As an aside to our discussion today, we mentioned Aristotle’s classifications of government. Here it is in full:
| Aristotle's Typology of Government | ||
| Rule by | Good | Bad |
| One | Monarchy | Tyranny |
| Few | Aristocracy | Oligarchy |
| Many | Polity | Democracy |
First, note that “autocracy” is not there. The reason is that Aristotle had a two dimensional classification scheme. The first dimension is just the size of the ruling class. The second dimension is whether it rules in the interests of all or of only itself.
This latter distinction is foreign to contemporary political scientists. Recall that we like to keep normative judgments, judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, out of science. Aristotle, though he was very interested in getting the objective, observable facts (empirical investigation), had no trouble with making normative judgments.
So instead of his “Monarchy/Tyranny” distinction, we have boiled it down to the one observable fact they have in common: the fact that there is only one person in charge: autocracy.
Notice, also, that democracy was in Aristotle’s Bad list, what he called the degenerate forms. Aristotle didn’t think that rule by the many was necessarily bad, but even if it started out good (Polity—recall that poly means many) it would generally go bad (democracy).
Though the founders didn’t use Aristotle’s terminology in the same way, they certainly shared his concerns, as we shall soon see.
14 comments:
The rationality principle in action, in particular the effect that President Bush’s personal and electoral ambitions had on his presidency, was a section of the text that caught my attention. It is obvious that Bush considered a lot of decisions’ possible effects on his re-election campaign. The text interestingly made it sound like Bush only got the chance to prove his worth because of the tragedy of 9/11. From then on, his image was that of a strong, straightforward leader determined to eliminate any threat of another devastating attack to his country. His approach to Iraq was straightforward: to stop Saddam Hussein’s regime from producing what he termed “weapons of mass destruction.” Diplomacy failed, so Bush came to a seemingly rational decision: to rid the Middle East (and the rest of the world) of Saddam’s regime. His father’s earlier actions, as the text points out, must have contributed to his decision to use military action to push the regime out. If Bush Sr. didn’t wipe out Saddam earlier, now was the perfect time to finish the job. From a rational point of view, it was a sound decision (the text almost made it sound like a convenient decision) but considering the consequences, it hardly seems rational now.
I have to wonder if the authors of the text let hindsight bias get in the way of their descriptions of the Administration’s actions pertaining to Iraq. The text does not sound very neutral; for instance, on p. 25, President Bush and/or his administration were “intent on diminishing the threat of Saddam,” “Frustrated by lack of progress,” and were “Without much enthusiasm” as weapons inspectors attempted to find WMD’s. There are a lot of negative-sounding words in the text, which made me wonder if it was written by Democrats. In the first paragraph on p. 25, they summarize the events of 9/11 as “an opportunity [for Bush] to lead decisively…” Opportunity seemed like the key word in that sentence. Bottom line: I don’t think the book provides the most neutral front it could provide; the power of hindsight must have affected the authors’ judgment, thus their descriptions, of the President’s actions throughout his presidency.
In my opinion, nothing relates more clearly to the five principles of politics as the current conflict in Iraq. The five principles are all political behavior has a purpose, all politics is collective action, institutional routinely solve collective-action problems, political outcomes are the products of individual preferences and institutional procedures, and history matters.
First, the war in Iraq directly correlates with all political behavior having a purpose. For example, we went to Iraq in hopes of liberating the suppressed Iraqi people and installing a democracy in the Middle East.
In addition to the first principle, the war in Iraq can also be linked to all politics being collective action. According to the text, the definition of collective action is the pooling of resources and coordination of effort and activity by a group of people to achieve common goals. With relation to Iraq, the American government and the new Iraqi leaders are working to succeed to their common goal, the expulsion of the threatening terrorist and the success of democracy.
Also, both the American and the Iraqi militaries are working together as an institution to plan and set new rules or laws that expel terrorists from Iraq. The military leaders from our country and Iraq act as the institution. Without both of us assisting one other, Iraq could not by themselves accomplish their purpose of purging out the terrorists.
Next, the political outcomes of our individual products and institutional procedures associate with the Iraq war. In the end, if we as Americans win the war we obviously have accomplished our goal in aiding Iraq. This is true because of the militaries and the new regulations the Iraqi government has considered.
