I am afraid these files are too large to go by email so I am posting them. Here is the chapter from Wilson on public opinion:
Wilson 1
Wilson 2
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
Some quotes that seemed apropos...
"High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
-Oscar Wilde
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
"One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny."
-Bertrand Russell
-Oscar Wilde
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
"One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny."
-Bertrand Russell
Friday, September 29, 2006
Congress Quiz
Congress Quiz: Answer Key
In recent years, the rate of re-election for representatives seeking to return to service in the U.S. House of Representatives is about
a. 35 percent.
b. 55 percent.
c. 75 percent.
d. 95 percent.
ANS: D; REF: Page 177
This is a key feature of Congress and a major difference between the House and the Senate. House members can in effect “choose” their voters, rather than the other way around. More importantly, House elections are about local issues and what the member has done for the district. Because turnout is so low in House elections and voters chose on the basis of purely local issues, a member can usually put together a stable, winning coalition just on the basis of a district specific spending projects and helping people solve minor problems with the Federal Bureaucracy, like your Grandmother’s social security check. That is why House members devote 2/3 of their staff to constituency service.
A bill's opponents generally prefer that the Rules Committee decide to use
a. an open rule.
b. a closed rule.
c. a termination rule.
d. a commencement rule.
ANS: A; REF: Page 197
This follows from the discussion of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem we worked through in class Friday. An “open rule” would mean that someone could always propose a new alternative, a new bill to vote on (by introducing a new bill or, more commonly, amending the current one) and create a new winning coalition. Almost all the important, i.e., money bills in the House are introduced under a closed rule.
A rule allowing a three-fifths majority of U.S. Senators to set a time limit on debate over a given bill is called
a. Cloture
b. preemption.
c. a closed rule.
d. legislative veto.
ANS: A; REF: Page 198
i.e., providing “closure” to the debate. The word cloture is just the fancier sounding Latin version of the word.
A congressional representative’s statement to his or her legislative colleague that “I’ll support your bill if you’ll support mine” is an example of
a. whipping.
b. logrolling.
c. distributive tendency.
d. interest group bargaining.
ANS: B; REF: Page 210
Note how this often grows out of members having radically different concerns, the member from one district cares about farm products, the member from another wants a parking garage downtown. A coalition is a group of people that want to do the same thing for different reasons.
Reforms that may make Congress better able to act, such as strong central leadership, reduction of the number of committees and subcommittees, and retention of members with seniority and experience, should also make Congress much more representative.
ANS: F; REF: Page 168
Again, follows from the logic of the impossibility theorem and Principle 4. The group that can make a decision ends up having a dictator.
Among the most fervent supporters of creating districts in which members of racial minorities have decisive majorities were white Republicans.
ANS: T; REF: Page 182
Almost no one got this. The court decided that having more minority representatives was the goal of policy. This is best accomplished by having “majority-minority” districts, i.e., districts where a majority of the voters are minority members. Drawing districts this way insures that there are a good number of African American House members (around 10%, as opposed to only one African American in the Senate), most of whom win their districts by huge margins, but it also insures that there are more Republicans overall in the House than there would otherwise be.
36. Under Senate rules, members have a virtually unlimited ability to propose amendments to a pending bill.
ANS: T; REF: Page 198
This is why running the Senate is like “Herding Cats,” in Senator Lott’s memorable phrase.
In recent years, the rate of re-election for representatives seeking to return to service in the U.S. House of Representatives is about
a. 35 percent.
b. 55 percent.
c. 75 percent.
d. 95 percent.
ANS: D; REF: Page 177
This is a key feature of Congress and a major difference between the House and the Senate. House members can in effect “choose” their voters, rather than the other way around. More importantly, House elections are about local issues and what the member has done for the district. Because turnout is so low in House elections and voters chose on the basis of purely local issues, a member can usually put together a stable, winning coalition just on the basis of a district specific spending projects and helping people solve minor problems with the Federal Bureaucracy, like your Grandmother’s social security check. That is why House members devote 2/3 of their staff to constituency service.
A bill's opponents generally prefer that the Rules Committee decide to use
a. an open rule.
b. a closed rule.
c. a termination rule.
d. a commencement rule.
ANS: A; REF: Page 197
This follows from the discussion of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem we worked through in class Friday. An “open rule” would mean that someone could always propose a new alternative, a new bill to vote on (by introducing a new bill or, more commonly, amending the current one) and create a new winning coalition. Almost all the important, i.e., money bills in the House are introduced under a closed rule.
A rule allowing a three-fifths majority of U.S. Senators to set a time limit on debate over a given bill is called
a. Cloture
b. preemption.
c. a closed rule.
d. legislative veto.
ANS: A; REF: Page 198
i.e., providing “closure” to the debate. The word cloture is just the fancier sounding Latin version of the word.
A congressional representative’s statement to his or her legislative colleague that “I’ll support your bill if you’ll support mine” is an example of
a. whipping.
b. logrolling.
c. distributive tendency.
d. interest group bargaining.
ANS: B; REF: Page 210
Note how this often grows out of members having radically different concerns, the member from one district cares about farm products, the member from another wants a parking garage downtown. A coalition is a group of people that want to do the same thing for different reasons.
Reforms that may make Congress better able to act, such as strong central leadership, reduction of the number of committees and subcommittees, and retention of members with seniority and experience, should also make Congress much more representative.
ANS: F; REF: Page 168
Again, follows from the logic of the impossibility theorem and Principle 4. The group that can make a decision ends up having a dictator.
Among the most fervent supporters of creating districts in which members of racial minorities have decisive majorities were white Republicans.
ANS: T; REF: Page 182
Almost no one got this. The court decided that having more minority representatives was the goal of policy. This is best accomplished by having “majority-minority” districts, i.e., districts where a majority of the voters are minority members. Drawing districts this way insures that there are a good number of African American House members (around 10%, as opposed to only one African American in the Senate), most of whom win their districts by huge margins, but it also insures that there are more Republicans overall in the House than there would otherwise be.
36. Under Senate rules, members have a virtually unlimited ability to propose amendments to a pending bill.
ANS: T; REF: Page 198
This is why running the Senate is like “Herding Cats,” in Senator Lott’s memorable phrase.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Lecture Notes
Since I did not get through everything I wanted to talk about I am posting my lecture notes. If they don't make sense in this form feel free to ask me about them in class or in an email.
Congress:
What we want you to do is learn to ask questions like a political scientist. To do that you have to first decide that something is worth explaining.
In the case of the revolution and constitution chapter we had the fact that the richest and lowest taxed people in the world revolted over taxes so they could increase taxes on themselves. Notice that the RA model that the authors push does not do that great a job explaining it. Maybe we need another model.
We looked at the courts. The thing that needed to be explained there was the power of the courts. Why? Because the courts seem to defy the logic of a majoritarian system that would vest power in the median voter and instead gives power to a particular institution. Because it had no precedent in the British system or the world. Because it wasn’t written in the text of the constitution or envisioned by its authors. Because it seems to defy our normal understanding of R/D power in that the courts don’t have an army or anything they can take away from the political branches unless the political branches agree to it. The RA explanation model offered a good story of the short-sightedness of Madison in taking Marshall’s offer of letting him make appointments in exchange for letting Marshall interpret the constitution. But Tocqueville offers a different explanation.
Now we are at the Center of American government, the Congress. What needs to be explained here? What is different or odd about it? Well, the question can be posed as a number of comparisons, a number of things that one might reasonably expect the Congress to be similar to but in fact is not similar to.
Britain. Our Congress was designed by Englishmen who were almost all members of congresses that were patterned on the British Parliament. They have the same culture, language and legal tradition.
Other former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zeland) are basically like the Mother country instead of us.
Other Congress/President (as opposed to Parliamentary systems) such as in most of Latin America and, well, not that many other places. The Countries of South America have Congresses but they are much weaker than ours; most of the power lies with the President. Other places that have Presidents are really parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state, just as the Queen of England is now mainly ceremonial (though she in fact has a lot of powers if she ever feels like using them).
The ideals of Classical Republicanism. The debate, deliberation and group decision making that one might have expected from people that patterned themselves after the ancients. Moreover, the equality that one would have expected has been replaced by hierarchical bureaucracy, that has no place in the Greek ideal or the text of the Constitution. There is little of the open debate that actually determined events in Greece (Themestocles and the Spartan Admiral).
The formal document: the powers given the Congress in the Constitution seem to be much more formidable than the body we see today. Externally it seems to have less power. At the same time, the formal document gives no hint of the internal hierarchy that determines most decision making in Congress.
The founders’ (Federalists) scheme: they thought that the house would be the most vulnerable to popular pressure and therefore closest to the median voter and the quickest to respond to changes in popular opinion. Accordingly they expected it to be the Congress to have the highest turnover and the most popularity. In fact, it has the lowest turnover and is profoundly unpopular.
History: at one time the Congress was what the Founders expected. It ran the country, it declared war and actually conducted them (though not very well—ask Jimmy Madison). It governed, making appointments. Lincoln’s speeches.
The expectations of resource dependency power theory (or, ‘the golden rule’): you would expect the institution that has discretion over almost all key resources would be the most powerful (which it may be) and seen as such (which it almost never is). This is the key question in American Government. Congress is filled with people that point the finger and run the investigations, but is it the real power? Does it just pretend to be powerless so it can do a Claude Raines? (I’m shocked! Shocked to find construction money not being spent on levees, torture, NSA spying). Is it just maintaining plausible deniability?
What causes all this? Demands of information? Demands of decision theory? Collective action’s effects on interest group politics? Human psychology? Institutional Competition in the face of historical contingency? (growth, war).
Do interest groups buy votes?
Why do House members have higher re-election rates than Senators? Why is Barak Obama different from Cynthia McKinney?
