Latino Politics in America, reaction

Garcia uses data from the 2000 elections and prior information to emphasize the rise the Latino voice in the political arena of the country. He shows both their percentage in the population as well as their growth rate to be increasing at great levels, suggesting that the "Latino vessel" that many spoke of in the 1990s has finally arrived or begun to arrive. He also charts that Latinos demographically tend to support Democratic candidates, although the results in 2002 showed that the once large gap between Republican and Democratic support was narrowing due to the rise of the Latino middle class. His example of the case in Dalton, Georgia shows the increasing influence and growth of the Latino population, as well as the negative and positive consequences of this expansion.

Overall Garcia simply emphasizes that Latino influence is on the rise, and although they have dispersed throughout the country, their cultural identity and desire to be heard in the political process is likewise increasing.

Blowback, reaction

Johnson argues in his essay for a sort of imperial and political karma, termed as blowback, that haunts every expansionist and self fulfilling policy it enacts. He believes that the majority of the obstacles in foreign policy and global conflicts have been created by former acts of America's Cold War self, seen at that time to be necessary for survival.

The most important fact that he presents in his essay is the duality of "terrorism" and terrorist-like acts. As he accurately points out, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," and the ability to see the oppostite side from our own in viewing America's military actions in retrospect allows for far greater perspective on the global situation, especially in regards to terriorism. Rather than pursue further attacks, he proposes that conflicts of the past could have been solved by simply removing our presence from certain parts of the world. The danger in such thinking, however, comes back to soft power. Soft power can exist between enemies as well as allies, and although some opposing rises to power may have been preventable, our perception in the minds of our enemies must also be taken into account when deciding strategy.

His most powerful point in the essay seemed to be his bit on the future and the unintended consequences that the innocent will face, most likely ones which they had no say in. Terrorism always lashes out on the innocent to punish the powerful, and in all likelihood those innocent will prove to be punished for sins that their generation did not commit, as history tells us. Johnson believes that if America does not rid itself of its Empirical nature and outlook on the world, this punishment will lash out furiously and more intensely than ever in the upcoming generation.

Response to Joseph Nye

Nye argues in this article that a country's "soft power," rather than its hard military might, can be the most effective in influencing on the global stage. He defines soft power as the ability to get other countries to desire the same end that you as a country desire. To accomplish this, one must feed on the attractions and inducement of other countries by tapping into its cultural and political values, and its foreign policies and using them like mataphorical weapons.

Nye also makes a case against the "neoconservative" approach, saying that enthusiasm for the spread of democracy may be in theory beneficial, it may also not necessarily be shared by the parties involved. Therefore the soft power is not actually gained as believed and this "unilateral" policy fails to deliver. He appears to take a rather skeptical view upon politicians and the political process, especially with regards to more conservative thought, saying that they shift the blame to inevitable conditions rather to themselves.

Ultimately, Nye traces our losses in soft power back to the recent events of the Iraq war (foreign policy) and the power of public image as portrayed to the masses. Our attraction worsened, and as result our soft power decreased, with many people viewing America as an imperialist type machine. He makes a very solid argument about multilateral policy making: if soft power is about attraction through shared values, the others must have a say in the policies as they should know their own values more than us. By achieving this level of coordination, American soft power would inevitably increase throughout the world.

Despite his skeptical demeanor, he ends the essay on a high note, believing in the ablility of the United States to regain its balance of soft and hard power in foreign policy just as we have done in the past.

Sharon Hays' Essay on Welfare Reform, a reaction

Hays's essay begins with the charting of the Welfare Reform Law of 1996 that flooded states with federal funds to fit their individual needs in the welfare area. She sets up a comparison between two "state" policies (Arbordale and Sunbelt), and how their approaches differed and remained neither too generous or extremem.
Her main argument: the logic of the welfare recipient as being trained to become a respectable mainstream worker, thereby turning independence into a simple notion of paid work, is fundamentally flawed....1) the assumption that most recipients previously lacked motivation to work. 2) the work typically available to welfare recipients does not offer the support necessary for that type of independence.