Lastly, history matters. We as a country, as Americans, as a military have learned from our mistakes. No just in the war of Iraq, but also in the previous Gulf War as well. We will continue learning as a nation to do what is right.
In our reading for Wednesday the thing that first interested me and really caught my attention was Mancur Oson’s by-product theory. This theory is defined by the book as “The idea that groups provide members with private benefits to attract membership; the possibility of group collective action emerges as a consequence.” When I first read about how this works the first thing that I thought of was a rule of economics which is that people respond to incentives. If you look hard enough you can find this concept being used almost everywhere. For example say I was driving somewhere and happen to get a speeding ticket, in certain places if you know the right people you can get out of the ticket but the way this happens is by some sort of political favor. When this whole ticket fixing mess first came about in many places it was used to buy votes for certain elected officials. This concept gets rid of a lot of the free riding that would be taking place without incentives. The reason that there would be so much free riding is that many individuals don’t make much if any difference on the end results. They know this so they think why should they help if their help is all for nothing. I believe that selective benefits are a good thing as long as they are not used for evil such as I believe they are at times with the uneducated and the people who are just looking for a good deal. The reason I say this is that I believe that no matter what your beliefs are that you should not give them up for any sort of selective benefit but I guess you can say that every man has his price.
As I read the text the passage that caught my attention was the passage about "The Politics of Prescription Drugs" found on pages 22-23.
While reading this I became a little angry at the fact that the government wants to do away with the Medicare program. I couldn't help,but think about all of the elderly persons who need this program in order to receive their medications and hospital services. What are they going to do about their medications. Sure this might save the government money, but it will deteriorate society. How could the government turn their backs on the persons who fought for this country in World WarI and II,Desert Storm,Vietnam,Korea and so on and so forth. These people willing helped to fight for the well being of our country and has given it the opportunity to develop into what it is today.
In my opinion I think that that is a wrong move to make. I mean sure it will save money, but why take it from the elderly. My grandparents both are dependants of Medicare. Between the two of them they have about ten medications to take each. My grandfather in on Dialysis because his kidneys do not function properly and without Medicare he would not be able to get this treatment. Sure some people may say why can't the famliy pay for it. Well we can't to pay for that treatment, not even if we all combined our salaries. Medicare is a big part in the health of our elderly and I think that we should not do away with it.
As I have read through the chapter and thought through the "five principles of politics", the main theme that stuck out in my head was everyday life. An example that I can relate to is the life of a Fraternity man. In Fraternity you have a social hierarchy of people who come together in order to form an organization. Although it is not realized by others the fraternity is ran by a democracy/constitutional government.
When it comes to the principles of politics we use those as well. For example in principle one, where we all have the same goals in mind, we believe that it could be handled differently so we argue and have debates. Also in principle 2 where the "by-product theory" as well as "selective benefits" apply. The apply in the terms that in order to get what exposure we need as a member we use the alumni in order to get our foot in the door to business or political life even though it may involve us doing something we don’t want to do as John said "it is felt that our time can better spent somewhere else." However in order to get what we need as a group it is a small price to pay so that we can have things for our own personal interest. (Principle 4) When it comes to how we run on an everyday system there is a checks and balances system in place where we also use institutions, agenda power, veto power by the president, and delegation. Last but not least in a fraternity tradition and history matter. It describes who we are as brother and members of this "elite" group. What was done in the past not only shaped what we do here now in the present, but also what we do now shapes what will happen in the future.
After reading the article by Robert Pear about the new drug benefit, I am confused as to why this modernization act was passed. The article clearly states that many seniors are disappointed with the AARP for working with the Republican party in order to pass the new benefit. This new benefit is too complicated and it does not help the majority of the seniors. Mr. Ernest D. DeBlasis, 73, says, "It's not going to help me... Let's hope Congress revises this thing before it takes effect in 2006." The bill was not made to help those who can pay for their medicine but only for those who have a low income and have trouble paying for perscription drugs. It appears to many that the government cares more about what is going on in Iraq rather than our citizens here in the U.S. The AARP is suppose to take care of our elderly and with this bill they did not do a good job of helping our senior citizens. Our senior citizens helped build this country into the great nation it is today. If the government does not take care of our seniors then we must wonder about the priorities of our leaders. I can understand why this benefit was passed but seniors with low incomes are not the only people who need money from Medicare. Mr. DeBlasis states, "I'm more angry at the AARP than at Congress because they are supposed to support us. They sold us out." Hopefully this benefit will be the first of many to help our seniors because many of them feel like they are not a priority and the AARP needs to change that.
