The Great White Switch

When looking back in history, it is clear that the Southern Whites made a complete 180 in their political stance in the 1900s. It is also true that the main reason for this is due to racial issues. All the Southern Whites were once Democrats. These Southern Democrats would do everything they could to prevent any Civil Rights legislation and they wanted to make sure Blacks received as little help as they could get. This was happening simply because Whites were protecting their interests, which at the time were holding their dominance over Blacks. Soon as these Southern Democrats became older, new Democrats came in, realizing that America needed a change which included bringing Blacks more rights. Now these Southern Whites had to find a new party to help conserve what they once had. Obviously, that opportunity rested in the conservative Republican party. The Republicans called for little change in politics and lawmaking, which would have prevented or slowed Black social growth. The Republican party also economically fit the Southern Whites' needs as well. After Ronald Reagan took power and put in his system of "Reaganomics," Whites were finally happy. They saw that this conservative outlook was perfect for them and finally they were unified as Republicans instead of Democrats. Unfortunately, all of this new Solid South was born from racial tensions.

Blowback

I think Chalmers Johnson brings up a good point in his essay. His views bring to light an idea that is unseen to many Americans. Sometimes, Americans go into other countries and get into their business. We are always interfering in foreign policy and coming to the aid of other nations. Many times we have also tried to tell a nation how it should be run. While we feel this is a good idea, many of these countries are completely against it. They may put up with it for a while, but soon they will be fed up and might want to retaliate. Johnson argues that almost all terrorist attacks against the U.S. are brought up by "blowback." Blowback is an old CIA term that means the unintended consequences of an action. Obviously, when the U.S. put troops in Saudi Arabia, they didn't want bin Laden to attack us. However, Americans need to open their eyes and take into consideration how the native people will react to our intervention. Blowback is almost always unavoidable, but also I believe you cannot just stay out of all foreign affairs. It is important to be active in foreign policy, but the US just needs to know when and when to not interfere. To sum it all up, America should continue to help other countries, but we must find ways to be more considerate to their wishes rather than ours. This way, blowback could be significantly reduced.

Joseph Nye Review

In Joseph Nye's essay Soft Power, he discusses the special type of powers the United States holds. The U.S. holds "soft power," the ability to get others to want the outcomes that we want rather than coerce them. This power is different from hard power, which is mainly an authoritarian way of getting what you want. Nye argues that the soft power relies on three things: the culture, political values, and foreign policy. The U.S. benefits from a universalistic culture. Many people from other places love American products and traditions which helps easily sway them. The U.S.'s general political values involve being allies with everyone we can and to bring peace. This too leads other nations to want to side with us. During the beginnings of the Iraq War, Britain joined with us, believing that we were fighting for a truly good cause. Also, Nye says that movies help countries understand our political values. American foreign policy also influences how we influence other nations. For many years, America has gone abroad spreading democracy. While many countries approve of this as it leads to a steady world order, it also angers many nations like Iraq who do not want any US involvement. Nye, however, argues that America's intentions are always good. Unfortunately, many foreigners believe that Americans are full of self-interest, and because of this, Nye says that Anti-Americanism has increased rapidly. Nye explains how soft power is very dependent on popularity, and that the U.S. will be weakened by the Anti-Americanism. Nye sums up his essay by saying that Americans must find a way to adapt to our institutions and find a way to balance hard power with soft power.

Welfare

Welfare is a program that is heavily debated in the United States. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans out there that need help. Some cannot find work, some people do not earn enough money at their current job, some cannot afford to pay for all of their children. There are hundreds of different reasons why people need welfare. Obviously, the money provided for the welfare program comes from our tax dollars. Many upper-class Americans don't want to "waste" their money on the welfare program. This is because there is a common belief that the welfare program is going to nothing. Many people don't even try to find a job because they can be lazy and still receive some government money. Some say that women will try to have children because they will get extra money. While for some people these statements are true, there are many more people out there working hard to get off of welfare. The majority of the people are trying to get a new job every day, taking classes, and being careful of how they spend their money. How can you just take away the money for these deserving people? If everyone simply understood that the welfare program was beneficial to many people, and that the money wasn't funding lazy and worthless people, then I think the welfare program could be even more successful today.

