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