Why do Americans love to hate Congress? Tocqueville’s answer (Hibbing and These-Morris)?
Why is the Congress more afraid of used car sales men and funeral directors than millionaires?
Congress:
What we want you to do is learn to ask questions like a political scientist. To do that you have to first decide that something is worth explaining.
In the case of the revolution and constitution chapter we had the fact that the richest and lowest taxed people in the world revolted over taxes so they could increase taxes on themselves. Notice that the RA model that the authors push does not do that great a job explaining it. Maybe we need another model.
We looked at the courts. The thing that needed to be explained there was the power of the courts. Why? Because the courts seem to defy the logic of a majoritarian system that would vest power in the median voter and instead gives power to a particular institution. Because it had no precedent in the British system or the world. Because it wasn’t written in the text of the constitution or envisioned by its authors. Because it seems to defy our normal understanding of R/D power in that the courts don’t have an army or anything they can take away from the political branches unless the political branches agree to it. The RA explanation model offered a good story of the short-sightedness of Madison in taking Marshall’s offer of letting him make appointments in exchange for letting Marshall interpret the constitution. But Tocqueville offers a different explanation.
Now we are at the Center of American government, the Congress. What needs to be explained here? What is different or odd about it? Well, the question can be posed as a number of comparisons, a number of things that one might reasonably expect the Congress to be similar to but in fact is not similar to.
Britain. Our Congress was designed by Englishmen who were almost all members of congresses that were patterned on the British Parliament. They have the same culture, language and legal tradition.
Other former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zeland) are basically like the Mother country instead of us.
Other Congress/President (as opposed to Parliamentary systems) such as in most of Latin America and, well, not that many other places. The Countries of South America have Congresses but they are much weaker than ours; most of the power lies with the President. Other places that have Presidents are really parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state, just as the Queen of England is now mainly ceremonial (though she in fact has a lot of powers if she ever feels like using them).
The ideals of Classical Republicanism. The debate, deliberation and group decision making that one might have expected from people that patterned themselves after the ancients. Moreover, the equality that one would have expected has been replaced by hierarchical bureaucracy, that has no place in the Greek ideal or the text of the Constitution. There is little of the open debate that actually determined events in Greece (Themestocles and the Spartan Admiral).
The formal document: the powers given the Congress in the Constitution seem to be much more formidable than the body we see today. Externally it seems to have less power. At the same time, the formal document gives no hint of the internal hierarchy that determines most decision making in Congress.
The founders’ (Federalists) scheme: they thought that the house would be the most vulnerable to popular pressure and therefore closest to the median voter and the quickest to respond to changes in popular opinion. Accordingly they expected it to be the Congress to have the highest turnover and the most popularity. In fact, it has the lowest turnover and is profoundly unpopular.
History: at one time the Congress was what the Founders expected. It ran the country, it declared war and actually conducted them (though not very well—ask Jimmy Madison). It governed, making appointments. Lincoln’s speeches.
The expectations of resource dependency power theory (or, ‘the golden rule’): you would expect the institution that has discretion over almost all key resources would be the most powerful (which it may be) and seen as such (which it almost never is). This is the key question in American Government. Congress is filled with people that point the finger and run the investigations, but is it the real power? Does it just pretend to be powerless so it can do a Claude Raines? (I’m shocked! Shocked to find construction money not being spent on levees, torture, NSA spying). Is it just maintaining plausible deniability?
What causes all this? Demands of information? Demands of decision theory? Collective action’s effects on interest group politics? Human psychology? Institutional Competition in the face of historical contingency? (growth, war).
Do interest groups buy votes?
Why do House members have higher re-election rates than Senators? Why is Barak Obama different from Cynthia McKinney?
Why do Americans love to hate Congress? Tocqueville’s answer (Hibbing and These-Morris)?
Why is the Congress more afraid of used car sales men and funeral directors than millionaires?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
For your information
The question of who bought Alaska came up in class a few days ago for some reason and an enterprising student went to the trouble to look it up:
For your enjoyment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#History
U.S. Secretary of State William Seward thus urged, and the United States Senate thus approved, the treaty authorizing the purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia for US$7,200,000 on April 9, 1867. The United States took possession and the American flag was raised over Alaska on October 18, which is commemorated as Alaska Day.
Russia still used the Julian Calendar in 1867, and the world had not yet been divided into standard time zones; thus, there was no international date line, and the day began in the morning instead of starting at midnight. So, while the American day now ends with sunset in western Alaska, the Russian day then started with sunrise in "eastern" Alaska. Thus, Friday, October 6, 1867, the day before the physical transfer of ownership, was followed by Friday, October 18, 1867 - which was Saturday, October 7, 1867 in Russia. The change in date was due to America bringing the Gregorian Calendar to Alaska, while the lack of change in day resulted from Alaska's shift from being the starting point of the Russian day to being the ending point of the American day.
The purchase was unpopular in the United States, where it became known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox." Alaska celebrates the purchase each year on the last Monday of March, calling it Seward's Day.
For your enjoyment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#History
U.S. Secretary of State William Seward thus urged, and the United States Senate thus approved, the treaty authorizing the purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia for US$7,200,000 on April 9, 1867. The United States took possession and the American flag was raised over Alaska on October 18, which is commemorated as Alaska Day.
Russia still used the Julian Calendar in 1867, and the world had not yet been divided into standard time zones; thus, there was no international date line, and the day began in the morning instead of starting at midnight. So, while the American day now ends with sunset in western Alaska, the Russian day then started with sunrise in "eastern" Alaska. Thus, Friday, October 6, 1867, the day before the physical transfer of ownership, was followed by Friday, October 18, 1867 - which was Saturday, October 7, 1867 in Russia. The change in date was due to America bringing the Gregorian Calendar to Alaska, while the lack of change in day resulted from Alaska's shift from being the starting point of the Russian day to being the ending point of the American day.
The purchase was unpopular in the United States, where it became known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox." Alaska celebrates the purchase each year on the last Monday of March, calling it Seward's Day.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Congressional Races
Here is an interesting post on Congressional Races from Larry Sabato, the best predictor of election outcomes in the business.
Larry Sabato on Congressional Races
Larry Sabato on Congressional Races
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Are we going to discuss ABC's movie in class?
I think the writers, producers, and directors of the movie have extremely biased backgrounds. If they had been people who worked in the entertainment industry WITHOUT an agenda, I don't think there would be so much fuss. It's just a movie, after all. But when you start throwing any kind of "radical" or "extreme" activists into the production mix of a nationally broadcast "docudrama" about an issue as divisive as 9/11, lots of red flags go up.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911
Sunday, September 10, 2006
9/11 movie
Here is an interesting website that compares the edited and unedited versions of the ABC docu-drama about 9/11:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/10/video-path-to-911/
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/10/video-path-to-911/
Millsaps Introduction to American Politics: Continuation of our discussion
Koppel: The Price of Security tonight on the discovery channel at i believe 8pm, if anyone is interested
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Continuation of our discussion
I wanted to add a few thoughts on what we discussed in class today:
Collective action problems, externalities, path dependence and free riding are closely related concepts. As analytic tools they can help us to understand the decision of whether to provide a good through the market or through the government. It also gives us an alternative way of understanding what people in a society do. Specifically, it gives us a way to explain why people may do something that does not seem to be in their interest, in other words, engage in behavior that does not seem rational.
What we want in science is a set of concepts and models that will explain a wide range of behavior and cover a wide range of situations.
Collective action problems. Suppose:
• Everyone agrees that the foreign car is better, but being the only person with a foreign car means that you can’t get your car repaired.
• Everyone agrees that waiting in line is a better system than just piling on but being the only person that waits in line for the bus in Kyrgyzstan means that you get on the bus last.
• Everyone agrees that Linux is a better operating system than Microsoft, but being the only guy to use Linux instead of Microsoft means you get no help from the help desk.
• Everyone agrees that having a strong central government is better than the system of having a bunch of warlords but being the only guy to pay the central government instead of the warlord gets you killed.
All of these situations are very different but they have in common the same structure. What we would do if we could act as one, as a group, is different from what we would do if we had to act individually, that is, be the first guy to act. What we seem to prefer as a group is different from we seem to prefer as individuals. The choice that makes us better off as a group makes us worse off as individuals. This is a collective action problem.
Collective action problems are a major reason we have government. Even if we all think we would be better off as a group paying taxes to have a national defense, we have an incentive as individuals not to pay taxes for national defense. Paying for a defense is a case where what makes the same people better off at the group level makes them worse off at the individual level.
National defense is a collective action problem because we get the benefit of a national defense just from being in the country, whether we have contributed to it or not. That is how collective action problems are related to another important concept in modern political science: public goods. They are non-excludable. You get the benefit of what the larger group is doing—paying for national defense in this case—whether you contribute or not. That is what gives you an incentive not to contribute, or free ride.
Now letting people act individually is just another way of saying leaving things to the market. If we let people decide whether to pay for national defense on their own the way we let them decide whether or not to pay for meals in restaurants we would end up with a lot less national defense than we would prefer as a group.
This is obvious in the case of national defense but it is partially the case in a lot of situations and goods where it is not nearly as obvious. Take the case of roads. Even if we paid through all roads with tolls so that people were able to ‘buy’ just as much roadway as they needed, we would have less roadway than we prefer as a group. This is because a lot of the benefit of roadway systems goes to people whether they are driving on the roads or not. All of the goods and services that come to me come to me partially by way of roads. To the extent there are people that don’t use the roads very much, under a toll road system they would be getting benefits that they don’t pay for. They are getting an externality (a positive externality in this case), a benefit from a transaction that they themselves are not a part of. Under such conditions we would expect less than the optimum amount of roads to be built, or, what economists call "underprovision."
