1. During the period leading to the Revolutionary War,
| a. | subsidize the East India Company. |
| b. | pay for providing military protection. |
| c. | supplement the low salaries in the House of Commons. |
| d. | compensate for travel expenses of colonial representatives to Parliament. |
B, we were in much the same position in comparison to
2. For years, the imperial center in
| a. | being ruled by an inattentive king. |
| b. | preoccupied by a war with |
| c. | in the midst of quelling the Irish rebellion. |
| d. | pursuing a deliberate laissez-faire policy toward its territorial possessions. |
B
3. The British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre were defended by a pillar of
| a. | John Adams. |
| b. | James Madison. |
| c. | Thomas Jefferson. |
| d. | George Washington. |
A. the authors use this fact to illustrate the conservatism and upper-class loyalties of the Founders, but I argue it is more an illustration of Adam’s character—a belief in order and a willingness to take up unpopular causes. In Adam’s case, we have unusually good evidence of his motivations because of the extensive and intellectually serious correspondence he had with his wife, Abigail.
4. The Declaration of
| a. | James Madison. |
| b. | Thomas Jefferson. |
| c. | George Washington. |
| d. | Alexander Hamilton. |
B. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB! Who does not know this? No one misses this. No one misses this in
5. The relationship between Congress and the states under the Articles of Confederation was much like the contemporary relationship between the
| a. | state of |
| b. | United Nations and its member states. |
| c. | General Motors and its subdivisions such as Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Cadillac. |
| d. | Disney Corporation and its media networks, production companies, and resorts. |
B. Keep this in mind. In fact, the UN is somewhat stronger institutionally than the Articles of Confederation, something to think about, for better or worse.
6. During the winter of 178687, John Adams of
| a. | set a blockade around |
| b. | relinquish control over the lands to the west. |
| c. | negotiate with each of the thirteen states separately. |
| d. | require war reparations before signing any new treaty. |
This is a key point. The theory of democracy tells you that the majority rules, but majority of what? Democratic theory has no answer for the question “of what?” There are always people that aren’t included in the group that could be added and subsets of the group where you can find a different majority.
7. Between 1783 and 1785, the
| a. | free trade policies. |
| b. | economic policies including drastic currency inflation. |
| c. | generous agricultural subsidies and severely protective tariffs. |
| d. | eminent domain activities for an extensive statewide park system. |
B. “Free trade” is an idea that wasn’t yet common, even though it had already received its classic statement in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. The government wasn’t sufficiently well organized to offer agricultural subsidies even if it had wanted to at that time. It is the idea of printing money and inflating the currency that is really the problem at this point in history. Think about whose interests are affected and how by such a policy.
9 comments:
One thing that is beginning to bug me is the idea that our textbook is putting forth about rationality. The writers claim that all political actions have a purpose. This so-called "Rationality Principle" sounds fine in theory, but in practice it is somewhat untrue.
First off, for the writers to claim that a political system behaves rationally, they must assume rational actors, individuals and groups that desire to act either for a certain purpose or belief. Furthermore, rationality assumes rational decisions. What is the best way to do something based on either precedent or "best means to the ends." For an individual, that is fine; perhaps even for a small group. However, the problem with this logic is that, when applied to a large complex political system like ours, irrationality is inevitable. Under the circumstances by which our government acts and the political structure to which we adhere, there are far too many places where irrational behavior or individuals can insert themselves. To make such a blanket statement is far too simplistic and in need of revision. Nevertheless, since I know I am stepping on some toes, allow me to provide an example.
Over the summer, I worked as a Field Manager for Working America. Working America is the political action arm of the AFL-CIO and actually organizes more working families than the all of the AFL unions in the country. Under its banner (as you could probably guess) are a wealth of working issues and a vehement opposition to candidates that vote against them. However, because it is a political action arm only partially funded by the AFL, Working America cannot continue to fruitfully grow for the lack of dues from most its members. What this creates is a budget deficit on their part as organizing is fairly expensive. So what did they do? Well, last summer, at a private meeting, Working America SOLD parts of its non-dues-paying member list to a group of Republican politicians who were, in fact, opposed to worker's issues.
Now, in this instance, you see irrationality entering when the acting party makes a decision that ultimately contradicts the goal simply to perpetuate the organization. This is only one possibility out of many. Also, I know some may claim that this, in and of itself, IS a purpose. However, when working to achieve a goal, to contradict that work is fruitless. In my example, Working America gained some extra funding but actually lost ground and also failed to correct the problem. This irrational behavior negated their purpose and that of their members. Yet, such is the case within our political system.
