Latino politics

Over the past couple of years, Latinos have gained significant ground in the American political scene. Progressing from being almost non-existent in American politics in the early 90's, Latinos have gained nearly 20 seats in Congress in the past decade. The Latino population has played a crucial role in the elections in several states, as whichever candidate wins the Latino vote often wins the election. This fact has helped the Latino population, as politicians are now more willing to fight for Latino rights and reform in Congress. Issues like Latino civil and political rights, immigration, and language policies have come to the forefront of heated debates in Congress, when 15 years ago these topics would never have even been considered. President George W. Bush has even broadcasted his speeches over Spanish radio in the U.S., and the Republican party has been broadcasting on Spanish language television in order to establish closer links with the Latino people. Latinos are slowly growing from a mere political minority to a dominant force in politics. Latinos have also been influential in the workplace, as they are willing to work for longer hours and less money. This issue has been a real problem for "native" Americans whose jobs have been "stolen" by these Latino immigrants. Government has also had to pay more attention to this issue as it slowly becomes more heated. In conclusion, the Latino population is steadily increasing in the U.S., and someday it will not be a simple minority. Latinos have already made their presence known in the workplace and in Congress itself. Who knows where the Latino population will end up in the next 50 years. 

Reaction to "Blowback"

First, this article challenged me to look at the United States in a way that I had never really thought about-that the United States is really an empire. I had never really considered the U.S. to be an empire, simply because I thought that all empires ended at least 100 years ago. But, after being presented with this article, the U.S. certainly does seem to have built quite an empire. We influence much of what goes on in the world today, either directly, indirectly, or in ways that only certain people know. We are always trying to find the best way to better ourselves-no matter what price other people in the world have to pay. It certainly makes me uneasy to think that the U.S. government is doing a lot of things that I don't know about, especially if those actions are going to jeopardize the safety of innocent Americans. "Blowback" is an unfortunate consequence of the way the U.S. pursues foreign policy and the way the U.S. attempts to remain on top of the world. Most surprising to me was the fact that the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am Flight was retaliation for the Reagan administration's aerial raid on Libya! All those innocent people were killed probably without even knowing anything about this raid. Who knows what will happen to us in a few years, as who knows what the government is secretly doing at this moment?

    Further, I do not necessarily agree with Johnson's assertion that terrorists attacks are one type of "blowback". Terrorists are usually unaffected by American policies; they just hate America for whatever reason. It was also surprising to me that, at one time, Osama Bin Laden was actually supported by the U.S. to help drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we upset him by putting our soldiers in his home country, Saudi Arabia, which apparently is against his religion. Now Osama is the man terrorizing the country and remains one of our greatest enemies. 

    Finally, the United States needs to be more careful with its foreign policy. Firing cruise missiles blindly and with the wrong information is never a good thing, especially when the targets are in Africa. The U.S. officials need to think through their actions AND their consequences instead of acting at the spur of the moment. The U.S. must be more careful with the routes it is taking, and U.S. officials must also consider the negative effects that their decisions could have on innocent American people years down the road.

Joseph Nye Article

This Joseph Nye article from Soft Power makes some good points, but it also makes some points that I do not necessarily agree with. First, Nye defines "soft power" as the ability to shape the preferences of others and "hard power" as the use of military or economic power to shape these preferences. He then goes on to describe the three main resources of a country's soft power: culture, political values, and foreign policies. Governments are able to control all of the hard power assets, but not all assets of soft power lie in government's hands-popular culture often reacts to government actions, as in the Vietnam war. Similarly, government used both its hard and soft powers during the 2003 Iraq War. Rumsfield wanted to prove America's military strength, while others in government saw this war as a chance to bring the power of democracy to the Middle East. This implantation of democracy has both positives and negatives-as it will only be affective if the Iraqi people prove to accept this form of government(which remains a challenge today). Further, I do agree with Nye's assertion that Anti-American sentiment has been growing over the past few years, but I do not agree with him on the fact that America is the world's only superpower. America may be a superpower, but I certainly do not think that we are the only superpower-China is on the rise and the growing European Union is slowly becoming more powerful in the world economy. We cannot "take this decline in our attractiveness lightly", as our soft power resources are dwindling as our popularity in the world decreases. Lastly, I also agree with Nye's assertion that "we need to adopt policies that appeal to moderates, and to use public diplomacy more effectively to explain our common interests". Instead of catering to the extremes of policy, we need to look more towards the middle in order to be effective. Most people are in that conservativish-middle, as fewer people remain on the extreme poles. The United States must find an effective way to wield both our hard and soft power to continue to dominate in world affairs.

