Throughout this semester we as a class have been asked to blog once a week about either an assigned topic, or a topic of our own choosing. This weekly blogging exercise was instituted instead of doing writing assignments or papers, and in my opinion this was a good idea.
Before this semester I had never written a blog before, and I wasn’t sure I was going to like it, and after doing it for a semester I have gained an appreciation for it. While there were a few weeks during the last few months where my enthusiasm for the weekly blog waned, overall it was not a bad thing to do. There were some weeks where I felt more inspired to sit down and write, and on these weeks I actually enjoyed it, (well as much as one can enjoy a school assignment). But for me this was a semester filled with long papers and assignments in other classes that I did not enjoy doing, so the blog was a nice change. Faced with a choice of doing multiple writing assignments or a long paper, the blog was a breath of fresh air. It allowed us to write about many different topics throughout the semester while allowing our opinion on to be known. Compared with other classes where I was forced to write a 10-page paper on one subject I cared nothing about, it was nice at times to be able to sit back and write the way I want to.
Now, all that being said, I didn’t like everything about the blog. At times I had no motivation to write it, or just didn’t feel like writing about a certain topic. Another thing I didn’t particularly care for was the requirement to make two comments a week on someone else’s blog. This was harder to do because finding people who posted every week, or finding a post that I felt I could comment on was not always easy. But I understand why the comment requirement was made. It was to make sure we were participating and engaging in blogs that were not just our own, so I suppose I can forgive that.
If I had to give myself a grade for this blog I would give myself an A or an A-. Now this is not being cocky and saying I did a great job, because I’ll be the first to admit that there was more than one week when my post wasn’t very good. But I feel I deserve that grade because I never missed a week for posting, always was on time with my post, and always tried to make as many comments a week as I could. I know not everyone in the class posted every single week, or took the effort to make comments every week, so since I did put that effort forward I feel like I should get an A.
Overall, I thought doing a weekly blog post was a good idea. It wasn’t that complicated an assignment, and it was a simple way to gain participation and points in the class.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Issue Sorting
This week in class we discussed the idea of sorting. Sorting is where the voters sort the issues out to better figure out which issues they care about. The issues that are usually associated with sorting are the social issues that have come to play such a big part is the most recent elections. The idea behind sorting is that people who share preferences on issues and ideologies, are more likely to vote together. Now, does this idea of sorting actually play a big part in our elections?
Overall, I would have to say that sorting does play a part in our elections, and its influence is growing. No one can argue that social and moral issues are playing a much bigger role than ever, especially in the conservative south. So if a group of people all believe in the same social issues, they are more likely to choose the same party and all vote together. They use the party as more of a lens or shortcut. It’s tough for me to say whether or not sorting is playing a huge part in elections, or will it continue to do so. There is no doubt that social issues are playing a larger role, but how much of it actually has to do with idea of sorting is unknown. There are a lot more factors at play, like gender, and regional differences that affect what issues people care about. While I’m sure sorting is playing a role in how people vote, it will be interesting to see if it becomes a bigger factor as the next election nears.
Overall, I would have to say that sorting does play a part in our elections, and its influence is growing. No one can argue that social and moral issues are playing a much bigger role than ever, especially in the conservative south. So if a group of people all believe in the same social issues, they are more likely to choose the same party and all vote together. They use the party as more of a lens or shortcut. It’s tough for me to say whether or not sorting is playing a huge part in elections, or will it continue to do so. There is no doubt that social issues are playing a larger role, but how much of it actually has to do with idea of sorting is unknown. There are a lot more factors at play, like gender, and regional differences that affect what issues people care about. While I’m sure sorting is playing a role in how people vote, it will be interesting to see if it becomes a bigger factor as the next election nears.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Critical Era
Throughout American history there have been numerous events and moments in history that stand out above others as being more important, meaningful, and critical. One of those times for American politics and party politics is the decade of the 1960's. The 1960's was a critical era for American politics because it was during that time period that we saw the nationalization of parties, the opening of the party through primaries, the decline of parties was reconsidered as a change, and there was candidate centeredness through activists. But there was another decade, one more recent that many consider a critical era, and that is the 1990's.
To determine whether or not the 90's were a critical era there are some criteria that must be looked at. First off, one of the factors of a critical era is the presence of elite generational transitions. Is the new generation different from the last? Does the 90's meet this criteria? In my opinion yes it does. The era that started in the 90's was the Clinton era. This era was different from the Bush I era, which was basically an extension of the Reagan era. When Clinton was elected things changed. He was a younger, better looking, more dynamic candidate than the country had seen in years, and was much more charismatic than Bush ever was. Clinton represented the saxophone playing guy with the Fleetwood Mac theme song. He represented a different kind of politician that the country had not seen in years. So in this aspect there was a pretty big generational transition. The second factor of a critical era is public beliefs and actions. This area is a little harder to define, but again I feel that the 90's do fit this criteria. Bill Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in recent memory and therefore I conclude that during this time the public’s beliefs reflected the governments actions. The third criteria is a changing relation between the mass and the elites. I also feel that the 90's fit this criteria as well. During this time a lot of new and younger people started getting involved in politics again and slowly some of the old crustier politicians started to fade into the sunset. Bob Dole was a perfect example of that. Clinton still had that hip, younger guy feel to him when he ran again in ‘96.Therefore I believe that there was a changing between the elites of the time and the mass. The mass was getting tired of the old politicians, and the old policies and were ready for a new direction. That is partially the reason behind why the Republicans decided to reinvent themselves in the ‘90's and follow Newt Gingrich. They had to try to compete with the new wave of masses and try to modernize themselves, which they did to an extent. This lead them to a victory in the midterms of ‘94 and eventually to the presidency in 2000.
