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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)