style. Although it is necessary to appear respectful as a vice presidential nominee, I feel that the media has focused to much on unnecessary issues in the campaigns. Voters should be worried about policy issues, not style issues. Hudson also says that “the Internet provides an opportunity for improving public deliberation in elections” (Hudson, 207). I definitely agree with this statement. I think that in our day and age the Internet has played a large role in elections and voter education. There are countless sites providing citizens with candidate information and policy issues and there are also countless blogs that provide an opportunity for citizens to debate and discuss issues. There is also the negative part of the Internet, like YouTube, which can focus on negative parts of campaigns. I can only hope the uneducated voters don’t follow false videos. The last part of the media are the televised debates. Hudson says that “even the televised candidate debates are primarily regarded as opportunities to project images and strike poses rather than to discuss public policy issues seriously” (Hudson, 209). I agree with this statement to an extent. I do believe that many people watch the debates to become educated about the candidates’ stances; however, what goes along with that is criticism of the candidates’ images. Again, it is important to appear respectful, but it is interesting to me how style affects many voters’ opinions on a certain candidate. The opportunities for deliberation of policy issues is scarce, but if a voter cares enough, they will seek opportunities to do so.
The last reason that Hudson argues that elections are undemocratic is that they do not provide an opportunity to control what government does. Elections have begun to lose their affect on government policies and have commonly failed to solve political issues. This is because “nonelected officials and processes unconnected to elections have come to play an increasingly important role in making important policy decisions” (Hudson, 211). I don't think this is the fault of elections, I think it is the result of increased bureaucracy and judicial power. Also, special interest groups have found many ways to needle themselves in and pressure the voting direction of representatives. This cannot be changed in the course of elections.
Although elections have become increasingly undemocratic, I still feel that it is important to vote. Who actually knows if your vote counts? And how will you ever find out? The answer is no one and never. I believe that voting, even if your vote doesn’t count, is an awesome way to show that you care about government and project your feelings towards policy issues. Yes, there are many obstacles that elections have to tackle, but overall, having the opportunity to elect the next President is special and not all people have that opportunity (I don’t, yet!). For elections to change, major changes would have to be made and I don’t think it is actually worth it do to so. So do your part, and go to the polls on November 4th to elect the next President.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Arsalan's Blog: Political Parties
What do Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens all have in common? Not much, but each of these groups do seek to attain and maintain their power within the United States government. Each of these groups represents various different ideologies and represents numerous constituencies. By these standards, what these groups have in common is that they are all political parties. Political parties are an inherent part of the system of democracy, as a democracy is essentially "rule by the people", so the parties are the necessary link between the people and governmental process; with the links (citizens -> parties -> political influence/control), the chain is forged within the American government.The term "faction" has become another way to phrase "political parties". Usage of the word "faction" goes back to the Federalist 10, written by James Madison. In F10, Madison defines the faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse, passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent or aggregate interest of the community." (Woll, Madison, 174-5). This definition applies to interest groups, but is also synonymous with political parties; political parties are comprised of citizens (who have merely ran for political office to represent their constituencies, obviously also citizens), who support a certain agenda that will indeed go against the rights or interests of another group. A prime example of this scenario is evident in differing economic policies; Republicans feel that it is important for the economy to take its own course and that government should not interfere, which should lead to a prospering economy. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that government regulation and involvement is important, as it prevents matters from getting out of hand and the government can keep an eye on it. John McCain represents the former ideal, so his supporters would naturally agree and vote for him (this is only a small example, many variables come into play in the real world, but this is just my blog, and I call the shots here). These economic ideals are adverse to those of Democrats, who will support the nominee Barack Obama, as he supports the latter of the economic ideals.Madison goes on to discuss within F10, that factions are by their very nature, divisive and that a "factious spirit has tainted our public administrations." (Woll, Madison, 174). He described two methods which could remove the causes of faction, which include "destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence" and "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests" (Woll, Madison, 175). Madison describes the first method as unacceptable, saying that "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.". The second option is declared as impractical, as "The diversity in the man faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of those faculties is the first object of government." (Both quotes: Woll, Madison, 175). Indeed, while separate ideologies and agenda create division, that is only a natural phenomenon in a democracy, as all different ideas must be acknowledged; division may be caused, but that is only inherent to the system of democracy, and in the end, the voice of the people - the diversity of goals and ideals - are heard, and that is what a system of government run by the people should be.E.E. Schattsscheiner describes the complexity of the interests involved with a political party and how interests are not always uniform. Schattschneider goes on to discuss in Document 31 that interests lead to conflicts which are generally not cumulative. It is a mere generalization to say that there is a dividing line between two groups of people that stand across from each other because they disagree on a certain issues. Even within issues there will be disagreements. People who agree on one matter will disagree in another, and so on. According to Shattschneider, "the alignment of people according to interests requires an enormous shuffling back and forth from one side to the other, tending to dissipate the tensions created." (Woll, Schattschneider, 181). Simply, there is not just Red or Blue, Right or Left, or Democrat or Republican. Some politicians may even disagree with the stance taken by their own parties (Maverick McCain and Joe Lieberman are notable examples). Schattschneider ends the document by saying that "there are many interests including a great body of common interests, (2) that government pursues a multiplicity of policies and creates and destroys interests in the process, (3) that each individual is capable of having many interests, (4) that interests cannot be mobilized perfectly, and (5) that conflicts among interests are not cumulative, it seems reasonable to suppose that the government is not the captive of blind forces from which there is no escape." (Woll, Schattschneider, 181).The last critical points in relation to political parties I would like to bring up is from Document 32, which discussed the role and importance of the effectiveness of parties. The document brings up the point I discussed earlier when it says that the "popular government in a nation of more than 150 million people require s political parties which provide the electorate with a proper range of choice between alternatives of action." (Woll, Document 32, 183). Political parties, contrary to what Madison said about factions and their divisive nature, are inherent to a system of democracy, and the document treats them as "indispensable instruments of government". I wholeheartedly agree with the authors of the document when they describe that the party system that is needed in the country must be a system that is "democratic, responsible, and effective-a system that is accountable to the public, respects and expresses differences of opinion, and is able to cope with the great problems of modern government." (Woll, Document 32, 184). A major concern amongst citizens in the nation is that politicians are corrupt and only wish to earn their fare share of cash; this is an understandable concern, and politicians must remember their constituencies, for without them, officeholders would not be in the position they are in. With concerns to differences of opinions, politicians must stand by their ideals; certain politicians tend to not have a backbone and do not support their agendas with vehemence. Any officeholder that does not have the courage and resolution to stand by their beliefs should not be in that office.The document also brings up another important aspect of a party: the effectiveness of the party and party system. The requirements for an effective party system include "that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves, and second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs.". The document also discusses the necessity of the "accountability of a two party system in which the opposition party acts as the critic of the party in power, developing, define and presenting the policy alternatives which are necessary for a true choice in reaching public decisions." (Woll, Doc. 32, 184). Indeed, it is not merely up to the party in control, but the effective party system requires effort from both parties, regardless of which is the majority or minority party.Arthur Paulson also brings up the importance of the importance of effort from both parties in Document 33 when he says that "Responsible parties present clear ideological or programmatic alternatives, can govern when in the majority, and can offer organized loyal opposition when in the minority." (Woll, Paulson, 189). Democracy is essentially a never-ending conflict between ideologies, and the war between Republicans and Democrats is the epitome of that conflict. When the Republican Bush Administration makes an error (and mind you, it's made many), it is up to the currently Democratic Congress to present a plan of action to remedy that mistake. Different ideas are indeed divisive, like Madison said, but those differing ideas can also lead to a better outcome, even if requires endless debate.James Madison was right when he said that factions cause division and conflict. But what he should have realized that in a democracy is division and conflict, not of violence thankfully, but of the never-ending war of words and ideas. Political parties are beyond a shadow of a doubt a necessary and intrinsic aspect of democracy. The interests of the people must be voiced, and the policies and platforms of the parties reflect these dogmas. What makes a democracy so much different than a monarchy or dictatorship is that instead of a single voice, thousands are heard; it is not just a solo, but also an entire chorus (though perhaps cacophony might be more accurate). Interests divide, but they also unite, and in a United States of America, you would only expect there to be different unions around a certain idea. Political parties also ensure the involvement of the people in government, which is above all the paramount goal of a democracy. Even now, the war between Senators Obama and McCain is ravaging the United States, because while both these men have opposing views, what they both have in common is that it is the philosophies they represent, that is paramount to this country. With men like these, who keep the interests of the people at heart, the chain that is forged between the people, political parties, and government is kept strong and untarnished.
