Blog Assessment

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.

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.

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.