Based on the above criteria and my overall viewpoint, while the 90's were not quite as critical as the ‘60's, I still feel it was a critical era. A lot happened and a lot of opinions changed. Policies and attitudes were much different than they were in the ‘80's and I feel that the 90's was in fact a critical era.
To determine whether or not the 90's were a critical era there are some criteria that must be looked at. First off, one of the factors of a critical era is the presence of elite generational transitions. Is the new generation different from the last? Does the 90's meet this criteria? In my opinion yes it does. The era that started in the 90's was the Clinton era. This era was different from the Bush I era, which was basically an extension of the Reagan era. When Clinton was elected things changed. He was a younger, better looking, more dynamic candidate than the country had seen in years, and was much more charismatic than Bush ever was. Clinton represented the saxophone playing guy with the Fleetwood Mac theme song. He represented a different kind of politician that the country had not seen in years. So in this aspect there was a pretty big generational transition. The second factor of a critical era is public beliefs and actions. This area is a little harder to define, but again I feel that the 90's do fit this criteria. Bill Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in recent memory and therefore I conclude that during this time the public’s beliefs reflected the governments actions. The third criteria is a changing relation between the mass and the elites. I also feel that the 90's fit this criteria as well. During this time a lot of new and younger people started getting involved in politics again and slowly some of the old crustier politicians started to fade into the sunset. Bob Dole was a perfect example of that. Clinton still had that hip, younger guy feel to him when he ran again in ‘96.Therefore I believe that there was a changing between the elites of the time and the mass. The mass was getting tired of the old politicians, and the old policies and were ready for a new direction. That is partially the reason behind why the Republicans decided to reinvent themselves in the ‘90's and follow Newt Gingrich. They had to try to compete with the new wave of masses and try to modernize themselves, which they did to an extent. This lead them to a victory in the midterms of ‘94 and eventually to the presidency in 2000.
Based on the above criteria and my overall viewpoint, while the 90's were not quite as critical as the ‘60's, I still feel it was a critical era. A lot happened and a lot of opinions changed. Policies and attitudes were much different than they were in the ‘80's and I feel that the 90's was in fact a critical era.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Policy Change
Since the November 2006 elections, where the Democrats regained control of the House and the Senate, many have wondered why there has been no policy change in regards to Iraq. There could be, and I’m sure are, multiple answers to this inquiry, but in my opinion the answer is fairly simple. It’s not as easy as people think to drastically change a policy such as the war in Iraq. Within the House and Senate there are many committees and subcommittees that the representatives must work through, and work within order to get anything significant done. This can be a difficult process, and can take a lot of time. This can also lead to policy looking different when it comes out of the committee than when it enters it, due to the influence of other members of the committees. Another reason why there has been no big policy change is because the Republicans still hold the White House. President Bush and the Republicans still are in the White House, and are still firm believers in the Iraq policy, and the old “stay the course” mentality. For the members of Congress this can be a very hard situation to deal with. It’s hard to pass any sort of big sweeping change in policy when the White House and the President are against you. This can lead to deadlock on certain issues and makes it very difficult for the Congress to pass anything too significant. Also, when dealing with a policy shift as big as an Iraq one would be, one must be careful. To do anything too drastic, too quickly could have adverse effects. The U.S. cannot simply just get up one day and walk away, which it seems is what some people thought would happen once the Democrats won in 2006. It can’t happen that way. It must be a slower, more thought out process. But that being said, even though the Democratic victories in ‘06 didn’t lead to a policy change in Iraq, no matter what party wins the White House in ‘08 expect there to be some policy changes at that time.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Candidate Assessment
When assessing the current presidential candidates there seems to be a lot of similarities. But then again I suppose one could say that about any presidential elections. For this week we were asked to assess one of the candidates from each party, based on the factors of how electable they are, what kind of image they convey, and which activists seem strategic and which seem less strategic.
When looking at Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, you see someone who is very electable. In fact out of the top three democratic candidates he looks and sounds like the most typical option. He has everything from looks and charisma to a solid platform to run on, so to many observers he is your basic politician. Based solely on the way he looks, sounds, and acts, I would say that he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.
When looking at the image Edwards puts out there, I personally felt it was a little cheesy, but most politicians tend to be so it’s a factor you learn to look past. When going to John Edwards official website you are greeted with a large picture of Edwards with his family. This picture looks like your typical department store family photo taken to send to family members in a Christmas card. But that’s all part of the image Edwards wants to convey. He wants to seem like the guy next door. The run of the mill father and husband. That is his image. The nice, caring family man here to change the country. I’m not saying this is a bad image, in many ways it’s a good image. This country could use a leader who cares and wants to genuinely change the country for the better. But all the emphasis on family and the pictures and everything do seem a bit overboard and as I said a tad cheesy.
Some portions of the Edwards campaign do feel strategic, but overall I think that he truly does care about the issues he talks about the most. On his website he has a to-do list which lists the main issues he wants to tackle if elected. On the list are global warming, Iraq, health care, and jobs and poverty. Most of these issues I feel are not strategy, but issues he cares a lot about. He has been a strong advocate for getting out of Iraq for a long time now, and he really seems to believe what he says. Same goes for jobs and poverty. More than any other candidate he truly seems to want to help people in poverty and in need. As far as global warming, that feels more like strategy. Global warming seems to be one of those bandwagon issues that candidates are jumping on because Al Gore made it cool. It feels like strategy and like he is attempting to be part of the hip global warming crowd.