That is why we see the government getting people to pay for things through taxes rather than through transactions in the market place. When there are benefits to third parties we often provide the goods through the government rather than through the market.
Notice how path dependence can come into this. Path dependence is when events in the past affect what choices we can make in the future. This is most interesting when what would make more sense today is somehow closed off by past events.
The Microsoft example is a good example of path dependence. If we were starting over today we would probably all be better off with a different operating system, say, Linux, but we don’t want to be the first to switch individually now that we are in a world where everyone else uses Microsoft’s operating system. An event in the past—the fact that Microsoft was used on IBM’s personal computers—has effected the choice we make today. In this case, the path dependent nature of technology adoption has set us up for a collective action problem. In this case, it is one that we have not solved.
So we can’t conclude from the fact that everyone in Afghanistan pays money to warlords instead of paying their taxes to the central government that they think warlords are better than having a central government anymore more than we can conclude from the fact that people pay money to Microsoft instead of using Linux (which is free) that they think Microsoft is a better operating system. In both cases they may be facing a collective action problem.
One last point. Notice how collective action comes in with the ancient republics and the problem of war. At the battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes had to use whips to get his men to fight. He needed an army behind his army to make it fight. Not so the Spartans. The ancient republics could solve the collective action problem of war—getting men to do what was in the interests of the group rather than what was in their individual best interests—through social solidarity, thinking of yourself as part of the group before thinking of oneself as an individual. This sense of doing what is in the group’s interest instead of your personal interest is the essence of what the founders meant by ‘republican virtue,’ and they thought it was far more important than voting procedures or individual freedom of conscience in the survival of the republic. They relied on social solidarity to solve collective action problems.
What do we rely on?
Collective action problems, externalities, path dependence and free riding are closely related concepts. As analytic tools they can help us to understand the decision of whether to provide a good through the market or through the government. It also gives us an alternative way of understanding what people in a society do. Specifically, it gives us a way to explain why people may do something that does not seem to be in their interest, in other words, engage in behavior that does not seem rational.
What we want in science is a set of concepts and models that will explain a wide range of behavior and cover a wide range of situations.
Collective action problems. Suppose:
• Everyone agrees that the foreign car is better, but being the only person with a foreign car means that you can’t get your car repaired.
• Everyone agrees that waiting in line is a better system than just piling on but being the only person that waits in line for the bus in Kyrgyzstan means that you get on the bus last.
• Everyone agrees that Linux is a better operating system than Microsoft, but being the only guy to use Linux instead of Microsoft means you get no help from the help desk.
• Everyone agrees that having a strong central government is better than the system of having a bunch of warlords but being the only guy to pay the central government instead of the warlord gets you killed.
All of these situations are very different but they have in common the same structure. What we would do if we could act as one, as a group, is different from what we would do if we had to act individually, that is, be the first guy to act. What we seem to prefer as a group is different from we seem to prefer as individuals. The choice that makes us better off as a group makes us worse off as individuals. This is a collective action problem.
Collective action problems are a major reason we have government. Even if we all think we would be better off as a group paying taxes to have a national defense, we have an incentive as individuals not to pay taxes for national defense. Paying for a defense is a case where what makes the same people better off at the group level makes them worse off at the individual level.
National defense is a collective action problem because we get the benefit of a national defense just from being in the country, whether we have contributed to it or not. That is how collective action problems are related to another important concept in modern political science: public goods. They are non-excludable. You get the benefit of what the larger group is doing—paying for national defense in this case—whether you contribute or not. That is what gives you an incentive not to contribute, or free ride.
Now letting people act individually is just another way of saying leaving things to the market. If we let people decide whether to pay for national defense on their own the way we let them decide whether or not to pay for meals in restaurants we would end up with a lot less national defense than we would prefer as a group.
This is obvious in the case of national defense but it is partially the case in a lot of situations and goods where it is not nearly as obvious. Take the case of roads. Even if we paid through all roads with tolls so that people were able to ‘buy’ just as much roadway as they needed, we would have less roadway than we prefer as a group. This is because a lot of the benefit of roadway systems goes to people whether they are driving on the roads or not. All of the goods and services that come to me come to me partially by way of roads. To the extent there are people that don’t use the roads very much, under a toll road system they would be getting benefits that they don’t pay for. They are getting an externality (a positive externality in this case), a benefit from a transaction that they themselves are not a part of. Under such conditions we would expect less than the optimum amount of roads to be built, or, what economists call "underprovision."
That is why we see the government getting people to pay for things through taxes rather than through transactions in the market place. When there are benefits to third parties we often provide the goods through the government rather than through the market.
Notice how path dependence can come into this. Path dependence is when events in the past affect what choices we can make in the future. This is most interesting when what would make more sense today is somehow closed off by past events.
The Microsoft example is a good example of path dependence. If we were starting over today we would probably all be better off with a different operating system, say, Linux, but we don’t want to be the first to switch individually now that we are in a world where everyone else uses Microsoft’s operating system. An event in the past—the fact that Microsoft was used on IBM’s personal computers—has effected the choice we make today. In this case, the path dependent nature of technology adoption has set us up for a collective action problem. In this case, it is one that we have not solved.
So we can’t conclude from the fact that everyone in Afghanistan pays money to warlords instead of paying their taxes to the central government that they think warlords are better than having a central government anymore more than we can conclude from the fact that people pay money to Microsoft instead of using Linux (which is free) that they think Microsoft is a better operating system. In both cases they may be facing a collective action problem.
One last point. Notice how collective action comes in with the ancient republics and the problem of war. At the battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes had to use whips to get his men to fight. He needed an army behind his army to make it fight. Not so the Spartans. The ancient republics could solve the collective action problem of war—getting men to do what was in the interests of the group rather than what was in their individual best interests—through social solidarity, thinking of yourself as part of the group before thinking of oneself as an individual. This sense of doing what is in the group’s interest instead of your personal interest is the essence of what the founders meant by ‘republican virtue,’ and they thought it was far more important than voting procedures or individual freedom of conscience in the survival of the republic. They relied on social solidarity to solve collective action problems.
What do we rely on?
Monday, September 04, 2006
Major Concern in American Govt.
I believe that one major concern right now is the ever-present controversy of nuclear war. As of recent times, we have learned of countries maintaining nuclear weapons and these are not being controlled by the United Nations. The fact is that there are many unaccounted nuclear weapons in the hands of hostile countries that are refusing to submit and surrender set weapons to authorities. With the new threat from North Korea being a nuclear power, the united states should be leery of any activity from nations hostile to us. We should take any necessary precautions in order to secure the safety of our country and the safety of the entire free world. With North Korea’s refusal of disarmament, we as a country need to pursue the termination of their weapons in order to ensure that they are not hostile. Although North Korea insists that they have no weapons that are to be used in a hostile manner, I don’t think we can overlook the fact that we are not in good relations with North Korea and there is a threat of a catastrophe. The reason why the September eleventh attacks were not prevented was because we weren’t proactive with the warning signs of such an attack. I believe that if we take first action to provoke the United Nations to shut down their operation, then we will benefit greatly from such action. With the institution of the NPT, we must take control of undocumented weapons of mass destruction. The threat of a disaster is always something to be concerned with and the last thing that the US needs right now is another attack and another war, but in order to secure the safety of our citizens, I feel as if we should be proactive and immediately take action.
Problems with American Politics
Brady Jackson Jackson 1
Political Science
Dr. Reinhard
8-31-06
Problems with today’s politics
American politics in this day and time has a major problem; greed. The politicians that we elect today often turn into corrupt individuals, because they are taking illegal money from someone as a bribe to help the other party out. A politician’s greed these days can have a negative effect on our country by only allowing the wealthy people to benefit. I truly feel that a man who is willing to accept bribery from someone is not the type of individual that I would want calling the shots for our country. The American politics used to be a glorious title in the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who had the best interest of our country first and foremost. Now our politicians are known for having sticky fingers and lying to the American people, the same people that put him into office. All because he wants to have more than he has now, but he is not willing to work for it.
The reason for all of the greed in politics today is the feeling that they are above the law and can do as they please. It becomes easy for a politician to be overtaken by greed once they see the opportunities they have at making a few extra bucks on the side. The main influence on a politician is when someone who has helped out with their campaign comes up and they need a little favor that only that person can do for them. Then if the politician refuses, well then that’s when the money becomes an issue. That’s where it all begins. Once this happens and they start thinking that they can do as they wish, they become completely consumed with greed.
Political Science
Dr. Reinhard
8-31-06
Problems with today’s politics
American politics in this day and time has a major problem; greed. The politicians that we elect today often turn into corrupt individuals, because they are taking illegal money from someone as a bribe to help the other party out. A politician’s greed these days can have a negative effect on our country by only allowing the wealthy people to benefit. I truly feel that a man who is willing to accept bribery from someone is not the type of individual that I would want calling the shots for our country. The American politics used to be a glorious title in the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who had the best interest of our country first and foremost. Now our politicians are known for having sticky fingers and lying to the American people, the same people that put him into office. All because he wants to have more than he has now, but he is not willing to work for it.
The reason for all of the greed in politics today is the feeling that they are above the law and can do as they please. It becomes easy for a politician to be overtaken by greed once they see the opportunities they have at making a few extra bucks on the side. The main influence on a politician is when someone who has helped out with their campaign comes up and they need a little favor that only that person can do for them. Then if the politician refuses, well then that’s when the money becomes an issue. That’s where it all begins. Once this happens and they start thinking that they can do as they wish, they become completely consumed with greed.
website, announcements
This evening we discuss Lebanon: Monday on September 4, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the Leggett Center
The course website is listed on the syllabus for future reference, but go there now to take a look at the chapter quizzes: wwnorton.com/lowi
We can have quizzes at any time!