Political Parties
Over the course of the history of the nation, debate has raged over the proper role of political parties and their beneficial and detrimental effects on the ultimate efficiency of government. The controversy surrounding factions, which are both special interests groups and political parties, has shaped government since the founding of the United States of America. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote about the dangers of factions, and their ability to suppress popular government by silencing citizens through majority power. He states that “the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties; and that measures are too often undecided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minority party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” (Woll, Document #30, pg 174). He greatly distrusts the motives of factions, fearing that individual rights are too easily sacrificed and the public good too easily overlooked for the selfishness of the majority in power. He is torn; however, in his argument on eliminating the “injustices and unsteadiness” (Woll, Document #30, pg 175) created by factions. Popular government, he claims, is both the cause and justification of factions. The guarantee and preservation of liberty for all people of America allows for the rise of factions and to remove the causes of factions is to demolish liberty for “liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Woll, Document #30, pg 175). He concludes that because it is the responsibility of those in government to protect the people from the dangers of factions while simultaneously preserving government, the solution is to control the effects of factions rather than eliminate the causes. This can be achieved he through constitutional means, primarily the creation of a large republic that could act to disperse political parties and reduce their impact on a national level. Madison’s concerns over factions have made up the foundation of the modern debate over political parties and America’s two-party system, which has existed since the 1800’s. Although he could not anticipate the evolution of political parties, Madison’s anxiety over the balance between political parties and individual freedoms has resonated for the last two centuries.
The Founding Fathers shared in Madison’s apprehension and fear of political parties, which they saw as means for corruption and “national divisiveness” (Government in America, pg 239), so they devised an elaborate balance of powers through the Constitution that E.E. Schattschneider argues in Document #31 is designed to make parties ineffective. He writes, “in a republic, parties are tolerated but invited to strangle themselves in the machinery of government” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179). His opinion is that the Constitution gave rise to political parties, but is structured to create a constant conflict and competition between them, guaranteeing that political parties never go from being part of the government, to controlling the government. He supports Madison’s early opinion that indirect democracy, where representatives elected by the citizens act as a filter to refine the public voice to better reflect the national good, effectively limits the dangers of political parties. He directly references Madison by confidently agreeing that he was right in his “disapproval of party government as distinguished from party tolerance” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179), and he continues the article examining how political parties are limited through their fragmentation. The decentralization of political parties and “the fact that every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests” (Woll, Document #31, pg 181), as well as binded to others through common interests, suppresses the power of political parties. The competition and complications of the makeup of political parties makes it difficult to achieve policy out of public interests that rarely cohere.
Opposing dispersed and weak political parties, The American Political Science Association published a report in 1950 that stressed the importance of stronger political parties and majority rule. They argue that the way to define the national interest is to provide citizens with a choice between programs that determine the actions of the government. They called for a “more responsible two-party system” that focuses more on public policy and leaves behind the current slowness and irresponsiveness of political parties to the interest of the majority. The primary requirement of the APSA is that the political party in power is able to bring forth programs and formulate policies that they and the candidates they nominate commit themselves to and unite to carry out, as well as take responsibility for in both success and failure. An important element to the development of a strong and effective party system is the opposition party that holds the party in power accountable and presents alternative policies and solutions that they promise to the public in the event that they come to power. They believe that if parties worked towards meeting these conditions, the effectiveness of turning party promises into governmental policy will dramatically increase as opposed to political parties that are so decentralized that they are unable to take a national stand on an issue and then enforce it. However; especially in more recent times, many Americans believe that decentralized parties are appropriate for the limited government that the Founders originally sought to create, in which the scope of government cannot be increased through the persistent actions of one party’s members.
Both Documents #33 and #34 discuss the possibility of a “responsible party system”. Arthur Paulson explains that in order to have a party government the separation of powers that exists between the legislative and executive branches must be eliminated, which is very unlikely, and asserts that American parties have characteristically been diverse in their interests and therefore unable to create the unity necessary to fit the model of a “responsible party system”. He states that in recent decades the two major parties, or the Democrats and the Republicans, have experienced “ideological polarization” (Woll, Document #33, pg 189), meaning that a majority of Democrats are labeled as liberals and a majority of Republicans are labeled as conservatives, and both represent more distinct interests. Paulson concludes the article by saying that this trend has declined in very recent years and that there is the possibility of a “responsible party system”, but I disagree with this. I support David Mayhew’s conclusion that governing by party majorities is unlikely to occur and that political parties serve better as “policy factions” (Woll, Document #34, pg 198). Arguably, the role of political parties has decreased because of both the media and the nature of the Democratic and Republic parties. Media has transformed the role of political parties because citizens are no longer dependent on the party to find out what the candidates are like and what they stand for. This is evident in the increasing percentage of citizens that register as independent or vote against their party. Ultimately, parties “will survive and even moderately prosper in a society evidently unreceptive to strong parties and yet unready, and probably unable, to abandon parties altogether” (Government in America, pg 263).
I truly believe that political parties are inherent to democracy and necessary in maintaining and encouraging civic participation. Although it is true that political parties have the power to divide, they also possess the essential power to unite citizens who share interests and ideologies. Political parties serve as a tool for citizens who feel insignificant and drowned out by the voices of millions to unite in the pursuit of a common goal and be heard and effect change. Their power is not only checked and balanced by the branches of government, but by the people, who they are largely dependent on, and they are constantly attempting to cater to the majority opinion and gain support, while simultaneously creating distinct identities to hold on to voters. Admittedly, there are flaws to political parties, but ultimately their competition and the arguments they create generate citizen involvement and are essential to democracy because they act as a bridge between the American people and the government and its policies. I agree with E.E. Schattschneider’s statement that “political parties created democracy…and democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties” (Government in America, pg 239). Democracy and political parties are counter-dependent on one another and to regulate them or establish a “responsible party system”, which goes against the nature of people to have diverse and often conflicting interests, is a deprivation of individual rights and civic participation, both essential to the foundation of democracy and America.