As far as the republicans go, candidate Fred Thompson is an interesting man. On the matter of electability I’m not quite sure what to make of him. He is a former senator and actor, but he just doesn’t seem to have the “presidential” vibe. Despite Schwarzenegger winning governor in California and Jesse Ventura’s victory in Minnesota a few years ago, the majority of the country doesn’t seem ready to embrace Hollywood as it’s leaders. He may have been a senator, but more people are going to see him as “that guy from Law and Order”.
Thompson’s image isn’t very clear. When visiting his official website everything is labeled with “Fred” in front of it. Like “Friends of Fred” and Fred this and Fred that. It seems like they are trying to make him this guy that you have known all your life, or the fun grandpa who brings you presents when you visit. Despite being an actor Thompson lacks charisma and therefore his public image doesn’t seem to fit.
As far Thomson’s issues seeming strategic or not, I do not believe they are. While every politician has strategy involved in what issues they talk about, the same holds true for Thompson, but I feel that for the most part he really believes in what he says.
When looking at Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, you see someone who is very electable. In fact out of the top three democratic candidates he looks and sounds like the most typical option. He has everything from looks and charisma to a solid platform to run on, so to many observers he is your basic politician. Based solely on the way he looks, sounds, and acts, I would say that he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.
When looking at the image Edwards puts out there, I personally felt it was a little cheesy, but most politicians tend to be so it’s a factor you learn to look past. When going to John Edwards official website you are greeted with a large picture of Edwards with his family. This picture looks like your typical department store family photo taken to send to family members in a Christmas card. But that’s all part of the image Edwards wants to convey. He wants to seem like the guy next door. The run of the mill father and husband. That is his image. The nice, caring family man here to change the country. I’m not saying this is a bad image, in many ways it’s a good image. This country could use a leader who cares and wants to genuinely change the country for the better. But all the emphasis on family and the pictures and everything do seem a bit overboard and as I said a tad cheesy.
Some portions of the Edwards campaign do feel strategic, but overall I think that he truly does care about the issues he talks about the most. On his website he has a to-do list which lists the main issues he wants to tackle if elected. On the list are global warming, Iraq, health care, and jobs and poverty. Most of these issues I feel are not strategy, but issues he cares a lot about. He has been a strong advocate for getting out of Iraq for a long time now, and he really seems to believe what he says. Same goes for jobs and poverty. More than any other candidate he truly seems to want to help people in poverty and in need. As far as global warming, that feels more like strategy. Global warming seems to be one of those bandwagon issues that candidates are jumping on because Al Gore made it cool. It feels like strategy and like he is attempting to be part of the hip global warming crowd.
As far as the republicans go, candidate Fred Thompson is an interesting man. On the matter of electability I’m not quite sure what to make of him. He is a former senator and actor, but he just doesn’t seem to have the “presidential” vibe. Despite Schwarzenegger winning governor in California and Jesse Ventura’s victory in Minnesota a few years ago, the majority of the country doesn’t seem ready to embrace Hollywood as it’s leaders. He may have been a senator, but more people are going to see him as “that guy from Law and Order”.
Thompson’s image isn’t very clear. When visiting his official website everything is labeled with “Fred” in front of it. Like “Friends of Fred” and Fred this and Fred that. It seems like they are trying to make him this guy that you have known all your life, or the fun grandpa who brings you presents when you visit. Despite being an actor Thompson lacks charisma and therefore his public image doesn’t seem to fit.
As far Thomson’s issues seeming strategic or not, I do not believe they are. While every politician has strategy involved in what issues they talk about, the same holds true for Thompson, but I feel that for the most part he really believes in what he says.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
New Party
This week in class we were presented with a scenario that let us pick either the democrats or the republicans and destroy them. Our mission was to build our own parties out of the ashes of the party that we destroyed. The result of that premise for the group I was involved in was a party called the Bear Claws. This new party that we created had some new innovative ideas, and overall played more towards moderates.
The platform for the party involved new, but not too radical, approaches to foreign policy. Examples of this include making a steady plan for with drawl from Iraq, and keeping no more troops there than needed, and focusing more on building their government up. Domestically the party focused on trying to focus more money domestically than foreign, and have no frivolous spending, it would advocate abortion only in cases of rape or health concerns, keeping gay marriage up to the states, and coming up with new fuel alternatives and ending our foreign dependance on oil. On the issue of campaign finance reform we decided that all funds must be raised through a national bake sale. Also the party would target bloggers and younger people, it would have celebrity campaigning, and the candidate would also visit every major college campus, and someone from the party would be required to visit every campus in the country. We also set realistic goals for the party, stating that we did not expect to win the presidency the first time out, but may pick up a few seats in Congress, and we would also be willing to further mold our party depending the results and responses we get in our first election. But now the question remains, would these guidelines be a good thing to follow?
Personally, I feel that these would be good guidelines for a party to follow, although maybe in more general terms. Some ideas like the national bake sale, which I would be a fan of, may go over like a led zeppelin in real world politics. But the main idea that our party brought to the table, appealing to the moderates, I would advocate following. The country today is too polarized and instead of trying to tear down the other person and the other party maybe one of the parties should try moving more towards the middle and attempt to unite more people. There are a lot of people out there who don’t have a strong party connection and have more moderate views. The parties should try appealing to them. I think the people would embrace a party that demonstrated some change. Start to trying to compromise on foreign policy and do what’s best for everyone in the long run, show more fiscal responsibility, don’t spend money stupidly, and take a realistic stance on social issues that are both responsible and logical. Instead of talking about change, make change, do something. Those are some the ideals and guidelines are party advocated that I feel should be followed. Also, our party targeted young people which is something that desperately needs to be followed. The parties are slowly starting to try to do this in different ways, but it needs to be more aggressive. Target bloggers, facebook, and college kids like our party wanted to. Make a mixed cd, and make sure someone from the party visits every college campus in the country. Get out there and make a real effort to reach the youth, and try to establish a connection with them. Like I said the parties now are making strides with this, but for some reason it still feels like they are step or two behind.