Justin Huckaby
I love politics. The whole art of our nation's government amazes me. I found myself in American Government in high school with a feeling of awe due to the fact that our Founding Fathers were almost geniuses. Now I do not agree with everything that they stood for. Slavery for one is wrong and immoral. The Three-fifths Compromise was probably one of the worst things passed in the history of our government. It is degrading to think that a person could look at five white people and look at five black slaves and not consider two of those persons as individuals. This is not the point I am trying to make with this response. The point I am going for is that the idea of three branches of government is amazing to me. Now I know that this idea did not originate in America, but the Founding Fathers were wise enough to adopt this idea of government. The distribution of the different jobs to the three branches was a very wise thing. This way the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are not stepping on each others toes, yet, still, the three branches work hand in hand to get certain things accomplished. I also like the idea of how the different branches balance each other out. No one branch has a majority of the power. Congress can override the president if necessary, and it ultimately decides who will be passed to a member of the presidential cabinet and as a Supreme Court justice. The president can veto any bill that congress has passed into law, and the president nominates potential Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court can rule that a law passed by congress is unconstitutional and rule any action taken by the president as being unconstitutional. The whole idea of checks and balance is amazing. Some people feel as though the different branches sometimes take things too far. I feel as though they are doing what they think is necessary to make this country better. Yes, most actions are taken and opinions are made base around party affiliations, but still there is some form of betterment in the basis of it all.
The "campaigning" done by the Federalists and Antifederalists during the fight for the ratification of the Constitution is a model of how modern American politicians should campaign. I think that this would be nice because each candidate would have to actually look at an issue and actually write or speak about it. I know we have some open debates during election time, but they just don't effectively push candidates to directly argue the issues. I think that every politician could learn from "Publius" and "Brutus" how to approach a debate about important and prevalent issues, and I also think that it would show politicians that a person with strong beliefs and ideas that he or she intends to back up if elected is the best way to win an election. I think politicians and American voters lack faith in each other, so we should all learn from history that if a politician campaigns in a manner that truly educates the American people on the issues at hand, then Americans will respond by voting in his or her best interest and the nation's best interest as well.
I also want to comment on the Antifederalists concern for the checks and balances system and how they thought it would be ineffective; nevertheless, this system still works in present day. With our recent elections, the legislative and executive branches are now ready to check and balance themselves. It is by political party divides that makes the checks and balances system effective in modern society. We have a Republican president and now a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; because of these political party divides anything the President tries to enact the Congress will potentially stop, and anything Congress does the president will most likely veto. Before this election we previously had a Republican president and a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They still balanced each other, but not as well because both branches had the same agenda: advancing their political parties views. I just wonder if political party divides are what the Federalists and Antifederalists thought would be what actually made the checks and balances system work.
I find it interesting how the federalist and anti federalist have evolved since the later 1700’s even thought they are not still parties they are still someone seen in political parties today. The way the federalist movement of the 1780’s went with the proposition that the article of confederation were to weak. Once they thought the problem was fixed by amending some of the article and composing the Constitution. The anti federalist came to the point that they wanted a more decentralized government. I could not image America today if it was not set up by its set of checks and balances. I look at the way it works in the world today and cannot imagine living in a country that is any different. I love how the federalist believed that the government should be representative of the people. I also can see where the anti federalist were coming from when they did not want the leaders to be the elites because they were scared of the elites running the country with all there power but I do strongly agree with the federalist that the elite are best fit to govern. This is especially true for that time period because they were usually the best educated.
The fact that our founding fathers can take something that did not originate in our country and say to themselves that it is a good idea is something that I have great respect for and is very unusual I believe for people to do when founding something themselves. The reason I say this is because in my experiences in people always want to be the ones who come up with the idea or get all the fame. I think that the way that the three branches balance each other out is amazing. It really just says to me that everyone and everything in the country is created equal.
My initial reservations about causal analysis in political science have compounded because of the Tocqueville reading. My understanding of causal analysis is it is an effort to put everything in three categories. These categories are the cause, effect, and other. My concern spreads to all three categories. First, the cause and effect categories are subject to many fallacies. The most prominent are causation fallacies. It is easy to assume that because A happened before B that it is the cause of B, or that if A increases and B increases that A’s increase caused B’s increase. Tocqueville has an example of this in his writing. He assumes that the cause of the progress in Ohio and lack thereof in Kentucky is due to slavery. But, just because there is a correlation between the two factors does not make one a cause of the other. The third “other” category causes concern due the question of what is put in this category. Grouping things as important or not important makes analysis simpler, but does not make it more accurate. This grouping causes fallacies in composition, which assume that the individual is the same as the group, or that an individual’s opinion is true of the group. Tocqueville also gives a good example of this fallacy. He groups all of the Kentucky whites together as being afraid of work because they would appear as slaves, and goes on to describe a lazy, war loving man that has no pride in his work or money. On the other hand, he groups all of the Ohio whites as ambitious and prideful men who he describes as having a sense of heroism in their greed. I am sure that Tocqueville came to this conclusion through his observations, but his biases dismiss many causal factors which are replaced by his own perception. This perception leaves some very important factors in the “other” box.