The Founding Fathers shared in Madison’s apprehension and fear of political parties, which they saw as means for corruption and “national divisiveness” (Government in America, pg 239), so they devised an elaborate balance of powers through the Constitution that E.E. Schattschneider argues in Document #31 is designed to make parties ineffective. He writes, “in a republic, parties are tolerated but invited to strangle themselves in the machinery of government” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179). His opinion is that the Constitution gave rise to political parties, but is structured to create a constant conflict and competition between them, guaranteeing that political parties never go from being part of the government, to controlling the government. He supports Madison’s early opinion that indirect democracy, where representatives elected by the citizens act as a filter to refine the public voice to better reflect the national good, effectively limits the dangers of political parties. He directly references Madison by confidently agreeing that he was right in his “disapproval of party government as distinguished from party tolerance” (Woll, Document #31, pg 179), and he continues the article examining how political parties are limited through their fragmentation. The decentralization of political parties and “the fact that every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests” (Woll, Document #31, pg 181), as well as binded to others through common interests, suppresses the power of political parties. The competition and complications of the makeup of political parties makes it difficult to achieve policy out of public interests that rarely cohere.
Opposing dispersed and weak political parties, The American Political Science Association published a report in 1950 that stressed the importance of stronger political parties and majority rule. They argue that the way to define the national interest is to provide citizens with a choice between programs that determine the actions of the government. They called for a “more responsible two-party system” that focuses more on public policy and leaves behind the current slowness and irresponsiveness of political parties to the interest of the majority. The primary requirement of the APSA is that the political party in power is able to bring forth programs and formulate policies that they and the candidates they nominate commit themselves to and unite to carry out, as well as take responsibility for in both success and failure. An important element to the development of a strong and effective party system is the opposition party that holds the party in power accountable and presents alternative policies and solutions that they promise to the public in the event that they come to power. They believe that if parties worked towards meeting these conditions, the effectiveness of turning party promises into governmental policy will dramatically increase as opposed to political parties that are so decentralized that they are unable to take a national stand on an issue and then enforce it. However; especially in more recent times, many Americans believe that decentralized parties are appropriate for the limited government that the Founders originally sought to create, in which the scope of government cannot be increased through the persistent actions of one party’s members.
Both Documents #33 and #34 discuss the possibility of a “responsible party system”. Arthur Paulson explains that in order to have a party government the separation of powers that exists between the legislative and executive branches must be eliminated, which is very unlikely, and asserts that American parties have characteristically been diverse in their interests and therefore unable to create the unity necessary to fit the model of a “responsible party system”. He states that in recent decades the two major parties, or the Democrats and the Republicans, have experienced “ideological polarization” (Woll, Document #33, pg 189), meaning that a majority of Democrats are labeled as liberals and a majority of Republicans are labeled as conservatives, and both represent more distinct interests. Paulson concludes the article by saying that this trend has declined in very recent years and that there is the possibility of a “responsible party system”, but I disagree with this. I support David Mayhew’s conclusion that governing by party majorities is unlikely to occur and that political parties serve better as “policy factions” (Woll, Document #34, pg 198). Arguably, the role of political parties has decreased because of both the media and the nature of the Democratic and Republic parties. Media has transformed the role of political parties because citizens are no longer dependent on the party to find out what the candidates are like and what they stand for. This is evident in the increasing percentage of citizens that register as independent or vote against their party. Ultimately, parties “will survive and even moderately prosper in a society evidently unreceptive to strong parties and yet unready, and probably unable, to abandon parties altogether” (Government in America, pg 263).
I truly believe that political parties are inherent to democracy and necessary in maintaining and encouraging civic participation. Although it is true that political parties have the power to divide, they also possess the essential power to unite citizens who share interests and ideologies. Political parties serve as a tool for citizens who feel insignificant and drowned out by the voices of millions to unite in the pursuit of a common goal and be heard and effect change. Their power is not only checked and balanced by the branches of government, but by the people, who they are largely dependent on, and they are constantly attempting to cater to the majority opinion and gain support, while simultaneously creating distinct identities to hold on to voters. Admittedly, there are flaws to political parties, but ultimately their competition and the arguments they create generate citizen involvement and are essential to democracy because they act as a bridge between the American people and the government and its policies. I agree with E.E. Schattschneider’s statement that “political parties created democracy…and democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties” (Government in America, pg 239). Democracy and political parties are counter-dependent on one another and to regulate them or establish a “responsible party system”, which goes against the nature of people to have diverse and often conflicting interests, is a deprivation of individual rights and civic participation, both essential to the foundation of democracy and America.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sarah Palin's
Recently, there has been a bit of negative attention directed at the McCain campaign with claims that Sarah Palin is "going rogue" as one advisor to the campaign put it. Most of us have been aware of the attention that Governor Sarah Palin is bringing to the Republican party since word got out that she was McCains V.P. nominee. With publicity from interviews such as the one with Katie Couric as well as the vice presidential debate and SNL skits, it seems that Palin is receiving more attention than McCain himself. This is debatable; however, the publicity "differential" between Obama and his vice presidential candidate Joe Biden is much greater than that of McCain and Palin. This begs the question of whether or not this attention placed on Palin and, in turn, the McCain campaign is detrimental or vital in gaining votes for the Republican party while solidifying the already strong base. At the moment, with articles such as those being written for CNN, it seems that most of the recent publicity has been doing the opposite; not only strengthening the disparity between party lines, but also causing Conservatives to renounce support for the McCain campaign.
CNN released an article claiming that Palin's recent antics and coverage in the media have created controversey within the campaign itself. One may question why McCain picked a Palin as his V.P. candidate though it seems as though it was not based on her political merit but ulterior motives. This is the area in which she is being called out on resulting in unintended consequences for the McCain campaign. It is clear that her charisma did freshen the campaign at first but then, as her political rhetoric began flowing, all of the benefits in Palin where brought into question. Did McCain foresee the chocie of Palin developing into what is happening currently, or did this choice lose its "edge" shortly after his decision to choose Palin? The answer is unclear though it is certain that a division has come into being within the McCain campaign between advisors with regards to Palin and her abilities and personality. With labels such as a "Diva", Palin's reputation and credibility are being questioned within the McCain campaign. One even said of Palin, ""Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic" continuing by saying that Palin was probably the "Hardest... to get up to speed than any candidate in history." It is attention and publicity like this that the McCain campaign needs least right now. There is always the notion that any publicity is good publicity, but such an ideology does not seem to manifest itself within the McCain campaign as of right now, and much of this attention could easily be attributed to Sarah Palin. However, looking back, who's decision was it to choose such a person as a V.P. candidate anyways? It can be thought by many (both Republicans and Democrats) that the selection of such an unqualified individual "doomed" the Republican campaign from the start. Interestingly enough, however, it was said of Palin that ""She's no longer playing for 2008; she's playing 2012," so perhaps, with a loss in the 2008 elections, it is possible that she will be back for more.
To read the article, go to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html
John
CNN released an article claiming that Palin's recent antics and coverage in the media have created controversey within the campaign itself. One may question why McCain picked a Palin as his V.P. candidate though it seems as though it was not based on her political merit but ulterior motives. This is the area in which she is being called out on resulting in unintended consequences for the McCain campaign. It is clear that her charisma did freshen the campaign at first but then, as her political rhetoric began flowing, all of the benefits in Palin where brought into question. Did McCain foresee the chocie of Palin developing into what is happening currently, or did this choice lose its "edge" shortly after his decision to choose Palin? The answer is unclear though it is certain that a division has come into being within the McCain campaign between advisors with regards to Palin and her abilities and personality. With labels such as a "Diva", Palin's reputation and credibility are being questioned within the McCain campaign. One even said of Palin, ""Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic" continuing by saying that Palin was probably the "Hardest... to get up to speed than any candidate in history." It is attention and publicity like this that the McCain campaign needs least right now. There is always the notion that any publicity is good publicity, but such an ideology does not seem to manifest itself within the McCain campaign as of right now, and much of this attention could easily be attributed to Sarah Palin. However, looking back, who's decision was it to choose such a person as a V.P. candidate anyways? It can be thought by many (both Republicans and Democrats) that the selection of such an unqualified individual "doomed" the Republican campaign from the start. Interestingly enough, however, it was said of Palin that ""She's no longer playing for 2008; she's playing 2012," so perhaps, with a loss in the 2008 elections, it is possible that she will be back for more.