Launching a new party would not be easy, but I do feel like following some of our guidelines would be a good idea. Our main ideas were trying to capture the people who were on the fence about both parties and not too far to the left or too far to the right, and also about showing some change. These are guidelines that should be followed. Go after those people on the fence, but do it by showing some real attempts at change. I think these ideas would be useful to follow.
The platform for the party involved new, but not too radical, approaches to foreign policy. Examples of this include making a steady plan for with drawl from Iraq, and keeping no more troops there than needed, and focusing more on building their government up. Domestically the party focused on trying to focus more money domestically than foreign, and have no frivolous spending, it would advocate abortion only in cases of rape or health concerns, keeping gay marriage up to the states, and coming up with new fuel alternatives and ending our foreign dependance on oil. On the issue of campaign finance reform we decided that all funds must be raised through a national bake sale. Also the party would target bloggers and younger people, it would have celebrity campaigning, and the candidate would also visit every major college campus, and someone from the party would be required to visit every campus in the country. We also set realistic goals for the party, stating that we did not expect to win the presidency the first time out, but may pick up a few seats in Congress, and we would also be willing to further mold our party depending the results and responses we get in our first election. But now the question remains, would these guidelines be a good thing to follow?
Personally, I feel that these would be good guidelines for a party to follow, although maybe in more general terms. Some ideas like the national bake sale, which I would be a fan of, may go over like a led zeppelin in real world politics. But the main idea that our party brought to the table, appealing to the moderates, I would advocate following. The country today is too polarized and instead of trying to tear down the other person and the other party maybe one of the parties should try moving more towards the middle and attempt to unite more people. There are a lot of people out there who don’t have a strong party connection and have more moderate views. The parties should try appealing to them. I think the people would embrace a party that demonstrated some change. Start to trying to compromise on foreign policy and do what’s best for everyone in the long run, show more fiscal responsibility, don’t spend money stupidly, and take a realistic stance on social issues that are both responsible and logical. Instead of talking about change, make change, do something. Those are some the ideals and guidelines are party advocated that I feel should be followed. Also, our party targeted young people which is something that desperately needs to be followed. The parties are slowly starting to try to do this in different ways, but it needs to be more aggressive. Target bloggers, facebook, and college kids like our party wanted to. Make a mixed cd, and make sure someone from the party visits every college campus in the country. Get out there and make a real effort to reach the youth, and try to establish a connection with them. Like I said the parties now are making strides with this, but for some reason it still feels like they are step or two behind.
Launching a new party would not be easy, but I do feel like following some of our guidelines would be a good idea. Our main ideas were trying to capture the people who were on the fence about both parties and not too far to the left or too far to the right, and also about showing some change. These are guidelines that should be followed. Go after those people on the fence, but do it by showing some real attempts at change. I think these ideas would be useful to follow.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Early Attack
This past week the Democratic candidates for President in 2008 held a debate. The debates at this stage in an election season usually tend to be pretty formulaic. Not much new information is presented, there are too many candidates all trying to make their points, and so on and so forth. The debate this past week however did have a significant difference in it. That difference was in the tone of it. Most polls and media outlets have indicated for awhile now that New York Senator Hilary Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner, and many already feel that she will win the primary and will be the democratic candidate. Well, after this weeks debate you might as well count the rest of the democratic candidates among those who feel she will win the nomination.
For reasons unknown to me all the democratic candidates seemed to basically take the attitude that Clinton is going to win so lets’s all attack her. Much of the debate centered on going after Clinton and pointing out her flaws and weaknesses. To her credit Clinton handled it like a frontrunner should. She took it all in stride and tried to stick with the issues and make her points, doing nothing to lower her frontrunner status. But the real question that one wonders about this is whether or not this is a good idea for the democratic candidates and the party.
At this stage in the campaign is it really smart for the democratic candidates to attack one of their own? No votes have been cast yet, and even though the primary elections are starting earlier than ever this time around the fact still remains nothing has been decided yet. There is still plenty of time for some of the other candidates to gain ground and we have seen many occasions where the person many believed to be a lock for the nomination has been upset in Iowa or New Hampshire and someone else came along and gained momentum. By attacking Clinton as they did the democrats seem to have agreed that she is going to win, and also it shows signs of panic. The democrats should be trying to stand as united as possible at this point, but instead they are going after their own. This just doesn’t seem like smart logic, and frankly the only one it benefits is Hilary Clinton herself.
For reasons unknown to me all the democratic candidates seemed to basically take the attitude that Clinton is going to win so lets’s all attack her. Much of the debate centered on going after Clinton and pointing out her flaws and weaknesses. To her credit Clinton handled it like a frontrunner should. She took it all in stride and tried to stick with the issues and make her points, doing nothing to lower her frontrunner status. But the real question that one wonders about this is whether or not this is a good idea for the democratic candidates and the party.
At this stage in the campaign is it really smart for the democratic candidates to attack one of their own? No votes have been cast yet, and even though the primary elections are starting earlier than ever this time around the fact still remains nothing has been decided yet. There is still plenty of time for some of the other candidates to gain ground and we have seen many occasions where the person many believed to be a lock for the nomination has been upset in Iowa or New Hampshire and someone else came along and gained momentum. By attacking Clinton as they did the democrats seem to have agreed that she is going to win, and also it shows signs of panic. The democrats should be trying to stand as united as possible at this point, but instead they are going after their own. This just doesn’t seem like smart logic, and frankly the only one it benefits is Hilary Clinton herself.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Party Assessment
In American society there is a two party system. This is the way it is, and the way it has been since the founders made the Constitution. But the question remains, is this the best way to govern America?