Welfare Reform Reaction

According to this article, welfare reform seems to be presented in a good light and is supported by a good deal of Americans. Especially in the 1990's, in accordance with the booming economy, government funds were permeating through all modes of life. Also, the call for welfare reform was called for more than ever. With the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, people were forced to move away from depending solely on welfare. New requirements were made to qualify for welfare, and people had to do more to qualify for welfare. It certainly hit close to my heart to hear Carolyn's story of desperation and need for help. Welfare is for people like her-who are struggling to make it by even though they are trying to do everything they can to make it. Welfare should not be for people who are not even trying to work. Although it can be very difficult to decide who gets the privilege of welfare and who does not qualify for it, only people trying to improve their situation should be able to receive the assistance. Welfare reform has truly changed the old face of welfare, as people are more active in trying to improve their positions and not simply depending on welfare as their means for life. It is difficult to say how effective these reforms have been, as the success is only relative. But, I think, in terms of people receiving welfare who really need it, that it has been more successful. The most deserving people seem to be receiving the aid, and those who previously abused the system have not received the benefits.

Question #4: Does media in the U.S. improve or undermine government?

Media, even though it does have its drawbacks, does improve the government in the United States.  First off, good government consists of effective leaders who are able to lead the U.S. in the right direction. This fact may mean that government actually does respond to the will of the people, which sometimes is necessary, but it also means that the government must be able to make decisions that are not always popular- it must be able to move the country forward even if there is not total disagreement in one area. Media plays a huge role in the U.S. government, as it serves to inform the people about what government is actually doing, and it also serves to inform the government of the wills of the people. Media, therefore, is a "necessary evil", as others have stated previously. It certainly does have its drawbacks (journalists often try to dig up dirt on politicians), but it also serves as a liaison between the people and members of government.

First, media improves government in the United States because it keeps the people informed about government's actions, and it keeps government informed about what the people want. The media often influence the actual agenda of the government, making sure that the requests of the people are often recognized at the higher levels. Journalists and reporters can have a huge effect on the decisions and policies of politicians, as they can say whatever they want about the actions of government. The media tells the American people what is really going on, for the most part, because most Americans would never be able to figure out what government is doing if they could not hear it on the radio or on the news.  With the nationalizing of news, the media keeps the American people informed about what is going on in Washington D.C.. The media also plays an informative role in the election process. Without the media, it would be much more difficult for voters to attain information about the candidates they are voting for because they would really have to dig for information. But, because the media has become so involved in government, it helps to educate the American people about candidates and helps to guide the people to make an informed decision about who they think would represent them the best. Finally, the fact that the media is not regulated by government only furthers the strength of American democracy. Every opinion and voice is able to be heard in America, even if it is critical of government and its policies.

On the other hand, media can serve to undermine government and its policies. Sometimes the media gets involved too deeply and affects policies too much.  Since journalists have a more personal relationship with politicians than most people, they can really sway the policies that that politician might endorse.  Journalists are the ones who inform the people about that politician, and, in order for the politician to be portrayed in a good light, he may have to do a "favor" for the journalist. This fact undermines government because it causes some corruption. The media should not really have that much sway.  Also, media can be very biased and can present information through a clouded glass.  The media has the power to change people's opinions rather easily depending on what information they send to the public.  If a journalist is biased toward one politician, he might make him seem like a better person even if the politician that journalist does not support is actually doing the right thing.  This power of "framing", or the power to influence how events and issues are interpreted by the American people, can undermine the power of government.  Media does have the power to influence Americans towards a negative or a positive outlook on government.  Thus, media can undermine and effect popular opinion of the government.

In conclusion, the media is necessary in American government because it keeps the people informed about governmental actions, and it keeps the government informed about the will of the people.  The media, though, must not abuse its power and influence in government so that government can run itself and not be run by the media.  The media, too, must realize the effect what they say about government has upon the American people.  Politicians must not allow journalists to take advantage of their situation, and they must not allow themselves to be affected too much by what the media portrays them as.  As long as media assumes a responsible role in the government, they certainly improve government itself. But, if the media abuses its power and becomes too much of an influence in government, it can serve to undermine the power of government and influence the American people in a negative way.