Does the media undermine the government?

The media is both good and bad for our government. First, the media is a great tool for Americans to use daily. The media keeps us up to date with all types of news as well as keeps us informed of all the popular issues of the day. Without the media, people would not know what to think and would not be aware of what is going on around them, especially in other countries or in other places in the USA. The media is definitely essential in everyones lives now, but, it still plays a somewhat disturbing role. The media, since everyone turns to it for their news and information, is able to frame the way they wants things to look. If the media wants someone or something to look bad, they can choose what stories they want to report and their attitude toward the news. For example, if a news station is against the Iraq War, they would report the number of Americans that were killed rather than the successes we have had during the day. Another example of media framing government is in the election process. The media can frame Barack Obama to be a national hero who is going to come into office and "rescue the nation," even though this may or may not be true. Also, the media can make up false stories to get people to believe something that is completely untrue, something that CBS did a few years ago when they made a false document that would have led people to believe that George W. Bush had the minimum amount of military service. The media could have ruined the election for George W. Bush even though the reason would have been a lie. Also, the media can call for certain reforms to be made, which leads the population to cry out for these reforms as well. The bailout bill was heavily covered by the media which caused many people to become interested in it. There was great pressure by the media and the people for Washington to pass the bill quickly. Only time will tell if this was a good decision or not, but either way, the media played an enormous role in creating it. It is very clear that the media plays an important role in our society. I am not sure that media undermines government, but it definitely plays an important role in what our government does.

Does Voting Matter?

In modern times, many people question the importance of voting. Some wonder if voting even matters at all. People hear on the news that one particular candidate is in a clear lead, and so they won't vote for their candidate because they think he will lose. Voting is definitely important. First, America needs as close to 100% participation in order to achieve the highest approval. If only 50% vote, that means that only have of the country's opinions will be accounted for. If only 25% of the country gets what they want, there will be many angry Americans. Also, if no one votes for a losing candidate, then there shouldn't be an election at all. The reason that candidate might lose is because everyone gives up on him. If everyone who supports him comes out to vote, then that candidate has clearly a better shot at winning. Voting is very important in America. Despite the popular belief that your vote doesn't count, voting is still essential. Everyone in America should vote because it does matter.

Bush and the Bailout Bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_go_co/financial_meltdown

At long last the bailout bill has passed... but if George W. Bush meant anything to Congress could it have been completed faster? The answer, in my opinion, is yes. In about a month a new election is going to take place, meaning Bush's power is soon to be at and end. Also, it is a well known fact that Bush's approval rating in America is one of the lowest in U.S. history. To add to it all, Congress is a Democratic majority now. Why should Congress listen to Bush? About a week ago George Bush addressed the nation on the severity of the crisis and requested that Congress act quickly to pass the bill. Instead of getting Congress pumped up to quickly pass the bill, Congress took their time as they reluctantly amended the bill in conference committees. As it says in the article, Bush warned America of the worst economic depression since the Great Depression, and yet still he could not get Congress to act swiftly. This, without a doubt, has to do with his lack of approval, respect, and credibility in Congress. If this was seven years ago, I would not be surprised if the bill was completed within two days of Bush's speech. Bush's main role in the bailout bill was signing his name in order to pass it; other than that he was essentially a lame duck.

Senate vs. House Powers

The Senate is given a special power by the Constitution. They are allowed to approve or reject appointments by the president as well as accept or reject treaties. In the Bush era, the Democratic minority in the Senate has shot down many bills, showing the power of the Senate to reject treaties and laws. Also, when Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the Senate began to accuse him of cronyism. Bush was essentially forced into withdrawing her nomination and instead bringing in Samuel Alito. Another major power of the Senate is their power to impeach. If they find the president, vice president, or other executive officials guilty of treason or bribery, they can bring him before Congress and try him. This has happened several times in U.S. history. Examples include Richard Nixon, Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton.