When assessing the two party system one finds a lot of holes and problems in it. In my opinion the biggest problem with the two party system is that there just isn’t enough of a difference between the two parties to provide much of a choice. Sure the two parties have differences, but are they really all that dramatically different? The Democrats want one thing, so the Republicans want something that is different, but not too different. Sadly that is the way that our politics seem to go. Not to say that I’m a huge fan of radical third parties or anything, but it is nice to see some different opinions out there. The American people do not have much of choice when it comes to choosing parties, or is it that the American people don’t want much of a choice?
Maybe the reason why there isn’t much of a choice between the two main parties is that the people don’t want much of a change. We as the people like the idea that if we become dissatisfied with the party that is currently in power, by making a change, that isn’t much of a change at all, to the other main party. This allows us to feel that we have more power than we actually do, and that we are really making a difference by electing one party over the other. In reality we aren’t really making a change that is going to matter all that much. In my opinion that is the biggest problem with the current two party system, both parties are too similar. If we ever want to make a real change in this country one of these days we are going to have to step out side the box and vote for something a little different. But, as of right now we have a two party system involves two parties that are too similar.
When assessing the two party system one finds a lot of holes and problems in it. In my opinion the biggest problem with the two party system is that there just isn’t enough of a difference between the two parties to provide much of a choice. Sure the two parties have differences, but are they really all that dramatically different? The Democrats want one thing, so the Republicans want something that is different, but not too different. Sadly that is the way that our politics seem to go. Not to say that I’m a huge fan of radical third parties or anything, but it is nice to see some different opinions out there. The American people do not have much of choice when it comes to choosing parties, or is it that the American people don’t want much of a choice?
Maybe the reason why there isn’t much of a choice between the two main parties is that the people don’t want much of a change. We as the people like the idea that if we become dissatisfied with the party that is currently in power, by making a change, that isn’t much of a change at all, to the other main party. This allows us to feel that we have more power than we actually do, and that we are really making a difference by electing one party over the other. In reality we aren’t really making a change that is going to matter all that much. In my opinion that is the biggest problem with the current two party system, both parties are too similar. If we ever want to make a real change in this country one of these days we are going to have to step out side the box and vote for something a little different. But, as of right now we have a two party system involves two parties that are too similar.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
One Vote
You know when you go to the polls to vote and after your done you get handed a little sticker that reads, “I Voted”? How many people out there put that sticker on and wear it throughout the rest of the day because they are proud that they voted? Or, how many take the sticker and throw it away because they are not proud they voted, but felt they had to? Personally, I take the sticker and proudly wear it, in fact I still have the sticker from the first time I voted. That sticker I never wore, but kept it because I was proud of my first vote. This week the issue of why should people vote came up, with various responses. Some feel that people should vote because it is their civic duty, others feel people should vote based only on the issues, and others still, feel people should vote because of partisan identification, and so on and so forth. You could sit for hours thinking of reasons why people should vote, but in the end only the person going to do the voting knows why they are there.
People may be influenced to go vote because of partisan identification. Many people feel a strong allegiance to one party or another and so they go to vote because of it. This is not wrong. Honestly, this is probably the biggest reason why I go vote. The reasons for why people identify with a certain party can vary. Many times it is because of how they were raised. If someone is raised in a predominantly Republican, or predominantly Democratic household that person is more than likely to grow up with those same predominant ties. But by doing this isn’t that person limiting themselves and failing to fully educate themselves on the whole wide range of issues and party’s? Some people identify with a certain party because they feel that party best supports the issues they care most about. For example, someone voting for the Republican party all the time because they care most about domestic security and abortion, or someone voting for the Democratic party because they are most concerned about the economy and health care. But by doing this isn’t that person ignoring other issues of looking past the individual candidates policies and just voting for the party’s general stance on issues?
Many other people vote basing their decisions solely on the issues. Many care only about one or two issues, like the aforementioned abortion or health care. These people will take this issue into their heads and think that issue and only that issue when making their decisions, choosing that candidate that best represents their stance on the issue. They may not necessarily choose because of party ID, but instead based only on the issue most important to them. Others, may look at more than one issue, but only pick issues that are going to affect them. For example, a college student looking only at issues that pertain to the rising tuition costs and other educational issues. But by doing this aren’t these people being selfish and ignoring all the other issues that they may not care as much about or that do not affect them, but do in fact affect others. There are many issues at stake whether in a local or national election, and ignoring the issues that do not concern you personally may be close minded and is also not doing anything to help the people whom the other issues do affect.
As I said earlier you can sit all day coming up with reasons why people vote, and reasons why they should vote, but you will never get a concrete answer. In the end the reasons why people vote don’t matter, because no matter how much you discuss why and how should they vote, it is never going to change the reasons that one particular person does. Everyone has their own ideas and agendas when going to the polls, and votes according to whatever logic drives them there. In the end though, everyone must remember voting is a right and a privilege. They should not take it for granted. Even though I may not agree with who the person standing next to me is voting for or for the reasons why they chose that person, I still have to remember that they are there enacting their right. They are voting on what they believe is right, as am I. So, no matter what the reason is that got you to the polls, just remember that when your done and the little old lady behind the table gives that sticker, wear it on your shirt for the rest of the day and be proud because you voted.