Upon reading this section the fight over ratification between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists grabbed me by the throat.
Both parties seemed to only be interested in their well being and how it could benefit them. But on the other hand it did reflect some views of society. The Federalists wrote the "Federalist Papers" in which they agreed with the Constitution. Then the Anti-Federalists published their own essays saying that the Constitution betrayed the Revolution and was headed toward complete monarchy.
In a way I kind of side with the Federalists because of the sentence in the text that reads, "goverment must be represenative of the people,but must also have a measure of autonomy from the people." This is saying that the government must represent the people and be able to relate to the people, but at the same time sort of hover over the people in order to form a well established government.
The Anti-Federalists believed that represenatives must be "a true picture of the people possessing the knowledge of their circumstances and their wants," as stated in the text. This I do not agree with because then the people will look at them as their equal and feel that they should not listen to them. The people might think that they have just as must authority as the government does.
I believe that if the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists actually listened to each other then they could have come to a compromise that would have worked out great. I believe that they were both so scared of tyrannical rule that they did not even think to come to a compromise.
Today’s discussion touched on a subject that I’ve always wondered about. Why would the greatest and most powerful leaders of the time decided to turn the world upside down when they were on top, at least in their own lives. Both the idealistic and materialistic ideas have pros and cons as far as reasons for the founders supporting the rebellion.
Parallels definitely can be found as compared with today’s government, if the founders’ reasons were idealistic and/or materialistic.
Questioning the founders’ motives can be similarly looked at with today’s elected officials. Today’s elected officials are mostly made up of the more elite of this country’s society and enjoy an upper class life. The colonial planters and merchants enjoyed such lifestyles and were usually well educated. Both could basically lead the people and country in any direction they wanted. What’s to say that the founders really didn’t just want America for themselves. Being the elite of the era the country would be theirs’.
Just like today it seems like our leaders lead the country around with false bravado into situations with questionable reasons of doing so. Not to say the revolution wasn’t a good thing and good people who had high ideals helped the birth of this country or that today’s politicians are any less of idealists.
American politics and especially politics that coincide with economics have existed in repeated cycles throughout our history. The constitution was written to primarily define what property was, how it belonged to an individual or a group of individuals, and what rights the government had to appropriate that property. Keep in mind the distinct polarization of "political" parties during this time. For ease of reference we will refer to the competing forces at the time as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (arguably the Democratic-Republicans). Each party was motivated to insure the survival of their own regions economy. Parallel that to today with the fight between the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicans support a smaller government (one that is massively informed however) supported with low taxes. Obviously this benefits those who do well in society more than those who do not. Everyone pays taxes and its a fact of life that the rich pay more taxes than the poor do. But should the rich be punished for realizing the opportunity this country affords them? On the other hand, the Democrats seem to want to socialize many of the private industries that make up a Capitalistic economy. Providing health-care for all is a completely noble endeavor, no one is arguing that. But how does that kind of program get funded? With higher taxes and a larger government to manage the various new agencies. It will be interesting to see what the people of this country will go for in 2008. If we are to consider what came from the 1780's as an example, the party that encourages the most amount of freedom to the states with the smallest government needed as the hub will prevail.
In my opinion, I’m surprised that the constitution has only been amended twenty-seven times, since then of the amendments occurred in the first few years of the United States history and tow cancel each other out, the Constitutions has been amended only fifteen times since 1791. So, almost seventy-five percent of the amendments were adopted in the first half of the nation’s life. I assume the process of passing an amendment restricts the amount because of there being so many people that can shut it down. It amazed me that most laws explain what the people cannot do the amendments explain what the government cannot do.
All the twenty-seven amendments have a purpose that I completely agree with except the twenty-third amendment, extended voting rights to the District of Columbia. People in Washington D.C. are part of Virginia and Maryland so they should be able vote for those states. It doesn’t make since to add the District of Columbia as a state when it does not hold the same qualities on the state. I am not sure if the people in Washington D.C. even pay their “state taxes” to Washington D.C.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Amendments have served a great purpose in the history of the American government creating most of the liberties and rights that we take for granted today.
Post a Comment