She argues that for some, welfare has provided just the financial boost that a family has needed in order to gain stablity, but for many, the welfare reforms required the opposite of what desperate families/mothers needed at the time. It was telling to hear how many of the recipients had a positive outlook on their situation, regardless of how much it was improving--the vast majority of them were grateful and optimistic.

An interesting quote: "At a practical as well as moral level, the services and income supports offered by the PRA have clearly been positive. Yet in the long run and in the aggregate, poor mothers and children are worse off now than they were prior to reform." The question of "is work better than welfare" seems to be one that Hays is putting forth to be debated.

She covers many of the issues, but oddly seems to focus only upon recipients who are mothers? She believes that welfare does work in many senses and provide worthwhile aid, but that it is merely a chip in the efforts needed to respond to the social changes and problems interspersed throughout the lower tiers of the social hierarchy.

Essay: Elections and Government

Do elections contribute to good Government?

If "good government" pertains to the advancement of Democracy through enhancing the ability of citizens to partake in governmental participation, while also socializing political activity for the masses, then elections by all means is a major contributor. While there are many factors that contribute to all around good government, elections stand out among others as a unique institution, a practice subject to rules and regulations that can be predicted and standardized. It is through this institution that nationwide politcal participation can take place on a scale as large that of elections.

One of the most important, yet often overlooked stengths of elections is that they allow for civilized, mass political involvement. As witnessed by human activities throughout history, competition between large groups of people with clashing interests often is reduced to anarchical, sporadic and often violent activity--a fight to the death. Elections allow this exact activity to take place. The difference, however, lies in the formality of national policies that "civilize" these interactions, making the process of mass participation accessible and predictable. In this way elections not only encourage citizens to partake in these political activities, but they establish order by reducing the liklehood of volatile action.

An equally important role of elections in contributing to good government is to increase support for governmental power. Contrasting with the approach of authroritarian regimes, democratic governments must always keep a close eye on citizen-government relationship. Elections not only work to rally support for political leaders in the government but they are tools for legitimizing rule. By allowing the people to vote, government gains a kind of "acceptance" from the them that allows policies to be more nationally accepted. In exchange for voicing their political opinion, the masses are voicing their accepting the policy of those in power. By providing this legitimacy, in accordance with taming and giving rules to the act of nationwide political participation and competition, elections contribute to and reinforce good government.

Does voting matter?

One of the most fundamental rights of any citizen within a Democratic society, such as that of the United States, is right to influence government to more accurately represent their interests--a right most clearly defined in the ability to vote. While some elections, as in that of the President, are not directly deomocratic, voters nevertheless have an important say in the outcome. One of the most important aspects of voting is simply the action, the exercising of a citizens natural right. The result of most elections may still leave a large group (slightly less than the majority) unsatisfied with the results, but without this process of public voting the democratic spirit of the country would be non-existant. Dealing with presidential elections, many citizens argue that since the process is not direct and the decision passes through an electoral college that their vote is meaningless. The electoral college, however, has pledged to cast their vote in line with the majority in their section. While some of these members may, and have broken this pledge in certain circumstances in the past, these occurances are rare and in most cases the opinion of the state is represented through the college. Strong voter trends in particular states may also be a discouraging factor for many voters, as a tradition of party voting may be very difficult to break in a state's history. Despite some of these trends, the current election shows that some states once thought to be sure-captures for either party have moved closer and become toss-up states. These changes prove that no traditions are set in stone; it is never pointless to cast your ballot, even when a state has had a strong, consistent history in similar voting. While those who do not believe in the political process may be hesistant to vote for any political candidate, more and more citizens are encouraging each other to be proactive about using their political voice and showing up on election day. Voting not only allows every man to contribute to the political decisions and appointments of his country, but it is the means through which the purest sense of democracy shows up in the political process, connecting the people to their representative government, if only briefly. Voting does matter.