People may be influenced to go vote because of partisan identification. Many people feel a strong allegiance to one party or another and so they go to vote because of it. This is not wrong. Honestly, this is probably the biggest reason why I go vote. The reasons for why people identify with a certain party can vary. Many times it is because of how they were raised. If someone is raised in a predominantly Republican, or predominantly Democratic household that person is more than likely to grow up with those same predominant ties. But by doing this isn’t that person limiting themselves and failing to fully educate themselves on the whole wide range of issues and party’s? Some people identify with a certain party because they feel that party best supports the issues they care most about. For example, someone voting for the Republican party all the time because they care most about domestic security and abortion, or someone voting for the Democratic party because they are most concerned about the economy and health care. But by doing this isn’t that person ignoring other issues of looking past the individual candidates policies and just voting for the party’s general stance on issues?
Many other people vote basing their decisions solely on the issues. Many care only about one or two issues, like the aforementioned abortion or health care. These people will take this issue into their heads and think that issue and only that issue when making their decisions, choosing that candidate that best represents their stance on the issue. They may not necessarily choose because of party ID, but instead based only on the issue most important to them. Others, may look at more than one issue, but only pick issues that are going to affect them. For example, a college student looking only at issues that pertain to the rising tuition costs and other educational issues. But by doing this aren’t these people being selfish and ignoring all the other issues that they may not care as much about or that do not affect them, but do in fact affect others. There are many issues at stake whether in a local or national election, and ignoring the issues that do not concern you personally may be close minded and is also not doing anything to help the people whom the other issues do affect.
As I said earlier you can sit all day coming up with reasons why people vote, and reasons why they should vote, but you will never get a concrete answer. In the end the reasons why people vote don’t matter, because no matter how much you discuss why and how should they vote, it is never going to change the reasons that one particular person does. Everyone has their own ideas and agendas when going to the polls, and votes according to whatever logic drives them there. In the end though, everyone must remember voting is a right and a privilege. They should not take it for granted. Even though I may not agree with who the person standing next to me is voting for or for the reasons why they chose that person, I still have to remember that they are there enacting their right. They are voting on what they believe is right, as am I. So, no matter what the reason is that got you to the polls, just remember that when your done and the little old lady behind the table gives that sticker, wear it on your shirt for the rest of the day and be proud because you voted.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Minority
In America we are accustomed to a two party system. For the most part the power in the government belongs to two parties, the democrats and the republicans. When one of these parties is in power in the government they are called the “majority” party, and the other party is referred to as the “minority” party. The role of the majority party in government is quite obvious. They are the party in control and has the most power. But, what exactly is the role of the minority party? Do they have role? Is it an important role that even matters? Well, let’s find out.
The role of the minority party is basically to try it’s best to influence the majority and to try to get it’s policies heard and passed. When party loses an election they then step into the role of the “minority” or “opposition” party. When this happens the party then takes the role of the opposition party and does their best with it. They stay strong and confident, doing what they can, all the while having the confidence that the political system will protect their rights to organize and speak out until it is their time to campaign again.
The role of the minority party is important. Without the minority party government would be too easy. The majority party needs that opposition in order to get good work done. The minority party is able to express their ideas and position themselves in such a way that they can get their ideas and policies included. Without that the majority would pretty much have it their way too much of the time. It is important for the minority party to stay strong and try to accomplish what they can, so when they have a chance to campaign again they can have a stronger base to run and have more momentum.
The role of the minority party is basically to try it’s best to influence the majority and to try to get it’s policies heard and passed. When party loses an election they then step into the role of the “minority” or “opposition” party. When this happens the party then takes the role of the opposition party and does their best with it. They stay strong and confident, doing what they can, all the while having the confidence that the political system will protect their rights to organize and speak out until it is their time to campaign again.
The role of the minority party is important. Without the minority party government would be too easy. The majority party needs that opposition in order to get good work done. The minority party is able to express their ideas and position themselves in such a way that they can get their ideas and policies included. Without that the majority would pretty much have it their way too much of the time. It is important for the minority party to stay strong and try to accomplish what they can, so when they have a chance to campaign again they can have a stronger base to run and have more momentum.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Money Trail
As a political campaign unfolds, what is the one subject that always gets brought up when the media and pundits talk about a certain campaign? And no, I’m not talking about health care, or the Iraq war, or education, I’m talking about the behind the scenes subject that is always talked in regards to whether or not the person running for office has a legitimate shot at making it. That subject is money. People can say what they want about the issues being so important in campaigns, but the real truth is that if a candidate doesn’t have money, than they really don’t stand a chance of winning.
Today the real point of a campaign is to raise money. In the current bid for the White House, which is still in the primary stage, the two candidates who have managed to raise the most money are the two who are in the lead for their respective parties. For the Democrats the leader in campaign fund raising is Hilary Clinton. She has a commanding lead in that department over fellow democratic candidates Barak Obama and JohnEdwards. On the Republican side the leader is raising funds is former New York City Mayor, Rudy Guliani. These two have pretty fair leads in the states that have primaries early, and one of the biggest reason is they have the most money to spend on staff, ads, and they can also make more trips to the states to make speeches and stage rallies, which in turn help raise more money.
So in today’s political world the reason a person may get elected to public office is not because they are the most qualified, but because they were able to raise the most money. It’s not necessarily true in all cases, but for the most part it is the way it goes.
Today the real point of a campaign is to raise money. In the current bid for the White House, which is still in the primary stage, the two candidates who have managed to raise the most money are the two who are in the lead for their respective parties. For the Democrats the leader in campaign fund raising is Hilary Clinton. She has a commanding lead in that department over fellow democratic candidates Barak Obama and JohnEdwards. On the Republican side the leader is raising funds is former New York City Mayor, Rudy Guliani. These two have pretty fair leads in the states that have primaries early, and one of the biggest reason is they have the most money to spend on staff, ads, and they can also make more trips to the states to make speeches and stage rallies, which in turn help raise more money.