I think one thing that struck me in the chapter is the fact that the authors say that politics are the only way government actions are influenced. I still never understand why our country cannot simply be governed by morals. I know that a government needs to be in place to implement the rewards and punishments that society demands, but is it so wrong to base government policies off of moral thoughts? The campaign ads in my hometown boast how candidates are involved in illicit practices like selling bribes, but we always return to the fact that we want to separate moral beliefs from running our country, when in fact, the majority of our country's people bases their everyday decisions around their moral beliefs; most of these people are hard-working and law-abiding citizens who contribute to our country in a positive manner. If it works for us, why can't it work for our government?
I know that people’s morals are different because people base their morals on their religious principles, and there are many religious beliefs in our country. But I think that our leaders should be able to come up with a resolution that could guide our country morally. Take people who free ride for instance, I know that if I knowingly would take advantage of a situation or someone, I would feel morally obligated to apologize and not do it again. I know I already have morals that guide my thoughts and actions, and I know you can’t make anyone have a conscious; however, I think if our country’s leadership (as a whole and not everyone is immoral) provided a stronger moral foundation, in which they governed us, maybe the rest of our citizens would feel obliged to do the same. We see that the purely secular form of government has its problems, so maybe we should fix them using a new perspective.
In reading this chapter I found it both interesting and surprising how in just the first five years of the twenty first century there have been several huge events that have changed many facets of American politics, such as September 11, the war on terrorism, and hurricane Katrina. I guess it just never hit me as these things affecting American politics so much. I think I was alwasy focused more on the individual people that were affected, especially with hurricane katrina since I am from New Orleans and was directed affected by it. Its astonishing how events such as these have affected the objetives and strategies of politicians and citizens and the policies of the government. A concept that really caught my eye was, "History has shaped our responses and our responses will shape tomorrow's history". Which in a sense I take it as learning from your mistakes, others mistakes, and bettering ourselves as a nation. It almost seems that is catastrophical events such as Sept. 11 and Katrina, that someone like the president can't do right. it seems that no matter what he does or the government does that there are always people that disagree. And I hear so many different political views about these things, such as the war in Iraq, that I feel confused and don't know what think. Like when Bush created the department of Homeland Security everyone seemed to love him and think it was a great idea and then when he reviesed to remove the troops from iraq everyone seemed to turn against him. And I admit, I'm probably quilty of this my self since I have a brother in Iraq. It's just astonishing and some what disturbing how at times when things are needed most, such as collective action, that there are most difficult when the point comes when they are needed the most, such as Hurricane Katrina proved. It makes me wonder how could this happen at such crucial times.
One of the things that I was really interested in was under policy principle on page 29, when it talks about the farm bill that was trying to get passed. I am a farmers daughter from Tennessee so naturally this is something I found interesting. It does not go into specific detail about what the bill contained but at the end of the paragraph it talks about how the bill gives "generous subsidies" for certain crops and "the financial backing for converting corn into ethanol." I had to look up the word subsidy to really know what it meant. The definition is monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. I would say that farming is for sure is a public interest even though they are trying to do away with "old fashioned" farming by coming up with different ways to grow crops. Farming is my favorite past time. I do not like to think that there are people that would try to filibuster a bill that would help farmers and eventually help the rest of America. Democrats support finding new technologies that would help us be less dependent on fossil fuel but they do not want to support our farmers that grow the corn used to make the ethanol that would be used to power an automobile for example. This is why I appreciate Tom Daschle of South Dakota. He was just trying to win his upcoming election but regardless he did what his people would have wanted him to do. Tom Daschle was Senate leader of the Democrats at the time but he still did what was best for his state.