And thanks to Dave and Gary for this morning's demonstration.
The course website is listed on the syllabus for future reference, but go there now to take a look at the chapter quizzes: wwnorton.com/lowi
We can have quizzes at any time!
And thanks to Dave and Gary for this morning's demonstration.
The Biggest Problem In American Politics
I firmly believe that one of the biggest problems in American politics is the addition of concepts such as giving welfare to people who have no source of income. I do not believe that the government should give money to a person who is to lazy to get out and work for themselves. There is not a single person in this country who is not qualified to work at McDonald’s or pick up garbage. If a person can prove that they have a job that does not pay enough to support them or their family, then they deserve a certain amount of money. If someone was just fired from their job, they should be given enough money to support them until a reasonable amount of time has passed in which they should have a job by. But, someone who has no source of income and is too lazy to work deserves no help from anyone especially if they can’t even attempt to help themselves. So, I definitely believe that the welfare system the way it exists now is one of the biggest problems with American policy.
I understand the need for a welfare system when it was created by President Roosevelt during the Great Depression. There weren’t enough jobs in those days to go around and people needed a little bit of help. But, the caliber of American society has changed in the last couple decades. In the 1940s and 50s, everyone wanted a job and very few were too lazy to go find one. In today’s world, people are much lazier and don’t have the same drive and work ethic as people used to. So, the problem definitely started because of the recent sense of laziness in the last few decades.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
America's Problem
After careful thought and revision, I have decided that there are too many things wrong with the American political system to properly use in the scope of this memo. The speed at which the government makes decisions and enacts legislation is incredibly slow, and there may not be anyway around this without curtailing some of our personal freedoms, unfortunately. Beyond that, dismantling the current bureaucracy would cause sever economic backlash as it employs hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people. As for the freedoms we have received under this government, people largely take them for granted. The system would work far better if our voter turnout wasn’t so abysmally low every election, as policy would probably work out better for everyone. Speaking of policy making, the incumbency rating is much too high, making new faces in politics a rare sight. In many cases politicians end up returning for another term even after doing a terrible job in their previous attempt. As for the presidential elections the crop of candidates to choose from seems to be increasingly weak, resulting in a choice between the lesser of two evils, as was the case in the 2004 election. In my personal opinion, neither Kerry nor Bush were particularly good candidates, and looking at our current debacle of an administration I’d say I was probably right. Internally, events like Katrina have demonstrated how woefully unprepared we are for emergency situations and how truly corrupt our government is.
So what is the cause of all these problems? One large part is the American way of thought, as evidenced by the abysmally low voter turnout compared to almost anywhere else in the world. As far as the speed and efficiency of our government is concerned, the bureaucracy is far too entrenched to deal with in any useful way. Beyond that, events over the past couple years have demonstrated that the government is unbelievably corrupt, which does nothing to help the American people or the government. Really this list could be much longer and better developed, but for most things the cause of our problems comes down to a real simple issue: incompetence. This incompetence starts with low voter turnout and escalates as it reaches corrupt officials and even our current President, perhaps the most paramount case. America needs to really take a good long look at itself before we get to the point where we just need time to fix things.
So what is the cause of all these problems? One large part is the American way of thought, as evidenced by the abysmally low voter turnout compared to almost anywhere else in the world. As far as the speed and efficiency of our government is concerned, the bureaucracy is far too entrenched to deal with in any useful way. Beyond that, events over the past couple years have demonstrated that the government is unbelievably corrupt, which does nothing to help the American people or the government. Really this list could be much longer and better developed, but for most things the cause of our problems comes down to a real simple issue: incompetence. This incompetence starts with low voter turnout and escalates as it reaches corrupt officials and even our current President, perhaps the most paramount case. America needs to really take a good long look at itself before we get to the point where we just need time to fix things.
Friday, September 01, 2006
…Biggest Problem, Greatest Failure…
To: From: Subject: | Dr. Reinhard; Anyone Else Who Cares Heather Phillips …Biggest Problem, Greatest Failure… |
When asked what I think the American political system’s biggest problem/greatest failure is, the first thing that comes to my mind is…low standards. The American public sets low standards for what it expects from itself as far as active political involvement is concerned and low standards for its leaders when it comes to holding them accountable for their actions (or lack of them.) Why does this happen? In a word—time.
In order to really know what politicians are doing and how they are motivated, a person has to devote an enormous amount of time and energy to really investigate. You have to read articles from all different perspectives so you know which special interest is asking for what from whom. You have to listen to different news sources. You have to read transcripts from actual legislative sessions and read actual proposed bills and amendments. Not only is the language in these documents very far from conversational speech, actually finding the documents to begin with (even in the internet age) is definitely not easy or intuitive. Besides, unless it’s your chosen career to stay on top of the full political spectrum those kinds of activities can easily deprive you of having an actual life. You know—that thing the politicians are supposed to be trying to make better for everyone?
At the time our nation was founded, the concept of “leisure time” as we know it was basically unheard of. Farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen, even wealthy land owners worked when the work needed to be done and not during any set hours of the day. If something came up (a visitor, a fire, a loose cow, a political debate or pamphlet) they would simply break from work when they needed to and get back to it as time and energy allowed. That flexibility granted them opportunity to ponder and debate with their neighbors and peers, and hear and meet actual candidates. The idea we have now that work and home should be separate and that half the day should be allotted for each would have seemed crazy to them. I think there’s a good reason for that.
With the advent of industrialization came the need for factory workers who would stay in the same place for long periods of time. Naturally, abuses occurred and protective activists rallied support for putting limits on the amount of time an individual could be expected to be “at work”. Thus evolved our modern concept of the eight hour day.
The trouble with that idea is that the eight hours we are expected to be at work doesn’t really make up all the time that our jobs require. Decent, affordable housing is usually well outside the city limits. Even in relatively small towns, it’s not unusual for people to have 45-90 minute commutes from work to home and vice-versa. Add in an hour for lunch and you are talking about a twelve hour day just for work. At home there is just enough time to manage the very basic necessities (shopping, cleaning, bathing, dinner) before sleep.
Couple the long hours with the overwhelming amount of entertainment and marketing stimulus pointed into our homes, and it’s no wonder the average citizen relies on “someone else” to be responsible for monitoring and working out our political problems.
Sure, two or three days a year we think about voting and we try to vote well. Where do we get the information we rely on to help us make informed decisions? Commercials, paid political advertisements, political parties, or some other interest group we may identify with. We might trust some sources more than others, but even then what you’re getting is still just someone else’s opinion. What you’re not getting is all the stuff that will really tell you if this is someone you want to hire to manage the affairs of the nation.
What’s their full voting record? Who are they getting money from? Do they walk the way they talk? Have they practiced good business ethics in other areas of their lives? Are they people of good character? And most importantly, what do they really believe? After all, no one can get elected if they alienate sections of their constituency so they pay lots of money (money people with special interests have given them in return for later favors) to campaign managers and speech writers to shape their images. “Shaping their image” usually means making them a) as bland as possible so they won’t offend anyone and b) as much like their opponents as possible so they won’t lose voters to the other side.
Who are they really? Are they the good guys or the bad guys? If they get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar (or even just building $500 million dollar “bridges to nowhere”) what consequences do they face? I mean, have you ever heard of a politician going to court…and then actually going to jail? Don’t get me wrong, I think that most people start out in politics for the right reasons and with their hearts in the right places. We have let our political system devolve, though, to the point where most of the public really feels the election process is a charade, and they vote for the lesser of two evils rather than for someone they feel they can really trust. What’s the most fundamental difference between the two candidates? Who is giving them money and why.
The reason that “outside investors” play such a large role in our current political system is that voters are very hard to reach and even harder to persuade. Candidates need huge amounts of money to wage successful campaigns. Local political groups won’t even consider a candidate for mayor until they can show that they can raise enough money to be competitive. Fortunately, there are opportunities for us to influence the course of politics. The status quo can be upset. We do have a louder voice than the money, but most of us just aren’t saying anything.
Years of vicious political fighting have split the nation so much that large numbers of us coming together in accord on even such basic issues seems like a fairy tale. That’s going to have to change for real political reform to happen. We have to decide amongst ourselves as citizens what our priorities are and make it clear to our leadership what we do and do not think is acceptable practice. We have to raise our collective standards. We have to expect more of ourselves and of our leaders. After all, you have to play the game to win it, and right now most of us just don’t have the time.
One of the biggest problems in America today is the number of people still on death row. There are too many people that are sitting there today that were convicted many years ago. These people should be put to death as soon as possible because these murderers are there on American citizen’s tax dollars.
I am a believer in the death penalty. I do believe, however, that a person that is sentenced to death should have DNA evidence and at least two witnesses in the case against them. I know that there were many people in the past that were wrongfully executed and now people shy away from the death penalty, but today this possibility is no longer a factor because, for the death penalty to be issued, there must be DNA evidence in the case. People say that killing a murderer is just double murder, but I see it as just punishment. I believe that the US Government should execute the prisoners as soon as possible after their trial, or completely get rid of death row altogether.
Many people also say that a believer in the death penalty can’t also believe that abortion is wrong. I say bull hock. One is killing of a murderer as just punishment, the other is murder of the innocent.
I am a believer in the death penalty. I do believe, however, that a person that is sentenced to death should have DNA evidence and at least two witnesses in the case against them. I know that there were many people in the past that were wrongfully executed and now people shy away from the death penalty, but today this possibility is no longer a factor because, for the death penalty to be issued, there must be DNA evidence in the case. People say that killing a murderer is just double murder, but I see it as just punishment. I believe that the US Government should execute the prisoners as soon as possible after their trial, or completely get rid of death row altogether.