9/22 Blog

Stalemate is a problem that frequently arises in our legislative branch of government. Stalemate derives from the way our representation works in the House and Senate. The House represents the population of the United States. There are 435 members elected to the House and each state is represented. Since each representative is entrusted to represent its constituency things can get a little confusing. Each state wants different things which makes it difficult for 435 people to agree on something. The Senate contains 100 members with each state having two members. The Senate represents the elite in U.S. society rather than just the population. It is also difficult for the House (representing the population) and the Senate (representing the elite) to come to agreements as well. This is called a stalemate because no moves can take place when the two sides can never agree. Causes of these stalemates are various interests between the different constituencies and also disagreements between the elite and the lower population. While annoying and sometimes ineffective, I find that gridlock is an appropriate way to represent our people. The representatives do their best to voice the opinions of their people just as the Senate does their best to voice the opinions of the elite. This helps keep the United States intact and not subject to any radical change. Just because one constituency wants something does not mean that a change has to be made. Because of the difficulty passing legislation, you know that when everyone agrees on something it will be beneficial to everyone rather than just one person. I think that the ineffectiveness that stalemate creates is in fact what makes the legislative branch so effective. The fact that no major change can take place unless it is good for the whole country prevents us from radical change. This is what the U.S. government was always about.

Blog #6: Courts or legislatures?

If you look back on the history of desegregation in the United States, it is clear that the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court made the greatest impact of all the other branches of government. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court overused their powers in their ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education. This was such a HUGE decision because after the Court's ruling all the states had to allow all blacks to enter white facilities. This meant that the separate facilities made for African-Americans were basically a waste of money and it would also cost lots of money to help make this adjustment. Also, the Supreme Court's decision to assimilate blacks and whites into the same public facilities and schools would be a dangerous one. Whites were still VERY racist and were maddened even more by the blacks entering their society. Race relations would get worse after this decision. Many argued that this decision was bad for race relations and the Supreme Court made a mistake by letting it happen. At the time I can understand why people would believe this was a bad choice, but I believe that it was necessary to take action. Even though relations would be ugly at first, you have to take actions knowing that someday things will improve. Obviously over time problems have worked themselves off and we live in a generally equal society. The Supreme Court's decision, while incredibly unprecedented and controversial, was a necessary one and has turned out to be a very positive step in our history. Pursuing federal legislation would not be a good idea because they were very slow and reluctant to step up and make a decision. If we waited on legislation from Congress then we might even be segregated in TODAY'S society. It is a great thing that the judicial branch made this important step in the history of civil rights.

Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation was a big issue in the mid-1850s in which the federal government questioned whether the Bill of Rights limited state governments as well as the national government. Could the Bill of Rights and the "privileges or immunities clause" be incorporated in the states as well? American federalism did a poor job of supporting incorporation. All the national government did was hold up incorporation as seen in the Barron v. Baltimore case of 1833. The city of Baltimore had disposed of so much sand and gravel into the water near Barron's wharf because of the paving of new roads. This brought the water level down and destroyed the value of Barron's land. Barron brought Baltimore to court saying that Baltimore broke the rights he had in the fifth amendment (right to property). The Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing Barron could do unless the national government took away his rights to property. This ruling made no sense. Why could a state or a city deprive a citizen of property? In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko was indicted on first-degree murder and also second-degree murder by a lower court. Connecticut was mad at the verdict and tried him twice in order to get a maximum sentence. Palko took Connecticut to court arguing that his rights to prevention of double-jeopardy were being denied. The Supreme Court claimed that double-jeopardy wasn't a right given to the states in the 14th Amendment. In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court claimed that the right to freedom of speech was also decided by the states too. Basically, the government was saying that states could almost disregard the national Bill of Rights. This was a scary picture because people could flat out be denied their rights just because they lived in a particular state.