So in today’s political world the reason a person may get elected to public office is not because they are the most qualified, but because they were able to raise the most money. It’s not necessarily true in all cases, but for the most part it is the way it goes.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Primary Concerns
With the primary season heating up quicker than we’ve ever seen it before, and in unison with our class discussion on primaries, I felt now would be a good time to take a closer look at primaries and weigh in on the debate on whether they are good or bad in relation to the numerous groups primaries effect.
The first group thing we will look at is whether primaries are good for democracy or not. All in all primaries are good for democracy. While they may be complicated and confusing, they still serve a relevant purpose in our countries democratic system. Why? Because by having the system set up the way we do, with caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, and conventions, it spreads everything out very nicely, therefore making it harder for one candidate or party to gain too much momentum in primary season. While yes that does still happen, it helps limit it. It allows the people to play a bigger part, instead of just letting the party leaders choose the candidate they like the most.
Speaking of the people, that brings me to my next point. Are primaries good for voters? Again, the answer to this question is yes. Why? Because as I stated earlier it allows the people to play a part in who the candidate is, instead of only the party leaders. While just like in the general election the people are not actually choosing the candidate, but in the primary they are voting for delegate’s to represent their state and vote for the candidate the state voted for. While not the ideal way for the people to participate, it does get them involved instead of having the old school, party leader, smokey back room, caucus.
The next group that the primary effects is the parties themselves. Are primaries good for parties? My answer to this question is no. Parties do not benefit from primaries and I’m sure they would like it better if there were no primaries. Why? Because primaries take control from the hands of the party leaders. Instead of them choosing the candidate that they feel best represents the platform they want to run on, the public and the states get to make a majority of the decision. Although, much of the time the candidate that was the front runner ends up winning the nomination anyway, I’m sure the parties would like to have to more control than they do in the primary system.
And the last group that I will review is the candidates themselves. Are primaries good for the candidates? The answer to that question is yes and no. For some candidates, especially the lesser known candidates, they can be a good thing because primaries allow them to travel to each state months before the primary and start to build yourself and make a name for themselves. But for other candidates they can be a bad thing. In the past few elections the primaries are getting closer and closer together making it hard for the candidates to spend equal time in each primary state, when seven states all have their primary on the same day. Sometimes this front loading of the primaries can kill momentum for the candidates.
So primaries, good or bad? Everyone has their opinion on it. Mine? I am in favor of them. Overall I feel they help the democratic process. And one other note before I end this, if anyone is interested in watching an interesting take on what goes on behind the scenes of a party convention, I highly recommend tracking down the episode of The West Wing television show called “2162 Votes”. This was the final episode of the shows sixth season. While it may be a bit unrealistic considering how today’s conventions go, it does feature and interesting look at how a convention might go if a party went to the convention with no clear nominee, and had to go to multiple ballots to figure it out. It may be a bit far fetched at the end, but still an enjoyable hour of television. Anyway, that’s all for now.
The first group thing we will look at is whether primaries are good for democracy or not. All in all primaries are good for democracy. While they may be complicated and confusing, they still serve a relevant purpose in our countries democratic system. Why? Because by having the system set up the way we do, with caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, and conventions, it spreads everything out very nicely, therefore making it harder for one candidate or party to gain too much momentum in primary season. While yes that does still happen, it helps limit it. It allows the people to play a bigger part, instead of just letting the party leaders choose the candidate they like the most.
Speaking of the people, that brings me to my next point. Are primaries good for voters? Again, the answer to this question is yes. Why? Because as I stated earlier it allows the people to play a part in who the candidate is, instead of only the party leaders. While just like in the general election the people are not actually choosing the candidate, but in the primary they are voting for delegate’s to represent their state and vote for the candidate the state voted for. While not the ideal way for the people to participate, it does get them involved instead of having the old school, party leader, smokey back room, caucus.
The next group that the primary effects is the parties themselves. Are primaries good for parties? My answer to this question is no. Parties do not benefit from primaries and I’m sure they would like it better if there were no primaries. Why? Because primaries take control from the hands of the party leaders. Instead of them choosing the candidate that they feel best represents the platform they want to run on, the public and the states get to make a majority of the decision. Although, much of the time the candidate that was the front runner ends up winning the nomination anyway, I’m sure the parties would like to have to more control than they do in the primary system.
And the last group that I will review is the candidates themselves. Are primaries good for the candidates? The answer to that question is yes and no. For some candidates, especially the lesser known candidates, they can be a good thing because primaries allow them to travel to each state months before the primary and start to build yourself and make a name for themselves. But for other candidates they can be a bad thing. In the past few elections the primaries are getting closer and closer together making it hard for the candidates to spend equal time in each primary state, when seven states all have their primary on the same day. Sometimes this front loading of the primaries can kill momentum for the candidates.
So primaries, good or bad? Everyone has their opinion on it. Mine? I am in favor of them. Overall I feel they help the democratic process. And one other note before I end this, if anyone is interested in watching an interesting take on what goes on behind the scenes of a party convention, I highly recommend tracking down the episode of The West Wing television show called “2162 Votes”. This was the final episode of the shows sixth season. While it may be a bit unrealistic considering how today’s conventions go, it does feature and interesting look at how a convention might go if a party went to the convention with no clear nominee, and had to go to multiple ballots to figure it out. It may be a bit far fetched at the end, but still an enjoyable hour of television. Anyway, that’s all for now.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Game On
Ladies and gentleman welcome to the heated race that is the 2008 Presidential Election! Wait a second, does that really say the "2008 Presidential Election" or did I just make a spellig error? No, you read correctly, and I made no spelling mistake, we really are talking about the 2008 Presidential race. The '08 election may be over a year away, but already we are are hearing so much about it, and the race is becoming quite heated already that one might think the election is this November. This is quite an exciting time to be following politics.