Many people also say that a believer in the death penalty can’t also believe that abortion is wrong. I say bull hock. One is killing of a murderer as just punishment, the other is murder of the innocent.
First Writing Assignment, Continued
Thanks to Caitie and Phillip for their well argued papers. I think they stimulated a lively discussion.
For Monday I would like those of you who have not posted yet get your papers up. As was suggested in class, I think it would actually work better if people just put their papers up as a comment on this link. That way they will all be in one place and we will be able to navigate the website much more easily.
Writing is very difficult. Even when you know what you want to say it almost never comes out that way on paper the first time around. Of course, you are always able to go back and explain what you meant, but the goal is to be able to express yourself so that the reader can tell what you meant the first time. The skill writing clearly, so that your meaning is not open to question and the reader’s train of thought is not interrupted by awkward phrases is quite rare, that is why it is so valuable. And that is why we will continue to give it so much attention.
For Monday I would like to discuss the memos by Carrie Boone, Nell Knox and Matthew Black. Make sure you have those papers with in class Monday. Read them and see if you agree with my comments on their writing. Ask yourself if you have fallen into any of the same traps or wish to emulate any of thier virtues.
By the way, you feel free to comment on my writing as well.
For Monday I would like those of you who have not posted yet get your papers up. As was suggested in class, I think it would actually work better if people just put their papers up as a comment on this link. That way they will all be in one place and we will be able to navigate the website much more easily.
Writing is very difficult. Even when you know what you want to say it almost never comes out that way on paper the first time around. Of course, you are always able to go back and explain what you meant, but the goal is to be able to express yourself so that the reader can tell what you meant the first time. The skill writing clearly, so that your meaning is not open to question and the reader’s train of thought is not interrupted by awkward phrases is quite rare, that is why it is so valuable. And that is why we will continue to give it so much attention.
For Monday I would like to discuss the memos by Carrie Boone, Nell Knox and Matthew Black. Make sure you have those papers with in class Monday. Read them and see if you agree with my comments on their writing. Ask yourself if you have fallen into any of the same traps or wish to emulate any of thier virtues.
By the way, you feel free to comment on my writing as well.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
The biggest problem facing American politics today is voter apathy and disinterest. Low voter turnout isn’t news to anyone, and anything more than filling in a ballot is a lot to ask from even those Americans. According to the NES Guide to Public Opinion and Voting Behavior (http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/gd-index.htm#1), in 2004, just 21% of eligible voters displayed a bumper sticker or sign or even wore a button supporting a candidate. Further, only 13% gave money to a campaign; only 7% attended any type of political meeting, and just 3% volunteered or worked for a party or a candidate. Most Americans just don’t care enough. Those that vote are not usually accurately representative of those eligible to vote; historically, wealthy citizens are much more likely to vote than their poorer neighbors; likewise, older voters use their votes much more than younger citizens. Most minorities are much less likely to vote than whites and blacks, too. A government that is more and more disconnected from the populace becomes less and less responsive to the same.
There are many reasons for voter apathy and disinterest. One of them is a sense of powerlessness—what can one vote change?—that seems to be prevalent, especially in younger voters. Another is the complexity of issues before voters: though parties attempt to make them so, issues are rarely black and white. Few people have the time or interest to sift through the sound-bites and partisanship that’s the news to get down to brass tacks on things. The voting system is itself a problem; many lower-class citizens are paid hourly, and the time they must take off to stand in line for hours at some random fire station isn’t worth the cut in pay. And it feels American, exercising one's freedom not to participate. It’s doubtful, unfortunately, that any of that will change soon.
There are many reasons for voter apathy and disinterest. One of them is a sense of powerlessness—what can one vote change?—that seems to be prevalent, especially in younger voters. Another is the complexity of issues before voters: though parties attempt to make them so, issues are rarely black and white. Few people have the time or interest to sift through the sound-bites and partisanship that’s the news to get down to brass tacks on things. The voting system is itself a problem; many lower-class citizens are paid hourly, and the time they must take off to stand in line for hours at some random fire station isn’t worth the cut in pay. And it feels American, exercising one's freedom not to participate. It’s doubtful, unfortunately, that any of that will change soon.
What is wrong with American politics and why?
The problem with American politics is that no one takes pride in America like they used to. Free speech is one thing, but the lack of support in the government and the constant tirade on the president and his cabinet and the people leading the war by the citizens of the United States has lowered morale for even the most patriotic people. The government will never be able to make everyone in the world happy with its decisions. There are things that we do not and should not want to know about the governments inside dealings. Though I believe there is corruptness in the government, I believe that the more enemies of the U.S. know our secrets and see people slamming their own government, the worse the war will be. The government’s ultimate duty is to keep us safe and the citizens of the U.S. and the media have been compromising that for years.
I believe the cause of this breakdown in unity stems from far right and far left thinking. We should all want less government: taxes, laws, guidelines, etc. and we should stop fighting on how to get it that way. We have become too dependent on the government for help and yet when the help isn’t there we criticize. The same goes for our foreign policy. When Hitler was killing hundreds of thousands of people and we stayed out of it for so long, we berated the government for not doing something about it. Yet Saddam Hussein does the same thing and we were to never get involved. During and after Vietnam the lines were clearly drawn between the two major political parties and the divide has been deepened throughout the years. We need to take pride in our country and how lucky we are to live in a place that we are free, no matter what race, creed, religion or party we vote for (those who actually vote). Why else would everyone be sneaking in to live here?
I believe the cause of this breakdown in unity stems from far right and far left thinking. We should all want less government: taxes, laws, guidelines, etc. and we should stop fighting on how to get it that way. We have become too dependent on the government for help and yet when the help isn’t there we criticize. The same goes for our foreign policy. When Hitler was killing hundreds of thousands of people and we stayed out of it for so long, we berated the government for not doing something about it. Yet Saddam Hussein does the same thing and we were to never get involved. During and after Vietnam the lines were clearly drawn between the two major political parties and the divide has been deepened throughout the years. We need to take pride in our country and how lucky we are to live in a place that we are free, no matter what race, creed, religion or party we vote for (those who actually vote). Why else would everyone be sneaking in to live here?
I believe the greatest failure of the American political system was the very slow respond for the victims of hurricane Katrina. It took several days for these victims to receive little if any help which resulted in the lost of many lives. With America being one of if not the wealthiest countries in the world, one would come to the conclusion that help should have come faster than it did. I do not understand how this country can go off to other counties to help and when its own needs them, it takes twice as long if not longer. This hurricane destoryed lives and also the well known city of New Orleans.
The cause of this failure is because the American political system has become so corrupted that those in office have forgotten the people who elected them to do their jobs and when those people are in need of the help of the politicians there was no help at least until after several days had past, in this situation. The American society has been consumed by greed and power, and has lost its sense of compassion and caring for others. Even after a year has pass there are still victims in need of help. Our political system is so involved in arguing over issues and where money should go for these victims; most have stopped thinking of the victims and has resulted in very little help being provided.
The cause of this failure is because the American political system has become so corrupted that those in office have forgotten the people who elected them to do their jobs and when those people are in need of the help of the politicians there was no help at least until after several days had past, in this situation. The American society has been consumed by greed and power, and has lost its sense of compassion and caring for others. Even after a year has pass there are still victims in need of help. Our political system is so involved in arguing over issues and where money should go for these victims; most have stopped thinking of the victims and has resulted in very little help being provided.
Our Environmental Policy, the Greatest Threat to the American Way of Life
The fact that America is in its present day politics is so obsessed with security that we forego environmental issues is one of our greatest hypocrisies. America defends itself from every form of attack or possible threat to its survival yet without the environment there is nothing left to protect. The possibility of the environment dying is so far down the road, or so we think, that we do not care because it will not affect us directly. Yet with the help of the government and automotive companies we could be completely independent from fossil fuels for personal transportation. The technology has been around for a long time and I understand that the change over from fossil fuels to alternate energy must be made slowly to keep the economy from crashing. But consider the slowness to change the look of hybrid cars: surely someone in the American government realized that these cars are so ugly that some one to buy them would have to be so environmentally conscious that they would be willing to have their sexual orientation questioned.
This is not the only way our government has failed us. The rapid increase in population is a major factor in the health of our environment. Our planet can only support one third of the people it already has to support. Yet we send aid to countries in the form of either food (which will only result in a higher population for the receiving country) or pamphlets about how to have safe sex, (usually calling for abstinence) instead of sending condoms. Our outlook being that other countries have this problem, not America. We do not have a population problem we just love not having a yard. The American view is a very selfish one in that we do not care what toll it takes on the environment as long as we feel comfortable. No one wants to give up their car or adopt a child; we would rather just destroy the world for our children than be shaken out of our sphere of complacency: complacency in not only feeling, but in thought and finally in action.
This is not the only way our government has failed us. The rapid increase in population is a major factor in the health of our environment. Our planet can only support one third of the people it already has to support. Yet we send aid to countries in the form of either food (which will only result in a higher population for the receiving country) or pamphlets about how to have safe sex, (usually calling for abstinence) instead of sending condoms. Our outlook being that other countries have this problem, not America. We do not have a population problem we just love not having a yard. The American view is a very selfish one in that we do not care what toll it takes on the environment as long as we feel comfortable. No one wants to give up their car or adopt a child; we would rather just destroy the world for our children than be shaken out of our sphere of complacency: complacency in not only feeling, but in thought and finally in action.
for tomorrow
We have 8 different postings up as of 6:50. Why don't we try to discuss those in class tomorrow? Please read the essays that are posted below this message. If you post yours later than this message that is ok too but we will probably not get a chance to discuss your essay in class.
Michael Reinhard
Michael Reinhard
My Frustration...