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

Unfunded mandates, according to the textbook, are national standards or programs imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without accompanying funding or reimbursement. Basically this means that the U.S. government wants all the state and local governments to do something and so they force them to make changes. However, the catch is that the U.S. government provides no money or doesn't pay the governments back. Now the state and local governments are forced into spending what can be a great deal of money on changes that they may not have even wanted or needed to happen. One example of an unfunded mandate in U.S. history would be the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This act required all state and local governments to promote access for the handicapped to all government buildings. Devolution is a policy to remove a program from one level of government by deregulating it or passing it down to a lower level of government. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and devolution go hand in hand. Devolution represents a revolution for state governments in which they are being given more power and more responsibilities. The UMRA helped the state governments from being forced into doing what the national government said. They now were guaranteed funding from the national government whenever mandates were proclaimed. The only difference between devolution and the UMRA is that the UMRA doesn't actually give state governments power, it just limits the national government's power. Devolution actually gives states power they never had under government. I think that devolution would be a better strategy to use in the fight against unfunded mandates. As the book said, the effect of the UMRA will not be revolutionary. The national government in the end has the final say and can get what they want easily. The powers granted to the state governments through the strategy of devolution have already had a widespread effect. State governments are experimenting with welfare and finding ways that best suit their citizens without any input from the national government. It is very clear that this route is much more effective than putting the future of unfunded mandates in the national government's hands. Any chance the state and local governments can get to gain more power for themselves will always be more effective.

Blog #4: What involvement should US government (state and federal) have in a case like Terri Schiavo's.

In my opinion, the Terri Schiavo should not even set foot on Capitol Hill. I believe personal issues such as this one should be settled accordingly between the family members. If they cannot come to a conclusion themselves then maybe take it to some sort of a court. The thought of the U.S. government controlling the choice of whether a person in a vegetative state is allowed to live or die is just not right. They should have no say at all in it. When it was voted that she should be allowed to remove the tube that should not have been the main reason it was carried out. Obviously at some point the government may have to step in and settle the families differences (and obviously there were some big differences) but the government can not have all the say. I think the Terri Schiavo case was for the most part carried out in a fair way. It is important to make sure that these type of decisions are not in the government's hands.

BLOG Post #3: What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

There are a few similarites between the Constitution and the Honor Code. They both are the main bodies of "structure" that people follow. The government must obey the rules of the Constitution just like all MBA students must obey the honor code. Our government is built on the ideals of the Constitution and MBA is based on the rules stated in the honor code. The Honor Code preserves MBA's honor and integrity just as the Constitution preserves the U.S.'s fair government. The Constitution can be changed with amendments by the people of the U.S. The honor code (I think) can also be changed with petitions from teachers or students. Although in somewhat different ways the Constitution and Honor Code are similar.

Blog #2: What is the pupose of government? Does politics support or impede that purpose?

The purpose of government, in my opinion, is to enforce rules and laws in a fair way to its people. Government should be able to keep its people safe and ensure happiness through freedom. Government should be a good thing and clean of internal crime and corruption. This however is totally unrealistic due to politics. It is unfortunate that the body of government that is put in power to keep our country clean and safe is filled with corruption, scandal, and crime internally. As I learned today in class, almost every politician essentially accepts a bribe when people send their party money in exchange for benefits for that person. Although many of the elected members of the government end up doing some form of good for our country others lie simply to gain power. They take advantage of bad situations and lie their way into office. Politicians have become masters of trickery and often never follow through with what they claim they will. Having said that, many politicians have real ideas and dreams that they would like to carry out. Many politicians do attempt to make good things happen simply for the benefit of the country rather than to get money, help friends, or become famous. Obviously without politics government would basically be non-existent but the potential of government would be so much greater with a "cleaner" group of politicians." Politics in America need a serious moral clean up in order to have the right to govern its people and keep them safe.

Blog Assignment #1: What I hope to learn in U.S. government this year

This year I hope to gain a clearer understanding of the U.S. government in general. I always find myself lacking in knowledge of current events. It is hard to discuss and debate with my friends because I either don't know what is going on around me or do not clearly understand what is going on. I hope this course, if anything, allows me to understand the motives of political leaders as well as getting a better picture of how our government works. Hopefully after this course I can be a person who will know what he is talking about in the world of politics!