To read the article, go to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html
John
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Special Interest Groups
Special Interest Groups (SIGs) have been of major concern since they were legitimized. Many question the constitutionality of SIGs, and Political Action Committees (PACs). I believe that is it a constitutional right to have SIGs, and that, although PACs can be the source of some conflict that they do not possess enough power to influence democracy in a detrimental way. My views are best supported in James Madison’s Federalist 10, Jeffrey Berry’s Madison’s Dilemma, and Larry Sabato’s The Misplaced Obsession with PACs.
In the Federalist 10, James Madison addresses his concerns with factions. He acknowledges that factions are natural in society. This is because it is human nature to have personal opinions and ideas, and for people who share similar opinions to group together. These groups he is referring to are more commonly called special interest groups today. Madison’s concern with these groups was whether individuals could ignore their own self-interests for the good of democracy; he also was concerned with whether it is constitution to regulate these interest groups involvement with government. Jeffery Berry expands on this conflict in Madison’s Dilemma. Berry feels that preventing people from perusing their interests, would be detrimental to maintaining political freedom, but the rise in the number of lobbyists and the influence of interests groups have begun to take a toll on the integrity of congressional elections, and policies. Berry ultimately concludes, “Interest groups are no less a threat then they are an expression of freedom”(Woll, Berry, 221). He goes on to conclude that, “Real world events and the philosophical musings of scholar that contributed to the movement toward increased participation by interest groups could not be selective in their influence”(Woll, Berry, 224). However, congress has attempted to create regulations concerning interest groups, and their amount of influence over candidates.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was a case brought to the Supreme Court in an attempted to regulate interest groups. The act would limit the finances interests groups and individuals could commit to candidates in campaigns. The act also put spending limits on the candidates as well. This law put the Federal Election Commission into action, which was a regulatory body that oversaw registration from candidates, that reported their contributions and spending. However, this act was amended in 1974 with Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court ruled that political spending was protected by the first amendment. Another attempt to set limitations for campaign expenditures. In 2002 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was settled in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set indistinct federal limitations on campaign finance activities. This law disallowed corporations to finance critical advertisements about incumbents. National parties are also forbidden fund “issue adds” that the incumbent takes offense to.
Many saw this ruling as a direct threat to the First Amendment, while others say that special interest groups are unconstitutional. In Madison’s Dilemma, Berry says, “ If the government does not allow people to pursue their self-interest, it takes from their political freedom”(Woll, Berry, 220), which I agree with completely. There is no dought that the founding fathers had the intention to secure that the citizens of this nation would be able to voice their views and wants. I understand the downside of people being able to influence politics. I do agree that people are inherently selfish, and most are not capable of separating their personal concerns, from the concerns of the nation. However, is it not the responsibility of the representatives to decipher selfish endeavors and ones that will benefit the country? It is for these reasons that I do not agree with putting regulations on Interest Groups solely on the fact that the First Amendment protects them. My feelings on PACs are supportive as well, but for different reasons.
After PACs were legitimized in the 1970’s, the number and influence of them increased exponentially. As the cost for campaigns rise, the importance for candidates to get outside revenue to fund their campaign becomes more important as well. Although, the numbers of PACs have grown, the public opinion of them has soured. Sabato says, “In more and more recent campaigns, political action committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics”(Woll, Sabato, 245). The public’s distaste for these committees has caused candidates to make an effort to not associate with them. However, Sabato defends the marred reputation PACs, “PAC bashing in undeniably a popular campaign sport, but the “big PAC attack” is an opiate that obscures the more vital concerns and problems in campaign finance,”(Woll, Sabato, 245). She continues to prove how the power PACs have gained over time, is counteracted in some way. This keeps them from being as detrimental to democracy as general opinions leads one to believe. Although, PAC’s contributions to campaigns have grown since 1970’s, many people fail to realize that the money they provide is still only two-fifths of the funding that candidates use, making is a secondary revenue source. Sabato also recognizes that PACs do contribute to the rising cost of campaigning, but the costs for effective communication has risen as well, making the contributions necessary. Many people also feel that the incumbent is always the benefactor of the PAC’s contributions, and although they do dishearten some potential candidates, by making donations early in the election, PACs have been known to endow new candidates with funds later in the race as well. Sabato views this as a benefit to the receiver of the new candidate, because it may be the campaigning done closer to election day, that makes the turnaround. Corruption is another reasons why the general public fears PACs, mainly with buying votes. Sabato states two reasons why PACs do not make enough of a difference for them to be vilified. The first being that they only matter in policy making to a decisive degree and because most incumbents will choose party, or constituent loyalty over a PAC. The issues that PACs have the opportunity to have the most influence in are the lest important ones. They generally only devote their concern to very specialized issues. There is also concern with them supporting selfish policies, however, in the recent year labor interest groups and business interest groups seem to be in an agreement on most issues, which would lead most people to assume that the policy is generally good. Party loyalty is also a controlling factor in PACs influence. An incumbent is very unlikely to support a bill that would cause their constituents to not vote for them, or to vote for a bill that is unpopular with their party. For all of these reasons Sobato illustrates that PACs are not nearly as influential and corruptive as the general opinion leads many to believe.
It is for these reasons that constitutionality of SIGs, and PACs should not be questioned. Although these factions do cause some conflict in democracy, they are a necessary part of democracy, and a constitutional right.
In the Federalist 10, James Madison addresses his concerns with factions. He acknowledges that factions are natural in society. This is because it is human nature to have personal opinions and ideas, and for people who share similar opinions to group together. These groups he is referring to are more commonly called special interest groups today. Madison’s concern with these groups was whether individuals could ignore their own self-interests for the good of democracy; he also was concerned with whether it is constitution to regulate these interest groups involvement with government. Jeffery Berry expands on this conflict in Madison’s Dilemma. Berry feels that preventing people from perusing their interests, would be detrimental to maintaining political freedom, but the rise in the number of lobbyists and the influence of interests groups have begun to take a toll on the integrity of congressional elections, and policies. Berry ultimately concludes, “Interest groups are no less a threat then they are an expression of freedom”(Woll, Berry, 221). He goes on to conclude that, “Real world events and the philosophical musings of scholar that contributed to the movement toward increased participation by interest groups could not be selective in their influence”(Woll, Berry, 224). However, congress has attempted to create regulations concerning interest groups, and their amount of influence over candidates.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was a case brought to the Supreme Court in an attempted to regulate interest groups. The act would limit the finances interests groups and individuals could commit to candidates in campaigns. The act also put spending limits on the candidates as well. This law put the Federal Election Commission into action, which was a regulatory body that oversaw registration from candidates, that reported their contributions and spending. However, this act was amended in 1974 with Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court ruled that political spending was protected by the first amendment. Another attempt to set limitations for campaign expenditures. In 2002 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was settled in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set indistinct federal limitations on campaign finance activities. This law disallowed corporations to finance critical advertisements about incumbents. National parties are also forbidden fund “issue adds” that the incumbent takes offense to.