Matthew P. Black
8/31/2006
Introduction to American Government
My greatest frustration with my fellow Americans stems from a creation of a "culture of ignorance" that has stuck with this country far before its culmination. It is a human habit to generally take a path with the least resistance, to live in a simple day-to-day routine that takes no thought, and to elect politicians to make the decisions so the voter doesn’t have to. And why should the populous make a decision, when they can have family, television, radio, or even the internet tell them what they can and cannot believe in? I personally have a grandfather who has never once doubted anything he has heard from his favorite AM Talk Radio personality, but my grandfather is not alone. There is an incredible ease with falling into a trap of watching loud men on CNN or Fox News to send Iran to the Stone Age or believe the Iraq War was a sham. I cannot even begin to describe the frustration that I build up concerning the ignorance we as a country hold concerning the thoughts and ideas of the rest of the world.
Who or what is to blame? It’s easy to tag the ignorance on the federal government, or even better, the President. What faith or interest from the American masses can arise from a President who fumbles words on a regular basis or reelecting men who graduated from high school years before the first desegregation movements of the early 1950's? The majority of the population lies between the ages of 18-60, and yet we look to those even older as our guides for the future. In my opinion, we as an American society can only begin to prosper when we come to the realization that we can no longer rely on our grandfathers’ opinions on the course this country should take in the 21st Century. The country, even the world, has changed dramatically from when some of the ‘senior senators’ were first elected, and there is only so much longer we can still look at these relics for advice as to what course the country should take.
8/31/2006
Introduction to American Government
My greatest frustration with my fellow Americans stems from a creation of a "culture of ignorance" that has stuck with this country far before its culmination. It is a human habit to generally take a path with the least resistance, to live in a simple day-to-day routine that takes no thought, and to elect politicians to make the decisions so the voter doesn’t have to. And why should the populous make a decision, when they can have family, television, radio, or even the internet tell them what they can and cannot believe in? I personally have a grandfather who has never once doubted anything he has heard from his favorite AM Talk Radio personality, but my grandfather is not alone. There is an incredible ease with falling into a trap of watching loud men on CNN or Fox News to send Iran to the Stone Age or believe the Iraq War was a sham. I cannot even begin to describe the frustration that I build up concerning the ignorance we as a country hold concerning the thoughts and ideas of the rest of the world.
Who or what is to blame? It’s easy to tag the ignorance on the federal government, or even better, the President. What faith or interest from the American masses can arise from a President who fumbles words on a regular basis or reelecting men who graduated from high school years before the first desegregation movements of the early 1950's? The majority of the population lies between the ages of 18-60, and yet we look to those even older as our guides for the future. In my opinion, we as an American society can only begin to prosper when we come to the realization that we can no longer rely on our grandfathers’ opinions on the course this country should take in the 21st Century. The country, even the world, has changed dramatically from when some of the ‘senior senators’ were first elected, and there is only so much longer we can still look at these relics for advice as to what course the country should take.
Slow South
Carrie Boone
Reinhard
PolSci
I believe that one of the major failures of American citizens as a whole is our idea that change will come about soon enough. Maybe the next election, maybe not...who knows? I am not only referring to presidential changes, but world changes. But, I digress to stay on the political topic. As a Mississippian, it is (theoretically, politically, religiously, socially....)incorrect for individuals to express their views for change. I, for one, began my life following the correct southern-Baptist-republican standard, and now find myself disliking our president(as the president...I’m sure as a father and husband he is wonderful). So, my point about our political system is, how can we expect it(the political system) to change and improve if we ourselves, the free people who know what’s going on in this great country of ours, do not change ourselves?
While I realize I have chosen the easiest of all the subjects to write about, I find myself becoming more and more interested (as well as frustrated)with this topic. Who I am referring to in this writing are the younger generations of Mississippians. I find myself referring to them (us, I am one)because they are who I know, who I’ve grown up with. The high school I attended was full of youths uninterested in world affairs, and unwilling to become interested. They did not care for change, but if it did come along, it was purposefully ignored or complained about. No action. In conclusion, I state once again my topic in clearer terms.... Why, can’t these certain little pockets in Mississippi catch up to the modern thought process and change, and if it is possible, why aren’t we?
Reinhard
PolSci
I believe that one of the major failures of American citizens as a whole is our idea that change will come about soon enough. Maybe the next election, maybe not...who knows? I am not only referring to presidential changes, but world changes. But, I digress to stay on the political topic. As a Mississippian, it is (theoretically, politically, religiously, socially....)incorrect for individuals to express their views for change. I, for one, began my life following the correct southern-Baptist-republican standard, and now find myself disliking our president(as the president...I’m sure as a father and husband he is wonderful). So, my point about our political system is, how can we expect it(the political system) to change and improve if we ourselves, the free people who know what’s going on in this great country of ours, do not change ourselves?
While I realize I have chosen the easiest of all the subjects to write about, I find myself becoming more and more interested (as well as frustrated)with this topic. Who I am referring to in this writing are the younger generations of Mississippians. I find myself referring to them (us, I am one)because they are who I know, who I’ve grown up with. The high school I attended was full of youths uninterested in world affairs, and unwilling to become interested. They did not care for change, but if it did come along, it was purposefully ignored or complained about. No action. In conclusion, I state once again my topic in clearer terms.... Why, can’t these certain little pockets in Mississippi catch up to the modern thought process and change, and if it is possible, why aren’t we?
Millsaps Introduction to American Politics
Millsaps Introduction to American Politics
In my opinion, the greatest failure in the American Political system is the failure on the part of American citizens when it comes to voting. Americans are quick to complain about whatever problems arise in the country, but ironically many of them are the very ones who passed up the great freedom to vote. Unlike sham “elections” that may take place in some countries, in the United States people actually have a say in which leaders are elected both on a national and local level. Given that fact, it is depressing that many Americans have mindsets that their vote “doesn’t mean anything” or “doesn’t count towards the election because it’s just one vote.” Without elections American’s would lose a primary component of our system of democracy. Many potential voters think about voting but never go through with it, and their potential votes are subsequently lost. The result is a large number of citizens whose opinions are never correctly expressed. Complaining about problems in America is completely acceptable, but only if the person who is doing the complaining has actually spent the mere minutes that it takes to fill out a ballot and place their vote. Registering to vote is very simple and takes minutes. It is a failure on the part of the American political system that so few voters turn out at the polls.
I think that the root of this problem is twofold. First, there is a general sense of voter efficacy. By that I mean that many voters feel that their vote, in the grand scheme of things, means very little overall. In fact, this is completely untrue, and when millions of people think in that manner the result is crippling to American politics. One of the causes of the apathetic attitude exhibited by Americans is a lack of political education. This leads me to the second root of this problem. Many potential voters have no idea whether they are liberal or conservative and have never even thought about which leader they would want to elect. I think that because many high schools do not require an American Government class, when people reach a legal voting age they have not been encouraged to vote. I know for a fact that many of the students that I graduated from high school with were completely politically apathetic, and had no intentions of registering to vote. When I shared with them the ease that I experienced when signing up to vote at the Courthouse, many of them announced that they “didn’t have time” or “just weren’t really interested.” I can understand complete and pure apathy, but only if the apathetic person has actually considered all of the options and then determined not to vote. The very core of the problem is that many people not only think that their vote does not count, but they have no idea how to go about the logistics of actually voting.
In my opinion, the greatest failure in the American Political system is the failure on the part of American citizens when it comes to voting. Americans are quick to complain about whatever problems arise in the country, but ironically many of them are the very ones who passed up the great freedom to vote. Unlike sham “elections” that may take place in some countries, in the United States people actually have a say in which leaders are elected both on a national and local level. Given that fact, it is depressing that many Americans have mindsets that their vote “doesn’t mean anything” or “doesn’t count towards the election because it’s just one vote.” Without elections American’s would lose a primary component of our system of democracy. Many potential voters think about voting but never go through with it, and their potential votes are subsequently lost. The result is a large number of citizens whose opinions are never correctly expressed. Complaining about problems in America is completely acceptable, but only if the person who is doing the complaining has actually spent the mere minutes that it takes to fill out a ballot and place their vote. Registering to vote is very simple and takes minutes. It is a failure on the part of the American political system that so few voters turn out at the polls.
I think that the root of this problem is twofold. First, there is a general sense of voter efficacy. By that I mean that many voters feel that their vote, in the grand scheme of things, means very little overall. In fact, this is completely untrue, and when millions of people think in that manner the result is crippling to American politics. One of the causes of the apathetic attitude exhibited by Americans is a lack of political education. This leads me to the second root of this problem. Many potential voters have no idea whether they are liberal or conservative and have never even thought about which leader they would want to elect. I think that because many high schools do not require an American Government class, when people reach a legal voting age they have not been encouraged to vote. I know for a fact that many of the students that I graduated from high school with were completely politically apathetic, and had no intentions of registering to vote. When I shared with them the ease that I experienced when signing up to vote at the Courthouse, many of them announced that they “didn’t have time” or “just weren’t really interested.” I can understand complete and pure apathy, but only if the apathetic person has actually considered all of the options and then determined not to vote. The very core of the problem is that many people not only think that their vote does not count, but they have no idea how to go about the logistics of actually voting.
Millsaps Introduction to American Politics
Millsaps Introduction to American Politics
In my opinion, the greatest failure in the American Political system is the failure on the part of American citizens when it comes to voting. Americans are quick to complain about whatever problems arise in the country, but ironically many of them are the very ones who passed up the great freedom to vote. Unlike sham “elections” that may take place in some countries, in the United States people actually have a say in which leaders are elected both on a national and local level. Given that fact, it is depressing that many Americans have mindsets that their vote “doesn’t mean anything” or “doesn’t count towards the election because it’s just one vote.” Without elections American’s would lose a primary component of our system of democracy. Many potential voters think about voting but never go through with it, and their potential votes are subsequently lost. The result is a large number of citizens whose opinions are never correctly expressed. Complaining about problems in America is completely acceptable, but only if the person who is doing the complaining has actually spent the mere minutes that it takes to fill out a ballot and place their vote. Registering to vote is very simple and takes minutes. It is a failure on the part of the American political system that so few voters turn out at the polls.