The Federal Budget Process

1. Budget formulation- in this process, a budget undergoes various processes of request, markups hearings, and voting to decide details of the budget. In this process it will pass back and forth between Congress and the agency and will undergo various conferences in which the agency and Congress negotiate to settle their differences. At its final step the finished version will either be signed into action or vetoed by the president.
2. Execution- small changes may be made to fit the budget to appropriate resources, resources are allocated, and any investigations regarding them may occur.
3. Congressional oversight- continues for three years, after which Congress will remark on the success over that period.

http://www.budgetanalyst.com/Process.htm
-links avaiable at each step

Bush and the Bailout

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a2PslgpVvrCI&refer=home

According to several different sources, President Bush has lost the support and faith of Congress in this issue of the bailout. The bill, a now 400+ page document (began as two-and-a-half) filled with extra earmarks, was finally passed last week and signed into law by the president. The result of this process, however, has been rather revealing about the state of the administration as well as the lack of faith that Congress has in it. The initial failure of the bill, caused by disagreement in the administration's own party, shows this lack of unity/support/ect. which exists within the party and the administration. The above source and several others suggest that the President had to go to desperate measures of various "arm-bending and begging" of the Congress in order to pass the bailout. Such extents would suggest a serious lack of power in the Presidency, which is already bottoming out in approval ratings, especially in such critical times as this economic emergency. Clearly, the trust in President Bush has waned. In order to sign the bill he almost certainly must have compromised with whatever stipulations that Congress put on it, and the situation in general has an air of desperation on the President's part.

Powers of Senate vs. Powers of House

The House and Senate in many situations have similar powers which play off of eachother, such as in the creation of laws/bills. Either the Senate or the House can propose a bill, and each have equal opportunity to ammend and either support or shut down that bill and in this way, have very similar powers. In a way, the Senate overlooks and approves the actions of the House and gives them the OK, essentially the nod of approval of their actions. The Senate does, however, have few specific powers that House does not. The power of "advice and consent" in presidential appointments and treaty making, for example, is a power reserved to the Senate. Most Congressional powers, however, work out to be a balance between House and Senatorial influences so that neither can dominate in decision-making.

Organization of Congress

House Speaker- the chief officer of the House of Representatives and can influence agenda, legislations, and member positions
Majority Leader- the elected leader of the party that holds the majority of seats in the House or Senate. He is subordinate under the Speaker.
Minority Leader- the elected leader of the party that hold the minority seats in the House or Senate
Majority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the majority party members on votes
Minority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the minority party member on votes

Representation and Gridlock

Identify several causes of gridlock. Is gridlock an appropriate representation of the will of the people, or is it the result of so many arcane rules that the Congress will never be effective?

Gridlock is usually a result of having a "divided government", in which one party occupies the Senate while the other occupies the executive office. When an issue arises, especially in a time of national crisis, quick action may sometime be required on behalf of the government. The question then is taken to the Senate, where a bicameral legislature must vote to approve a bill or law which is question. If the bill is proposed by the president, then a disagreeing Senate can start a filabuster, essentially killing the bill through inaction. The inverse can occur when the Senate sends a bill to the presidential office for approval, and the president may choose to veto the bill. Essentially, gridlock is this point in which both sides pursue their own interests and effectively bring a halt to progress.

There is no direct solution to gridlock, because first and foremost it is a result of the checks and balances, inherent to Republican government, which keep one power from becoming dominant. Without such a system there would be no end to the policies of specific branches. On the other hand, such limitations make passage of legislation in a time of crisis, when action is critical, very difficult to achieve. While these specific arguing sides may represent the respective people that they are associated with, the will of the people does not include a lack of action due to politics.

Courts or legislatures?

Which branch or level of government had the greatest impact historically on desegregation? The Court's role in Brown is sometimes criticized for failing to address its limited enforcement power and generating an incredible backlash that actually worsened race relations. Is this criticism fair? Would pursuit of federal legilation have been a better strategy?

The Supreme Court, or the judicial branch, historically had the most impact on desegregation because they were the branch with the power to interpret laws and decide what actually constituted "segregation". Although these decisions cannot be enforced without the law-making legislative branch, the initial racial revolutions took place within the courts and their ability to change interpretations.