Does Voting Matter?

Voting is one of the fundamental parts of “American Democracy”.  When people think of America, they often think about how everyone has the right to vote and voice their own opinions—unlike many other countries in the world.  Voting certainly does matter; as many of our ancestors have died just so future generations could have the right and blessing to vote.  Even if you think that your vote does not count, it really does.

            Voting matters because, as a United States citizen, you have the right to choose whom you think will best govern our country.  Even though it may seem like your single vote does not really have any effect on the election as a whole, it does.  Your vote could be the vote that breaks the tie in the election, and it contributes to your candidate’s total number of votes no matter what.  If only a few people showed up to vote, then who would be choosing the leaders of our country?  We would be leaving that decision up to the few people who actually did decide to vote.  This fact certainly does not represent democracy as a whole and does not effectively represent the views of all U.S. citizens. 

    Finally, voting matters because it allows the people to have some control in the government.  Government should not be able to completely control and regulate our lives, and government itself is regulated by the people’s vote.  In order for a candidate to be re-elected, he must at least attempt to listen to his constituency and show his constituency that he truly does care about those people.  If he refuses to listen or simply does not do a good job while in office, his chances of being re-elected are certainly in jeopardy.  Also, voting gives the American people a significant voice in government in who we think should be leading the country and how those leaders should handle themselves.      

Federal Budget Process

1. President submits proposed budget to Congress

2. Congressional committees report budget estimates

3. Action completed on Congressional budget resolution

4. House consideration of annual appropriations bills

5. Action completed on conference committee reports

6. House completes action on appropriations bills

7. President submits Mid-Session review of budget

(From http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101799d.htm)

http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud.htm

The Battle for the Bailout

In order for Congress to have passed the bailout bill, President Bush had to be happy with it.  He ultimately has the final say in the matter, and, if Congress had not listened to Bush's requests, he could easily veto the bill and get the process started all over again.  President Bush knew the dire situation of the economy, and he knew that somehow this bill had to be passed.  Not only is it the President's job to pass legislation, but he also keeps the American public informed of the status of the bill.  It is his job to try to keep the American public's support of this bill and to encourage the public to get Congress to pass the bill.  So, basically, President Bush has the final say in the matter- he decides whether the bill will become law or not. He also helped to keep the American public informed and tried to keep the public optimistic about the bill's probable effect on the economy.  Thankfully, President Bush did agree with the bill that both houses of Congress finally agreed on, and the bill was signed into law on Friday afternoon.

SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309

  

Senate vs. House of Representatives

First, the Senate's main powers include the requirement to ratify all treaties with other countries, the power to try all impeachments, and the ability to advise the President on his government appointments.  Not included in these powers, however, is the power to initiate revenue-raising bills- this power is given to the House of Representatives.  On the whole, Congress itself has the power to raise revenue, "provide for the common defense and general welfare", regulate the "militia", and regulate interstate commerce...along with a few other responsibilities. In foreign policy, also, Congress has the power to declare war, combat piracy, regulate foreign commerce, and regulate military institutions. Congress holds a great deal of responsibility for the American people it represents.  Both the House and Senate are there to represent the will of the people, and they are also there to keep the other two branches of government in check.  Without Congress, the American people would not be properly represented.

Stalemate/Nature of Representation

Stalemate happens because of the varied representation present in Congress. Different interests come into conflict over a certain law or decision, and this conflict, many times, keeps any progress from happening. The House of Representatives is more concerned with the interest of the people, while the Senate is more concerned with the "landed interests of society".  Because of this bicameral, or two-housed, legislature, stalemate occurs often because different concerns come into conflict with one another.  

     Gridlock, another name for stalemate, occurs because of divided parties in Congress and the bicameralism in the legislature.  Divided parties have divided interests in the legislature, so it is truly almost impossible to get the parties to agree on anything. Similarly, bicameralism's inherent setup seems to promote stalemate because of the ideological differences between the House and the Senate. Personally, I feel that this gridlock is an appropriate representation of the will of the people. If one party was able to pass whatever policies or laws it desired, then the American people would be at an incredible disadvantage.  Inevitably, one party would be left out and cut down because of these new policies favoring only one group.  Gridlock is necessary in order to compromise between different interests and figure out what is best for everyone. Even though bicameralism has its problems with gridlock, it is still an effective body of government because it effectively represents the will of the people.  