I think that the root of this problem is twofold. First, there is a general sense of voter efficacy. By that I mean that many voters feel that their vote, in the grand scheme of things, means very little overall. In fact, this is completely untrue, and when millions of people think in that manner the result is crippling to American politics. One of the causes of the apathetic attitude exhibited by Americans is a lack of political education. This leads me to the second root of this problem. Many potential voters have no idea whether they are liberal or conservative and have never even thought about which leader they would want to elect. I think that because many high schools do not require an American Government class, when people reach a legal voting age they have not been encouraged to vote. I know for a fact that many of the students that I graduated from high school with were completely politically apathetic, and had no intentions of registering to vote. When I shared with them the ease that I experienced when signing up to vote at the Courthouse, many of them announced that they “didn’t have time” or “just weren’t really interested.” I can understand complete and pure apathy, but only if the apathetic person has actually considered all of the options and then determined not to vote. The very core of the problem is that many people not only think that their vote does not count, but they have no idea how to go about the logistics of actually voting.
In my opinion, the greatest failure in the American Political system is the failure on the part of American citizens when it comes to voting. Americans are quick to complain about whatever problems arise in the country, but ironically many of them are the very ones who passed up the great freedom to vote. Unlike sham “elections” that may take place in some countries, in the United States people actually have a say in which leaders are elected both on a national and local level. Given that fact, it is depressing that many Americans have mindsets that their vote “doesn’t mean anything” or “doesn’t count towards the election because it’s just one vote.” Without elections American’s would lose a primary component of our system of democracy. Many potential voters think about voting but never go through with it, and their potential votes are subsequently lost. The result is a large number of citizens whose opinions are never correctly expressed. Complaining about problems in America is completely acceptable, but only if the person who is doing the complaining has actually spent the mere minutes that it takes to fill out a ballot and place their vote. Registering to vote is very simple and takes minutes. It is a failure on the part of the American political system that so few voters turn out at the polls.
I think that the root of this problem is twofold. First, there is a general sense of voter efficacy. By that I mean that many voters feel that their vote, in the grand scheme of things, means very little overall. In fact, this is completely untrue, and when millions of people think in that manner the result is crippling to American politics. One of the causes of the apathetic attitude exhibited by Americans is a lack of political education. This leads me to the second root of this problem. Many potential voters have no idea whether they are liberal or conservative and have never even thought about which leader they would want to elect. I think that because many high schools do not require an American Government class, when people reach a legal voting age they have not been encouraged to vote. I know for a fact that many of the students that I graduated from high school with were completely politically apathetic, and had no intentions of registering to vote. When I shared with them the ease that I experienced when signing up to vote at the Courthouse, many of them announced that they “didn’t have time” or “just weren’t really interested.” I can understand complete and pure apathy, but only if the apathetic person has actually considered all of the options and then determined not to vote. The very core of the problem is that many people not only think that their vote does not count, but they have no idea how to go about the logistics of actually voting.
America's Biggest Problem
America’s Biggest Problem
By Cary Spell
The United States of America’s largest issue is not the “incompetent” officials placed in charge, the communications problems between information companies, or even the war going on overseas. Don’t get me wrong, these are all important subjects that deserve consideration and possible solutions. However, the thing that seems to be hurting America the most is the lack of responsibility in Americans.
This problem is not limited to simply politicians, but to regular citizens of the United States. People head to voting booths every four years voting for a color, not a person. Not skin color, mind you; which might make a whole lot more sense than the truth. Most people vote for their party’s candidate. They either vote red for Republicans, or blue for Democrats. Many people simply do not make the time to learn about the opposing candidate’s character or position on policies. They simply know that either he or she “doesn’t care about black people” or “are too much of a pansy to do what’s right.” I think with a sense of responsibility, more people would watch the news and pay attention to both candidates. Doing so makes them ask themselves questions like what they believe is right and who can make those things happen. As for politicians, it’s not so much that they don’t have a sense of responsibility, but I just wish that they would show a little humility when they push for something so hard for so long and it winds up being a major bust and the whole country is furious about it. For once, I’d love to see a politician not deny an event like this to his death and just say, “Listen…I screwed up. Sorry, I’ll try my best to not let it happen again.” That’s all. Let’s have the people that we put in charge of us act just like they should: people. Despite what their yes-men tell them, they can make mistakes and they can make big mistakes. We’ve seen these mistakes, we’ve heard them, sometimes we’ve been one of those mistakes. So why not just admit that you aren’t a god in a nice suit and just work harder?
Well, one reason politicians have a tough time with this idea is because a lot of them believe that our officials must appear to be perfect and brilliant at all times. Supposedly, if they were to show, for just a moment, that they were just like us then we might think they weren’t good enough for the job. That’s ridiculous. I’d much rather have a guy with some common sense up there in that office, that cares about his family and his country, and is willing to simply admit when he was wrong and is willing to do whatever it takes to correct said mistake. It’s hard to believe that that kind of political leader could still exist today. As for the voters who simply don’t have the time, energy or patience to make a well-researched decision, the cause is simply laziness. Shocking isn’t it, Americans being lazy? The only way I can think of that could possibly solve this problem is simply having all potential voters take a written test on the upcoming election. The questions could be simple, about each candidate’s positions on major issues. If you pass, you can vote. This most basic of tests would weed out thousands of ignorant voters. I’m sorry, but if you don’t have time to watch a presidential debate, you shouldn’t have the right to choose who is going to be one of the most powerful people in the world for the next four years. Somehow I think that that’s a little more important than whether or not the spunky blonde or the tough brunette gets eliminated from American Idol. God bless America.
By Cary Spell
The United States of America’s largest issue is not the “incompetent” officials placed in charge, the communications problems between information companies, or even the war going on overseas. Don’t get me wrong, these are all important subjects that deserve consideration and possible solutions. However, the thing that seems to be hurting America the most is the lack of responsibility in Americans.
This problem is not limited to simply politicians, but to regular citizens of the United States. People head to voting booths every four years voting for a color, not a person. Not skin color, mind you; which might make a whole lot more sense than the truth. Most people vote for their party’s candidate. They either vote red for Republicans, or blue for Democrats. Many people simply do not make the time to learn about the opposing candidate’s character or position on policies. They simply know that either he or she “doesn’t care about black people” or “are too much of a pansy to do what’s right.” I think with a sense of responsibility, more people would watch the news and pay attention to both candidates. Doing so makes them ask themselves questions like what they believe is right and who can make those things happen. As for politicians, it’s not so much that they don’t have a sense of responsibility, but I just wish that they would show a little humility when they push for something so hard for so long and it winds up being a major bust and the whole country is furious about it. For once, I’d love to see a politician not deny an event like this to his death and just say, “Listen…I screwed up. Sorry, I’ll try my best to not let it happen again.” That’s all. Let’s have the people that we put in charge of us act just like they should: people. Despite what their yes-men tell them, they can make mistakes and they can make big mistakes. We’ve seen these mistakes, we’ve heard them, sometimes we’ve been one of those mistakes. So why not just admit that you aren’t a god in a nice suit and just work harder?
Well, one reason politicians have a tough time with this idea is because a lot of them believe that our officials must appear to be perfect and brilliant at all times. Supposedly, if they were to show, for just a moment, that they were just like us then we might think they weren’t good enough for the job. That’s ridiculous. I’d much rather have a guy with some common sense up there in that office, that cares about his family and his country, and is willing to simply admit when he was wrong and is willing to do whatever it takes to correct said mistake. It’s hard to believe that that kind of political leader could still exist today. As for the voters who simply don’t have the time, energy or patience to make a well-researched decision, the cause is simply laziness. Shocking isn’t it, Americans being lazy? The only way I can think of that could possibly solve this problem is simply having all potential voters take a written test on the upcoming election. The questions could be simple, about each candidate’s positions on major issues. If you pass, you can vote. This most basic of tests would weed out thousands of ignorant voters. I’m sorry, but if you don’t have time to watch a presidential debate, you shouldn’t have the right to choose who is going to be one of the most powerful people in the world for the next four years. Somehow I think that that’s a little more important than whether or not the spunky blonde or the tough brunette gets eliminated from American Idol. God bless America.
The "Time Bomb"
The greatest problem in American politics today is the social security “time bomb.” This threatens to deny senior citizens, as they get older, from reaping their just reward for a lifetime of paying into the system. Solutions to the problem that have thus far been posited seem to endanger the system even more. For instance, many conservatives claim that privatization is the means to balancing the system. This privatization involves investment in the stock market, which is too risky a venture on which to bet one’s livelihood. Other solutions include raising the retirement age, raising the payroll tax, and increasing taxes on benefits. All of these options introduce a new set of problems to deal with and no one seems to be feasible in the immediate future.
The “time bomb” is due in large part to the tremendous population spike following World War Two known as the “baby boom.” Now that the North American birthrate has diminished significantly and the baby boomers reach retirement age, a much smaller number of working citizens will be paying for a much greater number of retirees. This imbalance could have ramifications that will spread through generations of Americans to come.