Many saw this ruling as a direct threat to the First Amendment, while others say that special interest groups are unconstitutional. In Madison’s Dilemma, Berry says, “ If the government does not allow people to pursue their self-interest, it takes from their political freedom”(Woll, Berry, 220), which I agree with completely. There is no dought that the founding fathers had the intention to secure that the citizens of this nation would be able to voice their views and wants. I understand the downside of people being able to influence politics. I do agree that people are inherently selfish, and most are not capable of separating their personal concerns, from the concerns of the nation. However, is it not the responsibility of the representatives to decipher selfish endeavors and ones that will benefit the country? It is for these reasons that I do not agree with putting regulations on Interest Groups solely on the fact that the First Amendment protects them. My feelings on PACs are supportive as well, but for different reasons.
After PACs were legitimized in the 1970’s, the number and influence of them increased exponentially. As the cost for campaigns rise, the importance for candidates to get outside revenue to fund their campaign becomes more important as well. Although, the numbers of PACs have grown, the public opinion of them has soured. Sabato says, “In more and more recent campaigns, political action committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics”(Woll, Sabato, 245). The public’s distaste for these committees has caused candidates to make an effort to not associate with them. However, Sabato defends the marred reputation PACs, “PAC bashing in undeniably a popular campaign sport, but the “big PAC attack” is an opiate that obscures the more vital concerns and problems in campaign finance,”(Woll, Sabato, 245). She continues to prove how the power PACs have gained over time, is counteracted in some way. This keeps them from being as detrimental to democracy as general opinions leads one to believe. Although, PAC’s contributions to campaigns have grown since 1970’s, many people fail to realize that the money they provide is still only two-fifths of the funding that candidates use, making is a secondary revenue source. Sabato also recognizes that PACs do contribute to the rising cost of campaigning, but the costs for effective communication has risen as well, making the contributions necessary. Many people also feel that the incumbent is always the benefactor of the PAC’s contributions, and although they do dishearten some potential candidates, by making donations early in the election, PACs have been known to endow new candidates with funds later in the race as well. Sabato views this as a benefit to the receiver of the new candidate, because it may be the campaigning done closer to election day, that makes the turnaround. Corruption is another reasons why the general public fears PACs, mainly with buying votes. Sabato states two reasons why PACs do not make enough of a difference for them to be vilified. The first being that they only matter in policy making to a decisive degree and because most incumbents will choose party, or constituent loyalty over a PAC. The issues that PACs have the opportunity to have the most influence in are the lest important ones. They generally only devote their concern to very specialized issues. There is also concern with them supporting selfish policies, however, in the recent year labor interest groups and business interest groups seem to be in an agreement on most issues, which would lead most people to assume that the policy is generally good. Party loyalty is also a controlling factor in PACs influence. An incumbent is very unlikely to support a bill that would cause their constituents to not vote for them, or to vote for a bill that is unpopular with their party. For all of these reasons Sobato illustrates that PACs are not nearly as influential and corruptive as the general opinion leads many to believe.
It is for these reasons that constitutionality of SIGs, and PACs should not be questioned. Although these factions do cause some conflict in democracy, they are a necessary part of democracy, and a constitutional right.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Special Interest Groups
Before discussing the ins and outs and the rights and wrongs of special interest groups, it is important that the definition of an “interest group” be confirmed. David B. Truman, in The Governmental Process states that an “interest group refers to any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes…” (Woll, Truman, 232). If we follow this definition, then technically every group in society, including the government, is an interest group because all members share common feelings about a certain issue. Therefore, it is easy to say that the governmental process is a combination of interactions between political interest groups. All legislation pertains to a certain issue, which for the most part, has support from at least one special interest group. I believe that in the context of the entire United States, all groups can be deemed special interest groups because they are striving to protect their main issue; however, this does not mean that all special interest groups are attempting to affect policy. Political special interest groups are indeed groups that strive to protect their main issue and also strive to affect policy through lobbying and financial gifts to Congressional members. From now on the term “interest groups” will pertain to political interest groups unless otherwise stated.
Today, interest groups and political action committees (PACs) have a large affect on the legislature that is created, as well as, the political candidates that are elected. In Interest Groups and the American Political System, Rozell and Wilcox explain the roles that interest groups have in the elections today. They begin by stating that involvement in American government elections is high because of the distinct characteristics that are included. First, it offers “opportunities for influencing policy;” second, “the major U.S. parties are permeable to outside interest, enabling interest group activists to obtain powerful positions;” and third, “American elections are unique” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 241). Rozell and Wilcox continue on to describe the ways that interest groups have to mold their actions in order to influence policy. Interest groups have to affect all three levels of government (federal, state, local) because policy can be created at all levels. It is especially important for the interest groups to be involved in the state and local levels, because many potential Congress candidates come out of the state and local governments. Interest groups also have to “access both the president and Congress” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). Overall, the main goal of interest groups, says Rozell and Wilcox, is “to establish relationships with senators and representative and to get some return on their investment in the form of public policy” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). I don’ think that their can be any dispute of whether or not this is true. I know from first hand experience, with AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), that our main goal is to build relationships with our representatives in order to make sure that they support positive policy for Israel. AIPAC is well-known in both the House and the Senate as being very influential; we have the support of the majority of Congressional representatives. Another objective of interest groups is to elect candidates that support their group: “Through party primaries, caucuses, and conventions, interest groups can help to determine which candidates win nomination and can even work to nominate activists and members from their own groups” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 243). Although this is true, I think that it is unfair for the common people. Even though it is a citizen’s choice to join an interest group, I think it is undemocratic that interest groups can strongly affect candidate nominations. The only way to undo this would be to regulate the role of interest groups and forbid them to basically cheat and nominate candidates in their interest groups. Similar to this, I think that the notion of political action committees is undemocratic.
Although both special interest groups and political action committees are supported in the Constitution by the First Amendment, I feel that the amount of power they hold in influencing policy and elections is unjustifiable. In elections, “interest groups can recruit candidates and encourage them to run, help finance their campaigns, and assist them in selecting campaign themes” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 244). It makes sense that interest groups want to help candidates’ campaign so that they can also achieve their support for policy, but I still think that the amount of power interest groups hold is unjustifiable. Interest groups are supported in the Constitution; however, there are no real regulations on them. Technically, because the government is democratic and encourages civil participation, interest groups are only a way of citizens portraying their necessities to representatives. This does not mean that it’s okay, it merely is fact. Political action committees are a whole different ball game.
Political action committees have “enhanced the influence of private money and interest group power in the political process” and “are a major source of campaign funds” (Woll, 244-245). Today, PACs represent the “factions” Madison attacked in Federalist 10: “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer government in person can admit of no cure from the mischiefs of faction” (Woll, Madison, 176). Madison believes that factions are evil and if too powerful, will dictate society. Madison concluded that instead of eliminating factions, they must be controlled. Like Madison, Sabato in The Misplaced Obsessions with PACs states that “in more and more recent campaigns, political actions committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics” (Woll, Sabato, 245). The reason that PACs have grown into this reputation is because they “have been fueling the use of new campaign techniques” (Woll, Sabato, 247). Quickly said, PACs provide financial support to candidate campaigns in order to help them become reelected in the hope of gaining support for policy. There is a dispute about whether or not PACs money in elections is positive for campaigns. Some believe that it is helping because the money helps to streamline information to uneducated and undecided (not connected) voters. Many also believe that PACs, for the most part, only support incumbents. This is because the rate of reelection for incumbents is extremely high and PACs wouldn’t want to waste their money on new candidates that would probably not be elected. I think it is important to note, however, that when Congressional members consider voting in support of PACs or in support of their constituents (which could potentially be different), members would most likely vote in favor of their constituents to guarantee reelection.