Courts or Legislation?

Historically, the courts have had the most impact on desegregation.  Although Congress passed the 14th Amendment, it was the Court's job to enforce this legislation and to interpret the words expressed in the Amendment if they should come up in trial. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the courts upheld a Louisiana statute that required segregation, saying that the "equal protection of the laws" stated in the 14th Amendment was not violated as long as the facilities were separate but equal.  So, the Court interpreted the Amendment in one way...later it would change its opinion.  In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled that "separate education facilities are inherently equal"- completely contradicting what it had ruled almost 60 years earlier in Plessy.  Congress could present and pass legislation, but the Court had the power to interpret that legislation whatever way they seemed fit. 

I don't think that it was the Court's fault for the backlash that occurred, especially in the Southern states, after Brown v. Board of Education.  The Court has the power to rule what it thinks fit for the whole country, and it is the states' responsibility to follow the rules set forth by the Court/Federal government.  The states can throw a hissy fit and say what they want, but, ultimately, they have to do what the Court and federal government tell them to do.  Further, I don't think that it would have mattered if federal legislation had been passed concerning desegregation.  The states(especially in the South) were not going to be happy with whatever ruling came about from desegregation.  If there was desegregation- it could have come from the President, Congress, or the Court- the states were going to be upset and there was almost certainly going to be violence. 

Incorporation Blog

Selective incorporation is a ruling of the Supreme Court that allows for parts of the Bill of Rights to be included in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment for a particular case. Basically, the Supreme Court is attempting to rule that only certain parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the 14th Amendment. American federalism seems to have slowed incorporation down- or at least a little bit. The cases that came to the Supreme Court had to go through state courts and lower federal courts, and sometimes the Supreme Court even changed its mind on the ruling of a certain incorporation. Barron v. Baltimore started the move towards incorporation, as Barron tried to argue that he must receive just compensation from the state for depriving him of his property. Barron used the 5th Amendment to bolster his plea, but this Amendment only protects one from the national government- not the state governments. So, the Supreme Court rejected Barron's plea. This case was held before the 14th Amendment(1833), so the story may have been much different if the case had been held in the 1880s. In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko argued that his murder sentencing had occurred because of "double jeopardy" and that he cannot be guilty according to the Constitution. But, since he was tried in state courts, the Supreme Court could not prove his innocence because double jeopardy was not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Barron, Palko could not be helped because he was not a victim of the national government. Finally, in Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights protected by the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. This case is different from the other two because the Supreme Court actually does rule in favor of the people--free speech is protected by the 14th Amendment. 

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

    First, an unfunded mandate is a program of the national government where the government imposes a certain national standard upon the states without providing any funding- all the money comes directly from the states' budgets.  Of course, the states would probably not recognize this mandate unless the government had some sort of way to force them to, so the government operates under "regulated federalism".  Under this federalism, the government gets the states to comply with its demands by threatening to cut off federal grant money unless the states' governments agree to accept the national standards set by the national government.  An example of an unfunded mandate would be current President George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.  This act set a certain national standard in order to improve student performance on standardized tests, and it also punishes schools where students do not improve.  Although this idea seems to be very nice and helpful, it is very expensive for states to put in motion and has begun to lose support.

    Next, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was passed in 1995 under President Bill Clinton.  This Act limited unfunded mandates and was one of the first pieces of legislation adopted by Congress in 1995.  This Act allowed for any mandate that had an estimated cost of $50 million a year or greater could be stopped and discussed on the floor in either house of Congress.  Even though this Act does not stop Congress from passing unfunded mandates, it forces them to think twice before they actually do put them into action.  Similarly, devolution also deals with the issue of setting national standards.  Devolution in general is the policy to remove power from one area of government and pass it down to a lower level of government.  Like the "UMRA", devolution is an attempt to allow the states to have more power and more independence in their decisions.  With devolution in place, some national standards still do remain, but the national government has delegated more authority to the states.  The national government has also given the states more funding for these programs, too.