The Biggest Flaw in American Government
The American Government is constantly being criticized on every decision and action it makes for its citizens. There are numerous flaws in our government, but I believe the worst flaw in the American Democracy is the lack of input regular citizens have once our leaders have been elected. Our government officials often change their views and political tactics between their campaign and their serving term, which often creates controversy. Also, the people who did not vote for the winning candidate often disagree with the official’s politics. This is why citizens are granted with the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition. These rights enable us to voice our opinions about our government’s actions; the only problem is finding people are willing do these things. One person cannot change a decision made by the President or Congress, but a large group of influential people may be able to persuade the government to change some of their questionable decisions.
This flaw in the American Government has a lot to do with the amount of influence money has on politics. The candidates that are elected are usually the ones with the most sponsorship and financial aid to their campaign from outside parties. Once the officials are elected into office, the campaign sponsors are looking for reimbursement through political decisions that help them, but may not necessarily be the best for the American public. This is why people are often upset with the government because they believe they are not making the best decisions for its people. The First Amendment was created to ensure us that the citizens could have a say in the government. In contrast, modern Americans believe they are too busy and they cannot make a big enough impact in a country with three-hundred million people. This is the reason so little petitions and assemblies are seen today. The key to making an impact in our democracy is to find enough people with similar opinions and let your views be heard by the public, and then possibly persuade the government to consider changing its policies. This is the very reason our forefathers came up with the idea for a democracy, so its citizens would always have an impact in the government, which should be for the people.
This flaw in the American Government has a lot to do with the amount of influence money has on politics. The candidates that are elected are usually the ones with the most sponsorship and financial aid to their campaign from outside parties. Once the officials are elected into office, the campaign sponsors are looking for reimbursement through political decisions that help them, but may not necessarily be the best for the American public. This is why people are often upset with the government because they believe they are not making the best decisions for its people. The First Amendment was created to ensure us that the citizens could have a say in the government. In contrast, modern Americans believe they are too busy and they cannot make a big enough impact in a country with three-hundred million people. This is the reason so little petitions and assemblies are seen today. The key to making an impact in our democracy is to find enough people with similar opinions and let your views be heard by the public, and then possibly persuade the government to consider changing its policies. This is the very reason our forefathers came up with the idea for a democracy, so its citizens would always have an impact in the government, which should be for the people.
Government is a human institution and therefore we can never expect it to be perfect; but, I think that the lack of differences in the two main parties is a big problem for American politics. The two main parties are the democratic and republican party. The democratic party is more liberal and wants the government to be more involved in the lives of their citizens with programs like welfare. And the republican party is more conservative on social issues, craving more independence from government for the citizens. However, there really isn’t that big of a difference between the parties. While in theory the democrats are the supporters of welfare and other social programs, the republicans support them as well, just not with as much zeal. Also, the republicans were the hawks in the war against Iraq. Yet, most democrats supported the war with only a few dissenters. And only after the war began to appear not such a good idea did democrats as a united front speak out against the war.
The American people as a whole are moderate. And so the people that come to power, lie in the middle of the political spectrum, not too liberal, not too conservative. But that middle doesn’t provide a lot of opportunity for change. If a republican is in power rather than a democrat, the change is certainly not life altering for most people. If we as a people look for promises of change in our politicians we must first ourselves be more open to change.
The American people as a whole are moderate. And so the people that come to power, lie in the middle of the political spectrum, not too liberal, not too conservative. But that middle doesn’t provide a lot of opportunity for change. If a republican is in power rather than a democrat, the change is certainly not life altering for most people. If we as a people look for promises of change in our politicians we must first ourselves be more open to change.
Government is a human institution and therefore we can never expect it to be perfect; but, I think that the lack of differences in the two main parties is a big problem for American politics. The two main parties are the democratic and republican party. The democratic party is more liberal and wants the government to be more involved in the lives of their citizens with programs like welfare. And the republican party is more conservative on social issues, craving more independence from government for the citizens. However, there really isn’t that big of a difference between the parties. While in theory the democrats are the supporters of welfare and other social programs, the republicans support them as well, just not with as much zeal. Also, the republicans were the hawks in the war against Iraq. Yet, most democrats supported the war with only a few dissenters. And only after the war began to appear not such a good idea did democrats as a united front speak out against the war.
The American people as a whole are moderate. And so the people that come to power, lie in the middle of the political spectrum, not too liberal, not too conservative. But that middle doesn’t provide a lot of opportunity for change. If a republican is in power rather than a democrat, the change is certainly not life altering for most people. If we as a people look for promises of change in our politicians we must first ourselves be more open to change.
The American people as a whole are moderate. And so the people that come to power, lie in the middle of the political spectrum, not too liberal, not too conservative. But that middle doesn’t provide a lot of opportunity for change. If a republican is in power rather than a democrat, the change is certainly not life altering for most people. If we as a people look for promises of change in our politicians we must first ourselves be more open to change.
The Worst Aspect of American Politics
The worst aspect of the American political system is the lack of trust in the government by the American people. The citizens have no faith in the elected of appointed officials, and most of the time, it is for good reason. In March of 2006, the presidential approval rate for George W. Bush was down to 45 percent according to CNN. Even more dismaying is the Huffington Post’s August 2006 report of Bush’s approval rate by the American youth. Only 20% of the country’s population under the age of 18 trusts the president. This statistic should prove a very important point: If the people, especially the youth who will make up the next group of politicians, law makers, and citizens, do not have faith in their government, the nation will suffer for years to come. People do want to trust the government, especially with the rise in patriotism after the September 11 attacks. It is a crucial time for people to believe in their government.
There is blame to be placed on both the United States government and its citizens for the current situation. Citizens are not informed about what is truly going on. There are press conferences, news briefings, and occasional State of the Union addresses, but the media spin has warped the minds of so many people, increasing the gap between conservatives and liberals; politicians and American citizens. The government is also not always forthcoming with the truth, however. There have been many times in the last few years in which the President, Secretary of State, of other member of the government has said one thing, and done the polar opposite. There is no wonder why so many people question the current administration. Especially with all of the internal changes and resignations, the government does not seem stable at times.
There is blame to be placed on both the United States government and its citizens for the current situation. Citizens are not informed about what is truly going on. There are press conferences, news briefings, and occasional State of the Union addresses, but the media spin has warped the minds of so many people, increasing the gap between conservatives and liberals; politicians and American citizens. The government is also not always forthcoming with the truth, however. There have been many times in the last few years in which the President, Secretary of State, of other member of the government has said one thing, and done the polar opposite. There is no wonder why so many people question the current administration. Especially with all of the internal changes and resignations, the government does not seem stable at times.
American governments biggest failure
The biggest failure in American government today is disaster relief. This is clearly obvious from the delayed efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Being from somewhere that has been devastated by another hurricane, Ivan, I know what it's like to be in need of government assistance to help you get back on your feet. While Katrina's destruction surpassed Ivan's the government did not step up to the level of aid that people in Louisiana and Mississippi required, and because of it many people suffered for much longer than they should have. Several college students proved that they could cut through the red tape and travel down to New Orleans. In the first few days after Katrina FEMA and other government agencies were not in New Orleans providing relief because they were still in Washington D.C. trying to get their act together due to being unprepared for something this disastrous. This shouldn't have been the case. FEMA and Homeland Security should be prepared for the worst case scenarios possible. This situation was one that was definitely forseeable, especially since many people had been predicting for years that a hurricane would directly hit New Orleans. But disaster relief spreads further than just hurricanes to other natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, blizzards, and wildfires. The government needs to be prepared if another major earthquake strikes San Francisco, if a tornado ravages through the midwest, if a blizzard freezes over the northeast, or if a wildfire burns through many people's homes out west. The government needs to be ready to take quick, decisive action in all of these circumstances. Just like they were in Katrina people will be entirely dependent on the government to support them. The governments unpreparedness is the biggest problem in domestic relief efforts.
The government was caught off guard by the number of people in need because they simply didn't think something like this would happen. The lack of a real natural disaster in recent history has lead many to feel as if were immune to an ordeal of that magnitude. The recent focus on foreign policy and protecting our citizens from terrorists has also hindered the attention on helping us deal with mother nature. Hopefully, a positive to come out of the midst of Katrina will be that in the future our government will be more prepared to handle similar destructive situations, but until that happens we will never know.
The government was caught off guard by the number of people in need because they simply didn't think something like this would happen. The lack of a real natural disaster in recent history has lead many to feel as if were immune to an ordeal of that magnitude. The recent focus on foreign policy and protecting our citizens from terrorists has also hindered the attention on helping us deal with mother nature. Hopefully, a positive to come out of the midst of Katrina will be that in the future our government will be more prepared to handle similar destructive situations, but until that happens we will never know.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Good morning 2006!
Well, a new year begins and we are all in for a great time!
Your first assignment is:
1) send me an email
2) reply to the email inviting you to join the website
3) write a short 1 to 2 page memo describing what you think is the greatest failure of the American political system. What is the thing we are doing the worst job at. It can be something about the political process, some policy question, an agency in the government or a habit of thought with the American people. It can be a long term challenge or something from history. Your memo should have a minimum of two paragraphs, one describing the problem and one describing what you think is the cause. If you think that a particular politician is an idiot or a bad guy that is fine, but The memos are due by 5:00 PM tomorrow in the box outside my office and should be posted on the website by 6:00 PM tomorrow (Thursday).
Your first assignment is:
1) send me an email
2) reply to the email inviting you to join the website
3) write a short 1 to 2 page memo describing what you think is the greatest failure of the American political system. What is the thing we are doing the worst job at. It can be something about the political process, some policy question, an agency in the government or a habit of thought with the American people. It can be a long term challenge or something from history. Your memo should have a minimum of two paragraphs, one describing the problem and one describing what you think is the cause. If you think that a particular politician is an idiot or a bad guy that is fine, but The memos are due by 5:00 PM tomorrow in the box outside my office and should be posted on the website by 6:00 PM tomorrow (Thursday).
Monday, April 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)