In Madison’s Dilemna, Berry asks the question: “Are the sheer number of interest groups and their collective power undermining American democracy?” (Woll, Berry, 220). I would definitely argue that yes, interest groups are undermining American democracy. I think that interest groups take the definition of democracy too far. Yes, democracy includes civic participation, but I think that highly influential participation is unfair to other citizens. Congressional representatives are elected by their constituents, not interest groups (at least I hope not). Therefore, it is the duty of the elected representatives to represent the beliefs of their constituents. Unfortunately, because there are so many interest groups today, I do not think there is any way to eliminate their influence in government. Yes, interest groups are a form of freedom of expression, but to what extent do we allow freedom of expression to affect governmental policy? It all lies the interpretations of the Constitution…
Today, interest groups and political action committees (PACs) have a large affect on the legislature that is created, as well as, the political candidates that are elected. In Interest Groups and the American Political System, Rozell and Wilcox explain the roles that interest groups have in the elections today. They begin by stating that involvement in American government elections is high because of the distinct characteristics that are included. First, it offers “opportunities for influencing policy;” second, “the major U.S. parties are permeable to outside interest, enabling interest group activists to obtain powerful positions;” and third, “American elections are unique” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 241). Rozell and Wilcox continue on to describe the ways that interest groups have to mold their actions in order to influence policy. Interest groups have to affect all three levels of government (federal, state, local) because policy can be created at all levels. It is especially important for the interest groups to be involved in the state and local levels, because many potential Congress candidates come out of the state and local governments. Interest groups also have to “access both the president and Congress” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). Overall, the main goal of interest groups, says Rozell and Wilcox, is “to establish relationships with senators and representative and to get some return on their investment in the form of public policy” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 242). I don’ think that their can be any dispute of whether or not this is true. I know from first hand experience, with AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee), that our main goal is to build relationships with our representatives in order to make sure that they support positive policy for Israel. AIPAC is well-known in both the House and the Senate as being very influential; we have the support of the majority of Congressional representatives. Another objective of interest groups is to elect candidates that support their group: “Through party primaries, caucuses, and conventions, interest groups can help to determine which candidates win nomination and can even work to nominate activists and members from their own groups” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 243). Although this is true, I think that it is unfair for the common people. Even though it is a citizen’s choice to join an interest group, I think it is undemocratic that interest groups can strongly affect candidate nominations. The only way to undo this would be to regulate the role of interest groups and forbid them to basically cheat and nominate candidates in their interest groups. Similar to this, I think that the notion of political action committees is undemocratic.
Although both special interest groups and political action committees are supported in the Constitution by the First Amendment, I feel that the amount of power they hold in influencing policy and elections is unjustifiable. In elections, “interest groups can recruit candidates and encourage them to run, help finance their campaigns, and assist them in selecting campaign themes” (Woll, Rozell and Wilcox, 244). It makes sense that interest groups want to help candidates’ campaign so that they can also achieve their support for policy, but I still think that the amount of power interest groups hold is unjustifiable. Interest groups are supported in the Constitution; however, there are no real regulations on them. Technically, because the government is democratic and encourages civil participation, interest groups are only a way of citizens portraying their necessities to representatives. This does not mean that it’s okay, it merely is fact. Political action committees are a whole different ball game.
Political action committees have “enhanced the influence of private money and interest group power in the political process” and “are a major source of campaign funds” (Woll, 244-245). Today, PACs represent the “factions” Madison attacked in Federalist 10: “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer government in person can admit of no cure from the mischiefs of faction” (Woll, Madison, 176). Madison believes that factions are evil and if too powerful, will dictate society. Madison concluded that instead of eliminating factions, they must be controlled. Like Madison, Sabato in The Misplaced Obsessions with PACs states that “in more and more recent campaigns, political actions committees have been portrayed as the central corrupting evil in American politics” (Woll, Sabato, 245). The reason that PACs have grown into this reputation is because they “have been fueling the use of new campaign techniques” (Woll, Sabato, 247). Quickly said, PACs provide financial support to candidate campaigns in order to help them become reelected in the hope of gaining support for policy. There is a dispute about whether or not PACs money in elections is positive for campaigns. Some believe that it is helping because the money helps to streamline information to uneducated and undecided (not connected) voters. Many also believe that PACs, for the most part, only support incumbents. This is because the rate of reelection for incumbents is extremely high and PACs wouldn’t want to waste their money on new candidates that would probably not be elected. I think it is important to note, however, that when Congressional members consider voting in support of PACs or in support of their constituents (which could potentially be different), members would most likely vote in favor of their constituents to guarantee reelection.
In Madison’s Dilemna, Berry asks the question: “Are the sheer number of interest groups and their collective power undermining American democracy?” (Woll, Berry, 220). I would definitely argue that yes, interest groups are undermining American democracy. I think that interest groups take the definition of democracy too far. Yes, democracy includes civic participation, but I think that highly influential participation is unfair to other citizens. Congressional representatives are elected by their constituents, not interest groups (at least I hope not). Therefore, it is the duty of the elected representatives to represent the beliefs of their constituents. Unfortunately, because there are so many interest groups today, I do not think there is any way to eliminate their influence in government. Yes, interest groups are a form of freedom of expression, but to what extent do we allow freedom of expression to affect governmental policy? It all lies the interpretations of the Constitution…
Understanding the "Fabric of Democracy": Citizen Participation
What is the Fabric of Democracy? Is it the people who are a part of that democracy? Or is it the ideal that those people live by? The ability of those people to uphold or decline the right to have their voices heard is what is argued today as being the very fibers that make up the fabric of democracy. With the Election coming we can look back at this year, and analyze the role that citizens have played in the election process. But before analyzing the people, it is best to analyze the theories from which the people are judged. This theory is called the democratic theory, which has two components. The Developmental and Participatory variants of the theory claim that civic participation is helpful, and necessary in government, while the Protective and Pluralist variants of the theory claim the opposite. According to the democratic theory, the reasons that citizen participation is beneficial to government are as follow: the most obvious reason is the fact that wide spread participation ensures that public policy will reflect the good of all and not just the interests of a few. Basically this means that if the government is to represent its people, the people have to have a say in the policies that the government creates, and that every citizen should participate in influencing that policy. "Participation, in other words, is an 'instrument' for getting what one wants from government, those who fail to use the instrument will be ignored" (Hudson, 145). This is aspect of the democratic theory is on the opposite extreme in claiming that citizens who do not partake in participatory rituals do not exist in the eyes of the government. However, it is also taken as a call to action in order to get people involved and get their voices heard by the government so that their needs can be addressed properly. There is another reason that civic participation is beneficial to the health of a government. That reason is that: through all forms of civic engagement the citizenry understands and learns how policies are made and how they can influence that process. By understanding the process citizens can push for legislation that will be for the good of themselves and their fellow citizens. With this power, it is believed, the citizens will exercise the responsibility to influence legislation that will reflect the will of the people. When people get in political campaigns, participate in civic associations, and intelligently vote (do their homework then vote) they will be able to achieve this ideal of being a truly democratic citizenry that has contributed to a healthier government. However, it is hard to accept such a Utopian notion of governance, and that is where the argument starts. How can busy Americans be that involved in policy when only half of the eligible voting population actually comes out to vote for the president and a third show up to vote for midterm congressional elections. However, this lack of participation is not seen as bad by pluralists and protectionists. Within this theory of governance the citizens have little direct say in public policy, and it is the people that they elect to represent them that make those issues known. This is called a representative democracy, which is what we are. According to the plural/protectionist philosophy the lack of participation states that there is nothing wrong with the