I find the use of hindsight bias by politicians to lie about their previous view insulting to the American people. It seems that a remarkable amount of politicians and current political cadidates claim that they did not supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. Do they really believe that the average American does not remember the all but unanimous support of the President's attack after 9/11? Take the example of Sen. James Webb's (D-VA) comment on Tues. stating, "(I) warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary..." Webb was actually a strong supporter of the attack on Iraq, even encouraging his own son to fight there. It is the right of every human being to use hindsight to see their errors and to attempt better in the future. They do not have the right, however, to lie about their previous actions to gain public support or to seem as if they were more knowledgable at the time than the rest of the country!
In the previous reading for Wednesday I was struck by the section that the writer had on the "The Politics of Perscription Drugs." The reason for this surprise is the amount of bias the author used when describing the success of the Medicare reform bills that were passed. Several times he made it very clear that his opinion was the major reason for the success of the Medicare reform was purely that republicans controlled the house and there was a republican president in power. After almost every example in his progress through his description of the history of Medicare there was a comment on republican leaders or lack there of. For example, when describing the state of affairs in 1994 and 1995, he stated that the "debate changed dramatically after the 1994 elections" and in parenthesis gives credit to the republicans in leadership. He further affirms his bias by stating that although the republicans put reform on the agenda, Clinton vetoed the atempt at reform and "vowed to continue to do so." No where in his evaluation of the reform did he evaluate the issues that were preventing the reform from passing. The description makes a strong implication that democrats were against reform with no effort made for reform, only a strong effort to make sure no reform was made. Such an ignorance to the actual issue faced in the reform politics should certainly not be titled "The Politics of Perscription Drugs, but something more along the lines of the "Popaganda of Perscription Drugs for Election Purposes."
I found “The Politics of Prescription Drugs” to be most interesting to me. How it took so long for it to be passed shocked me and it was for all the wrong reasons. It seems as though politicians were more worried about who passed it first, or was able to get all the publicity. The Republicans controlling both the houses and the congress was a good time to pass the bill. It seem like since Clinton’s health care initiative failed, he use what power he had to not let the Republicans pass this bill. It wouldn’t matter anyway because this bill didn’t really help much. This issue shouldn’t be about the politicians and the government, but to help out the senior citizens and those who are elderly and cant afford to pay for their medicine. The cost of medicine goes up from year to year, so it makes it harder for those with low incomes and the ones who are unable to work anymore. As time goes on, hopefully things will get better.
The part that interested me the most was in the section of "The History Principle". In this section it talks about how there were two major jolts that demanded political attention in the year 2005. One of these two major jolts had a direct affect on my family and me. While going through the chapter someone wrote a comment in the book that said that the only reason that Hurricane Katrina was a political issue was because the democrats were looking for reasons to make Bush look bad. I have to strongly disagree with this person. The book goes on to say that many of the agencies responsible for prior planning and post-emergencies weren't on the same page, and I would strongly agree with them. Being from the New Orleans area I have seen first hand that there is still too much damage unattended to in the city. I'm not saying that is entirely Bush's fault but I do believe that he and the U.S. Government could have done much more by now than they have already done. For example, the 9th Ward is still completely destroyed. It doesnt look like anyone has even been to that part of the city to at least see what needs to be done. So in the near future, I hope that they finally start to fix this problem and begin working on a plan just in the event that disaster strikes again.
In the reading for Friday the thing that caught my attention was on pages 34-35 in the text.
This particular passages talks about the distribution of Medicare.
It states that the government will distribute Medicare to the elderly, but the coverage was only 75 percent and the beneficiaries then had to pay the remaining 25 percent,or 5oo dollars. The elderly would have to pay the first 250 dollars in drug costs for the first year as stated in the text.
The "Medicare Drug Benefit" doesn't seem to be much of a benefit since the elderly can't afford to pay for it. Howw could the government just turn their backs on it's senior citizens when they are the ones who fought the wars and help lay the foudation on which this country has been built.
The AARP corporation was along side with the Republican party in the passing of this bill. The seniors recognize that the Republicans will be in charge for a while and that they will not change this bill.
Post a Comment