    In my opinion, devolution is more effective in limiting unfunded mandates in actual practice. Since 1995, many unfunded mandates have still been imposed upon the states, costing the states a good deal of money and sacrifice of their own power.  Under the UMRA, President Bush has still been able to pass the "No Child Left Behind Act", the "Transportation Act", and a few other matters of legislation.  These new policies have cost state governments a good deal of money, and they have also been forced to accept national regulations in order to receive whatever federal funding they had been receiving previously.  But, under devolution, the states have been able to gain more authority in numerous aspects, especially welfare.  States have been relieved of many of the national regulations that once held them down and limited their own personal budgets and programs.  Also, devolution, unlike the UMRA, has provided the states with funding for their programs.  All in all, devolution has allowed state governments to have more authority over programs and policies that were once under the national government.  Devolution has also supplied the states with more funding, allowing the states to accomplish what is on their own agendas.

Terri Schaivo

In this particular case, the government should have some involvement, but I believe that the ultimate decision should rest with Schaivo's parents. Although the husband is her legal guardian and claims that she had asked for a "dignified death", he could be making those words up just so he doesn't have to deal with her anymore. There was nothing in writing of her ever saying anything like that- so he really has no right to claim that she ever said those words. The Florida court should not have allowed him to remove the feeding tube in the first place...there was no hard evidence that it was necessary to remove the feeding tube. Not enough research or consideration for her life and her parents' lives was carried out. The courts should have at least heard the parents' arguments for Schaivo's life- it is their daughter after all. They were the ones who invested the most time in her life and were probably the ones actually taking care of her at this stage. I think the courts made a mistake in refusing to grant the parents' appeal.

Assignment #3

Although they serve very different purposes, the Honor Code at MBA and the U.S. Constitution share a few similarities. First, they both serve to regulate how people act. The honor code holds the student body at MBA responsible for their actions, and the Constitution holds the U.S. government responsible for its actions. Also, the honor code gives students many freedoms that they would not otherwise have. MBA is built on the foundation of trust, and, without this trust, students would never be able to leave their backpacks outside, take a test without a teacher in the room, or take a make up test at home. Similarly, the Constitution puts the power to govern the U.S. in the hands of a limited number of people. The U.S. population is basically putting their trust in the government and the Constitution to govern fairly, make good decisions, and do what is best for the greater good. Finally, the honor code is maintained by a body of power, the Honor Council- just like the Constitution is maintained by the power of the government.

There are still a few differences, however, between these two documents. First, the honor code only pertains to the actions of students at MBA. The Constitution lays the basis of government for the whole United States. Basically, the Constitution affects a much greater body of people. Also, the honor code was put into effect to attempt to prevent cheating at MBA. The Constitution was made to form the U.S. government and provides the basis for government today. Finally, the honor code did not take quite as much deliberation or time to create as the Constitution did. It took much careful planning and an incredible amount of deliberating for the Constitution to finally pass and be put into practice. 

Assignment #2

The purpose of government includes three things: to maintain order, to protect private property, and to provide public goods. Government is really needed to keep control of the people- since anarchy will take over wherever government is not(and anarchy is chaos, and chaos is bad). According to the book, politics is 'the struggle over who gets hat, when, how".  Personally, I feel that politics impedes the government's primary purposes.  The goal of politics, also according to the book, is to have a share, or influence, in the government and its policies.  Politics, though, only leads to competition between opposing viewpoints and perspectives.  And, since government seems to be taken over by politics, this competition is not always good for the government itself.  Competition between political parties and/or members of government takes the focus away from the primary goals of the government and puts the focus on an individual's goal to gain more power.  Even if the individual is trying to gain more 'rights' for the good in one perspective, it is almost impossible to please everyone.  Government cannot exist without politics, but politics can be a hindrance to a successful government.

Blog Assignment #1

This year in AP Government I really would like to learn how politics and government actually work. To be honest, I do not know much about how politics or government really work...both are usually just something on the news that I don't really pay much attention to.  This year I would really like to gain a greater understanding of politics and how everything really works.  My main reason for my somewhat disinterest in politics is because politics is mind-boggling to me.  You have to follow it so closely it seems like, and it seems like you have to know every detail to understand what people are really talking about.  Basically, I just really want to figure out what is going on so I can actually follow politics.  I have always been interested by what is going on in politics, but I have never been able to understand what is going on.