As for the Court's role in Brown, the racial issues of division and the incredible resistance which desegregation encountered cannot be placed upon the court itself. While the result of Brown only dealt with the educational sphere, it was the first step in a chain events in the revolution of civil rights. Ultimately, it was not the responsibility of the courts to deal with limited enforcement. The fact that many state governments could use delay tactics and deliberate disobeyance falls unto Congress to change; but these two branches work hand-in-hand, neither one being a "better choice" necessarily. The legislatures need Constitutional authority (from the courts) to pass a law, while the courts need legislative assistance and political support to implement orders. The relationship between the two, therefore, is one of checks and balances, as was intended, and the fault cannot fall upon one and not the other.

What is selective incorporation? Did American federalism support incorporation or slow it down? Why? Compare Barron v. Baltimore, Gitlow v. New York,

Selective incorporation=the ability of the Supreme Court to decide which parts of the Bill of Rights they will include in the interpretation of the 14th Ammendment for a specific case. Therefore depending on the case, the Court can decide apply one or more different Ammendments to the context of the case.

Federalism in a way slowed down incorporation because it took many years after the establishment of the 14th for incorporation to even be considered. Many cases took place in which the defendent argued against state's rights and their ability to infringe on the citizens, and in many cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Not until the acceptance of a citizen as being both of the STATE and the COUNTRY could the 14th be applied to civil liberties. In this way, federalism acted as a brief hindrance to this development of selective incorporation.

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

Identify and describe an unfunded mandate. Then compare the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act with devolution. Which strategy do you believe would be more effective at reducing unfunded mandates in actual practice? Why?

An unfunded mandate is, at a basic level, a federal order to state governments which requires various specific action, but which provides no money or funding for that action. Thereby it falls to the local government itself to pay for the implementation of this federal law or requirement, and essentially, to tax-payers themselves. Although there have been numerous proposals to deal with the problem between local and federal government power in these situations, the Unfunded Refor Act and the principle of devolution of power are the two primal suggested means to deal with this problem.

While both paths towards solving the unfunded mandate problem offer possible solutions, they are in fact very different in their approaches. The Unfunded Mandate Act, enacted on March 15, 1995, proposed varied procedures to prevent Congress from demanding actions of state government without alotting the proper funds. The act basically gives a ceiling cost for both local government and the private sector at which to analyze bills and ensure the accuracy of their costs. Areas in which these analyses are not performed are subject to judicial review. The theory of devolution, on the other hand, takes the approach of empowering the decisions of the central government to the state itself. In this case, the local governments would be able to decide how it allots its spending and have more control over these unfunded mandates. While one approach simply limits the central government, the other gives small amounts of its power to the states below it.

While analyzing which of these two methods is the more sound is difficult, the changes of modern politics must be taken into account. The Unfunded Mandate Act, while seemingly protective state governments from unfunded mandates, can actually be manipulated by modern politics in Congress. Should a bill not be analyzed as proposed, it will not be allowed to pass. By a majority vote, however, the bill can be kept alive and continuous "delaying strategies" can result in expensive mandates for states. Because of the way the Congress has evolved and representatives seem more and more to be representing themselves, rather than their state, this Bill could easily be manipulated and become less effective in fighting these mandates. As a result, the act of directly giving the states more say in the matter through devolution and more power to regulate their spending, the unfunded mandate problem could be much more effectively dealt with.

Should the government (state/federal) have a say? v. Terri Schiavo

The fundamental question: is terminating the life of a person in a vegetable state (removing feeding tubes, taking off life-support, ect.) wrong and should government be able to decide if its wrong?

The answer is no.