So one might ask, if the election is over a year away why is the public being bombarded with so much information about something that is still so far way? The people don't even know who the fianl two candidates are going to be yet, but there is still so much coverage and talk about it. In my opinion there are a couple reasons for this:
1.) The '08 election presents a unique case that has not presented itself in politics for many years. The situation in '08 is that there is no imcumbent candidate running, nor is there a vice president running. In most other elections at least one side has a candidate that is pretty much pre-chosen. If the sitting president is on his first term than chances are he will run again and automatically gets the parties nomination. If the sitting president is in his second term, than in most cases the vice president will run, and he also pretty mcuh has a lock on the parties nomination. But in this election Vice President Cheney is not running therefore leaving the field wide open on both sides to select a candidate in the primary.
2.) The country is more polarized now than ever. President Bush's two terms in office have been a roller coaster ride that started with 9/11 and have taken us into the Iraq war, and everything in between. Because of everything that has happened during his presidency the country is now very divided. President Bush has hit record lows in approval ratings, and frankly all signs seem to be pointing towards the country wanting a change. Having an ongoing war that the next president will have to inherit just makes the election that much more high profile. Knowing that this president will not be finishing the war makes the media and the public that much more interested in what the possible future president will be doing with it, therefore lifting the profile of the election to new heights for this stage in the race.
As I stated earlier this is quite an exciting time to be following politics, and specifically this election. Just this past week after General Petreaus gave his update on the Iraq war, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton over her remarks regarding the General's report. With stories like this one would think that Giuliani and Clinton had one their parties respective nominations and were the only two candidates. This is usually the time in the campaign when you hear the candidates take shots at the others running for thier parties nomination, but then again this is no ordinary election.
I strongly urge everyone to start following this election closely. If it's so enjoyable to follow at this stage just imagine how much interesting it's going to get in the next year plus. All I have to say to the candidates is, GAME ON!
So one might ask, if the election is over a year away why is the public being bombarded with so much information about something that is still so far way? The people don't even know who the fianl two candidates are going to be yet, but there is still so much coverage and talk about it. In my opinion there are a couple reasons for this:
1.) The '08 election presents a unique case that has not presented itself in politics for many years. The situation in '08 is that there is no imcumbent candidate running, nor is there a vice president running. In most other elections at least one side has a candidate that is pretty much pre-chosen. If the sitting president is on his first term than chances are he will run again and automatically gets the parties nomination. If the sitting president is in his second term, than in most cases the vice president will run, and he also pretty mcuh has a lock on the parties nomination. But in this election Vice President Cheney is not running therefore leaving the field wide open on both sides to select a candidate in the primary.
2.) The country is more polarized now than ever. President Bush's two terms in office have been a roller coaster ride that started with 9/11 and have taken us into the Iraq war, and everything in between. Because of everything that has happened during his presidency the country is now very divided. President Bush has hit record lows in approval ratings, and frankly all signs seem to be pointing towards the country wanting a change. Having an ongoing war that the next president will have to inherit just makes the election that much more high profile. Knowing that this president will not be finishing the war makes the media and the public that much more interested in what the possible future president will be doing with it, therefore lifting the profile of the election to new heights for this stage in the race.
As I stated earlier this is quite an exciting time to be following politics, and specifically this election. Just this past week after General Petreaus gave his update on the Iraq war, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton over her remarks regarding the General's report. With stories like this one would think that Giuliani and Clinton had one their parties respective nominations and were the only two candidates. This is usually the time in the campaign when you hear the candidates take shots at the others running for thier parties nomination, but then again this is no ordinary election.
I strongly urge everyone to start following this election closely. If it's so enjoyable to follow at this stage just imagine how much interesting it's going to get in the next year plus. All I have to say to the candidates is, GAME ON!
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The Party
In today's society which political party a person belongs to is becoming a more and more important issue. The country may be more polarized than it has ever been before and therefore that may lead to some spirited debates regarding which politcal party a person belongs too. But have you ever stopped to wonder what exactly a politcal party is?
According to the website Wikipedia a political party is "
a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power within a government. The party's policies often represent an aggregation of interests within the party, which will inevitably vary considerably even between party members. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government."
Overall, this is a good definition of what a politcal party truly is. The two main parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans, are very good examples of this definition. Both parties seek to attain political power in the government, and there are a general set of beliefs that the parties subscribe to. But while that general set of beliefs serves as a basis for most members of the party, it does not restrict every member of the party to have the exact same beliefs. We see a good example of that in our government every day right now due to the amount of support that President Bush has lost from his own party. Many members of the Republican party don't agree with his current actions, especially in the matter of the war in Iraq. But this shows that while all those people may belong to the same party, they do not all share the exact same beliefs. That is the beauty of our country and the way it set up, everyone can have their own beliefs and opinions, but for the most are all able to peacefully co-exist.
According to the website Wikipedia a political party is "
a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power within a government. The party's policies often represent an aggregation of interests within the party, which will inevitably vary considerably even between party members. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government."
Overall, this is a good definition of what a politcal party truly is. The two main parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans, are very good examples of this definition. Both parties seek to attain political power in the government, and there are a general set of beliefs that the parties subscribe to. But while that general set of beliefs serves as a basis for most members of the party, it does not restrict every member of the party to have the exact same beliefs. We see a good example of that in our government every day right now due to the amount of support that President Bush has lost from his own party. Many members of the Republican party don't agree with his current actions, especially in the matter of the war in Iraq. But this shows that while all those people may belong to the same party, they do not all share the exact same beliefs. That is the beauty of our country and the way it set up, everyone can have their own beliefs and opinions, but for the most are all able to peacefully co-exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)