government and that the people are happy in the way that they are being represented. If to many people participate in government it can give rise to trivial issues that will make it hard for actual elected officials to do their job properly and effectively. Also it is argued that those who do not vote are actually making a bigger statement than those who do (Mueller, pg 40). When we take this into consideration than is a engaged citizenry truly necessary for a working and successful democracy? It is argued that no, a citizenry is not all that necessary for a democracy when there are people who will act on their behalf whether it be a representative or a special interest group. And also another fact that is pulled up to defend this statement is: look at us, we still work. Many college students complain that voting is so simple that there really is no excuse for every patriotic American not to do it. This question can be answered in to ways. First of all the actual election lands on a Tuesday (the worst day of the week for me, you are far enough in to the week to hate it and far enough away from the weekend that it honestly seems that the week will never end), which is on a working day, and the polls all close at six o'clock (honestly how many Americans are going to say "I'm going to vote after work" instead of "I'm going to grab a beer with my boys after work"). Also for people trying to juggle several jobs, it becomes hard to plan even the shortest hiatus from a busy day to go and vote, and also vote intelligently, which requires a lot of commitment to listening to debates and staying well informed. I think that the day in which we vote should be a national holiday, it would give everyone a chance to partake in the activity and truly cut down on the excuses that people give for voting, but that is just me. However, the notion that civic partisanship entails unrest and and the disruption of stability also has some validity. There are really not all that many ways to get everyone involved in participation, unless something drastic happens. The main argument that plural/protectionists use is that "...if some citizens opt not to exercise that right [not to vote], democracy is in no way diminished. As long as the democratic rights to participation are assured" (Hudson, pg 146). Finally it is time to talk about all of this in action. What if everyone really was to get involved? Lets take a look at this past year and the heightened sense of patriotism and civic participation that has resulted from it. People have began to try to get closer to the candidates, volunteered at their campaign offices or spoken out at rallies, and that has not always been a good thing, because their actions reflect on those actually tiring to run for office. In the case of Barack Obama, two muslim girls sat front and center of one his rallies and were visible by the camera. Obama's press secretary had those two girls replaced, which looked bad on Barack Obama. This echoes the notion that too much partisanship by people, Obama's press secretary was probably a volunteer, can become distraction and trivial and in no way helpful to the work that is being tried to get done, in this case the election of Barack Obama. This sort of thing has also happened to John McCain. In one of McCain's rallies people began shouting things like terrorist and lets kill him about Barack Obama, which comes to illistrate the same thing that people can end up distracting elected officials with trivial things. However, we all make up the fabric of democracy, and whether or not we participate in that democracy is up to us, but as long as we have that right I don't care how much we argue.
The Real Sarah Palin Appears on SNL
Sarah Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live on October 18th just weeks before the election, a controversial move. It was a risky decision that could go either way for Palin. On one hand it could improve her image by showing that she has a sense of humor and the ability to laugh at herself, improving her popularity in the polls; however, on the other hand, it may come off as a serious lack in judgment that dismisses her credibility and convinces the public that she is not qualified to be V.P. America needs strong leaders with solutions, and with McCain falling in the polls, Palin’s decision to appear on SNL and take away the focus from the issues and policy, may negatively effect McCain’s campaign.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/sarah_palin_hits_saturday_nigh.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/sarah_palin_hits_saturday_nigh.html
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Who is Bill Ayers? (poll)
Bill Ayers "spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the 'Weather Underground,' an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Nobody was hurt in the attacks by the defunct organization, which the FBI labeled a 'domestic terrorist group.'"
This relationship became known to the public during last Wednesday's presidential debate; it was brought up by Senator McCain.
Senator Obama and Bill Ayer's relationship consist(ed) of:
Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article
-Ariella
This relationship became known to the public during last Wednesday's presidential debate; it was brought up by Senator McCain.
Senator Obama and Bill Ayer's relationship consist(ed) of:
- "In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted."
- "Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000."
Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article
-Ariella
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Federal Bureaucracy Blog
The Federal bureaucracy with its workers bees, queen, and drones, collectively called bureaucrats, are the focus of countless jokes, cynical digs, and political smears. This is in no small way due to the horror stories that many citizens can readily recount of their experiences in dealings with them. What does the vast universe of federal agencies with all their regulations, procedures, forms, committees, middle managers, computers, schedules, and file drawers have to do with the maintenance and advancement of democracy? The answer is that it has a great deal to do with it - for better and for worse. Federal bureaucracies are "the implementers of policy" as directed by Congress and the President. "They develop procedures and rules for implementing policy goals." (p. 480 Government in America) In fact they make our increasingly complex society and our brand of democracy function - but not easily and not without controversy.
Take for example the U.S. Department of Education. The overview on their web site states: "ED administers programs authorized and funded by Congress. These programs provide financial aid for eligible applicants for elementary, secondary, and college education; for the education of individuals with disabilities and of those who are illiterate, disadvantaged, or gifted; and for the education of immigrants, American Indians, and people with limited English proficiency." This is no small set of tasks. Yet Congress and the President are, from time to time, quite willing to pile on additional tasks – sometimes beyond the department’s ability to satisfy, such as with the "No Child Left Behind" program. This was a major initiative of President George W. Busch in the first term of his presidency. It was launched in 2001 with lofty objectives and billions of dollars but after 7 years its effectiveness remains debatable. Thus, as is written, "Congress is fond of stating a broad policy goal in legislation and then leaving implementation up to the bureaucracies. Members of Congress can thus escape messy details, and place blame for the implementation decisions elsewhere." (p.481, Government in America).
Part of the problem with American bureaucracies is that no one anticipated the evolution that would take place that turned what seemed like simple mandates and necessities into a complex system of interconnectedness of objectives, strategies, tactics, and regulations. "The system was created by Congress layer on top of layer, with little regard to how it should work as a whole." (pg. 466 Government in America). As the United States grows, so does the government, and thus, so do the bureaucracies. Congress of the past deserves much of the blame for the current complicated state of the bureaucratic system we face today and today’s Congress is doing little or nothing to fix the problem, continuing with essentially the same procedures they have always employed. "Congress typically announces the goals of the policy in broad terms, sets up an administrative apparatus, and leaves the bureaucracy the task of working out the details of the program. In other words, the bureaucracy is left to implement the program." (pg. 480 Government in Action). Basically, "agencies are given the responsibility of making concrete decisions carrying out vague policy initiated in Congress or by the President. The agencies can offer expert advice, closely attuned to the policies that the legislative and executive recommend in the first place, but also decisively affect the policy-making process." (Woll Document 52, pg. 308). This lack of clarity and at times, lack of research into the effectiveness of the policies on the part of Congress when assigning tasks and policies to be implemented only adds to the workload of the bureaucracy. When Congress does not resolve a policy challenge itself and merely conveys it to a federal agency to figure out and implement, it is even more unlikely that the result will become effective policy as apparently is the case with the "No Child Left Behind" program administered by the US Department of Education.
Because "the Constitution does not explicitly provide fore the administrative branch, which has become the new fourth branch of government," the management, and thus the disposition is vague at times, for "this raises the question of how to control the bureaucracy when there are no clear constitutional limits upon it." (Woll Document 52, pg. 309). This ambiguous action of the Founding Fathers raises two basic questions. First, what are the limitations of the "bureaucratic branch"? And second, what are the limits (or requirements) of democratic participation in the goings-on of the bureaucracy? Despite the actions of the Founding Fathers, "the bureaucracy must be accommodated within the framework of our system of constitutional democracy." Whether they planned it or not, the organization they designed assigned a role to Congress that granted Congress a great deal of authority over the administrative process." (Woll Document 52 pg. 309). Even compared to the President, "Congress retains primary control over the organization of the bureaucracy." Congress alone possesses the power to create and destroy agencies and determine "whether they are to be located within the Executive Branch or outside of it. This has enabled Congress to create a large number of independent agencies beyond presidential control." (Woll Document 52, pg.310).