Moral values and religious beliefs aside, such a case is, plain and simple, a private issue. Assuming that a family member knows one of their own better than the federal government, the final decision should be left with the loved ones of that individual. While the government may be free to persuade and influence a decision, it is not their duty to make decisions which should be reserved to individuals on whether or not someone is in a state worthy of life or not. What involvement or personal attachment does it have to that specific family's case? None. It is simply an attempt to impose moral, perhaps even religious, beliefs upon a situation which requires judgement based on the level of hope in the situation and the invidividual beliefs of the family.

Of course, one could argue that government could put in place a law to prevent rash decision making in a case where the outcome is not yet certain and the said person's life may not truly be doomed. However, in a situation where the life of a family member is reduced to a vegetable state, a state in which the individual loses the ability to operate independently and make his own decisions, the responsibility should fall on the shoulders of that persons family, not government to judge the "sustainablity" of that life as well as its future.

Is the Constitution too easy to change? Is it too hard to change?

Madison on Article V: "it guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

Although Madison claims the Constitution to be balanced in its stance on ammeding, history and the progression of time has shown that the Constitution proves extremely difficult to change. In the two centuries following 1789, only 27 of 9,746 have been ratified. This statistic is very stunning, although the context of these attempted ammendments may have been worthy of such denial. To be finally passed, an ammendment must undergo a series of voting through the House and Senate as well as ratification by various legislatures and conventions.

While the Constitution should indeed be difficult to ammend to prevent corruption, the right of passage which an ammendment must undergo seems almost unrealistic. Whether this is a blessing or an obstacle is debatable. It seems comforting on some level to know that not just any proposal will be adopted by the document which essentially defines our government, but at the same time it makes you wonder whether many a worthy proposal has been denied by the rigorous selection process.

What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

Similarities:
Both are attempting to keep something in check; while the honor code attempts to lay out guidelines and standards for the students, the Constitution does so for the government.
Both set a standard to be followed by their respective audiences.
Both suggest consequences for not following standard procedure.
Both can be exploited through individual interpretation.
Both require obedience of those to whom they are directed

Differences:
The honor code is limited to moral and judgemental behavior, while the Constitution involves legal guidelines and consequences as well.
The honor code includes a slight "grey area" in its interpretation, whereas the Constitution lays out more concrete guidelines (although grey areas can still be found in Constitution).

What is the purpose of Government? Does politics support or impede that purpose?

The purpose of govenment is most simply, to safeguard the liberty of those whom they have power over. Government is power and in a Republic or Democracy, the government has the job of exercising its power to support the general interest of the people. The problem which arises is that the people do not for the most part represent their interests directly, not do they all share the common interest or the interest those with whom they disagree.

In this manner, politics serves as a means more accurately serve the interest of the people engaged in the politics. Since each and every citizen is not likely to have his personal interests served through government action, politics attempts to call attention to the interests which are not being represented. It is a two way road, however, as politics in reality may turn into a dirty business of coersion, bribery, and other forms of corruption. While politics allow the voices of those who opt for change to be heard, there is no gaurantee that those voices will be heard or at least responded too.

So the relationship which emerges between government and politics is one of checks and balances: politics must exist so that a government cannot serve ONLY the interests of a minority or majority, yet government must also intervene and regulate should politics get out of hand and violate the law. It seems as if neither can operate independently of eachother and they continually complicate eachothers roles, especially with the introduction of corruption and self interest.

What do I hope to accomplish in Gov this year?

I want to understand not only the fine aspects of a functioning government (and maybe the things in the fine print), but also to get a better understanding of just basic functions. There are alot of references in the news that I'm not actually familiar with and would like to understand, mostly so that I can form a better opinion about politicians.

Along the lines of politicians, I would also like to be able to tell how realistic political promises are in today's government (e.g. the policies which the upcoming candidates propose to institute once they are elected). Basically I want an objective view, not a view of either party's ambitions or claims, something which the media makes ample news about. What are the hard facts? How much power does government actually have? How much do we have? What goes on in Washington every day that we dont think about? How does today's form of democracy compare to that of the vision of the Founding Fathers? The answers to these questions in real life application, not theorized, is what I hope to learn from the class. As well as how our government stands up against those of other countries, as far as functional freedom and opportunity goes.