Most bureaucracies were begun with good intentions and are well meaning as the "No Child Left Behind" program. But they are much too constructed by excessive rules and regulations, overlapping jurisdictions, abundant red tape, extravagant procedures, and overabundant authority to do a job effectively. The system of appeals, legal complexities, administrative routines, budgets, overlapping agency domains, etc. leads to a pitiful arrangement of disarray. However, the truism remains: "Bureaucracies may be inefficient at times, but no one has found a substitute for them." (page 469, Government in America). Unfortunately, the United States cannot subsist with the federal bureaucracy, for this unofficial "fourth branch" is essential to the smooth running of America, however contradictory that may sound. The federal bureaucracy as room for the considerable amount of improvement needed, which would be the smoothing of the system to make it more accessible and understandable to the average citizen, as well as streamline the efficiency and the work undertaken by it.
There are several arguments explaining why our bureaucratic system of administration does not evolve in a more positive way. It is mainly due to the fact that "it is difficult to coordinate so many different agencies, especially when they lack a history of trust and cooperation." (pg. 488, Government in America). Congressional committees, often known for being power-hungry, do not want to lose jurisdiction over their agencies if merging were to take place. Specific interest groups that are affected by the agency do not want to lose or compromise the relationships they’ve built with "their agencies" if they were to become immersed. Lastly, the agencies themselves are against being submerged within a larger bureaucratic entity and "the three branches of government are not willing to give up what powers they may have over administrative agencies." (Woll Document 52 pg. 312).
It is without doubt that a streamlining and restructuring of the administrative system is an absolute necessity as our society and system of governance evolves into even more complexity framework. At very least, the responsibility for the implementation and administration of specific programs should be concentrated rather then diffused across multiple agencies and branches. The proliferation of regulations must also be reduced and simplified. But given the historic entrenchment of our bureaucratic system and the gargantuan tasks that have been assigned to them to fulfill, it all seems unlikely.
Take for example the U.S. Department of Education. The overview on their web site states: "ED administers programs authorized and funded by Congress. These programs provide financial aid for eligible applicants for elementary, secondary, and college education; for the education of individuals with disabilities and of those who are illiterate, disadvantaged, or gifted; and for the education of immigrants, American Indians, and people with limited English proficiency." This is no small set of tasks. Yet Congress and the President are, from time to time, quite willing to pile on additional tasks – sometimes beyond the department’s ability to satisfy, such as with the "No Child Left Behind" program. This was a major initiative of President George W. Busch in the first term of his presidency. It was launched in 2001 with lofty objectives and billions of dollars but after 7 years its effectiveness remains debatable. Thus, as is written, "Congress is fond of stating a broad policy goal in legislation and then leaving implementation up to the bureaucracies. Members of Congress can thus escape messy details, and place blame for the implementation decisions elsewhere." (p.481, Government in America).
Part of the problem with American bureaucracies is that no one anticipated the evolution that would take place that turned what seemed like simple mandates and necessities into a complex system of interconnectedness of objectives, strategies, tactics, and regulations. "The system was created by Congress layer on top of layer, with little regard to how it should work as a whole." (pg. 466 Government in America). As the United States grows, so does the government, and thus, so do the bureaucracies. Congress of the past deserves much of the blame for the current complicated state of the bureaucratic system we face today and today’s Congress is doing little or nothing to fix the problem, continuing with essentially the same procedures they have always employed. "Congress typically announces the goals of the policy in broad terms, sets up an administrative apparatus, and leaves the bureaucracy the task of working out the details of the program. In other words, the bureaucracy is left to implement the program." (pg. 480 Government in Action). Basically, "agencies are given the responsibility of making concrete decisions carrying out vague policy initiated in Congress or by the President. The agencies can offer expert advice, closely attuned to the policies that the legislative and executive recommend in the first place, but also decisively affect the policy-making process." (Woll Document 52, pg. 308). This lack of clarity and at times, lack of research into the effectiveness of the policies on the part of Congress when assigning tasks and policies to be implemented only adds to the workload of the bureaucracy. When Congress does not resolve a policy challenge itself and merely conveys it to a federal agency to figure out and implement, it is even more unlikely that the result will become effective policy as apparently is the case with the "No Child Left Behind" program administered by the US Department of Education.
Because "the Constitution does not explicitly provide fore the administrative branch, which has become the new fourth branch of government," the management, and thus the disposition is vague at times, for "this raises the question of how to control the bureaucracy when there are no clear constitutional limits upon it." (Woll Document 52, pg. 309). This ambiguous action of the Founding Fathers raises two basic questions. First, what are the limitations of the "bureaucratic branch"? And second, what are the limits (or requirements) of democratic participation in the goings-on of the bureaucracy? Despite the actions of the Founding Fathers, "the bureaucracy must be accommodated within the framework of our system of constitutional democracy." Whether they planned it or not, the organization they designed assigned a role to Congress that granted Congress a great deal of authority over the administrative process." (Woll Document 52 pg. 309). Even compared to the President, "Congress retains primary control over the organization of the bureaucracy." Congress alone possesses the power to create and destroy agencies and determine "whether they are to be located within the Executive Branch or outside of it. This has enabled Congress to create a large number of independent agencies beyond presidential control." (Woll Document 52, pg.310).
Most bureaucracies were begun with good intentions and are well meaning as the "No Child Left Behind" program. But they are much too constructed by excessive rules and regulations, overlapping jurisdictions, abundant red tape, extravagant procedures, and overabundant authority to do a job effectively. The system of appeals, legal complexities, administrative routines, budgets, overlapping agency domains, etc. leads to a pitiful arrangement of disarray. However, the truism remains: "Bureaucracies may be inefficient at times, but no one has found a substitute for them." (page 469, Government in America). Unfortunately, the United States cannot subsist with the federal bureaucracy, for this unofficial "fourth branch" is essential to the smooth running of America, however contradictory that may sound. The federal bureaucracy as room for the considerable amount of improvement needed, which would be the smoothing of the system to make it more accessible and understandable to the average citizen, as well as streamline the efficiency and the work undertaken by it.
There are several arguments explaining why our bureaucratic system of administration does not evolve in a more positive way. It is mainly due to the fact that "it is difficult to coordinate so many different agencies, especially when they lack a history of trust and cooperation." (pg. 488, Government in America). Congressional committees, often known for being power-hungry, do not want to lose jurisdiction over their agencies if merging were to take place. Specific interest groups that are affected by the agency do not want to lose or compromise the relationships they’ve built with "their agencies" if they were to become immersed. Lastly, the agencies themselves are against being submerged within a larger bureaucratic entity and "the three branches of government are not willing to give up what powers they may have over administrative agencies." (Woll Document 52 pg. 312).
It is without doubt that a streamlining and restructuring of the administrative system is an absolute necessity as our society and system of governance evolves into even more complexity framework. At very least, the responsibility for the implementation and administration of specific programs should be concentrated rather then diffused across multiple agencies and branches. The proliferation of regulations must also be reduced and simplified. But given the historic entrenchment of our bureaucratic system and the gargantuan tasks that have been assigned to them to fulfill, it all seems unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)