Bailout Poll

Recently Congress has agreed to try to give Chrysler, Ford, and GM $15 billion dollars out of the $34 billion they were asking for (the number is as of yet not finalized). The decision was made only after Nancy Pelosi agreed to President Bush's demand that any money given was to be given out of a fund to develop more fuel efficient cars and not the economic bailout fund. The bill on the distribution of the money that will be reviewed sometime next week is said to include the provision for a board of trustees that will ensure that the auto companies are reformed with the money. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts also made it clear that the money will be loan and not a gift. The suffering companies have already cut thousands of jobs due to low car sales throughout the country, GM has made 11,000 layoffs this year.  Congress was also asked to think of the trickle down effect, meaning the effect that the bankruptcy of the three companies would have on smaller businesses that rely on them for their supply or their business. But even though this money may be able to help the three car companies, it does not eliminate the possibility for failure. 

christie 

the national security team

The appointments are thus:

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense.
Eric Holder as Attorney General.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Susan Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations.
General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret) as National Security Adviser.

Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona, has recently gathered such prestigious awards as one of the Top five governors in America (Time Magazine) and one of America's top women leaders (Newsweek). In recognition of these national accomplishments in addition to the many advances she's made as the Arizona governor (not to mention making a historically conservative state take a more liberal stance), Barack Obama has chosen her to assume the role of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. With her innovative problem solving skills, Napolitano will no doubt do a great job in her new position, but there are definitely many Arizonans who fear the progress she has made as governor might head in a different direction.

Hillary Clinton (the biggest celebrity pick on the team) was presented with the dilemma of either resuming her role as one of the nation's most recognized and successful senators or becoming the Secretary of State and taking on the public face around the world of the Obama administration. The choice ultimately came down to the position that Clinton thought she would have the greatest influence over public policy. Although Clinton was quickly rising in the Senate (and gaining more and more acclaim) the opportunity to be the Secretary of State was evidently too great to pass up. Some will still no doubt argue over her decision of the Executive branch over the Legislative branch and the future implications of her decision.

Bingo Words:
• Hope
• Togetherness(unity)
• Community
• Safety and security
• Global Leadership

Order of Sections:
• Economy
o Community in crisis but solution is at hand
o Cut taxes for poor and 95% of Americans
o Universal mortgage credit- protect peoples homes
o Add jobs-(auto manufacturers)
o Green sector jobs- innovative new job creation
• Trade- want to trade ideas
o Export American brilliance-marketplace of ideas
o Free trade must be fair- free and fair
o Amend NAFTA

Immigration also needs reform

• Immigration
o Work with Mexico to promote economic development in order to decrease/eliminate push factors for immigration
o Fix bureaucracy-up the number of legal immigrants
• He believes that immigrants are people
• Immigration is not a virus
o Increasing border patrol including technology- SAFETY
Border safety transition into Foreign Policy

• Foreign Policy
o War in Iraq –time table, decrease troops
o Leads to Afghanistan
o Leads to diplomatic relations
• Wants to strengthen NATO to guard new threats
• Open discussions
• Reassertion of global leadership
Transition into Energy-need to lead the world in leadership in energy

• Global Leadership
o Education
o Health Care
o Energy Development
• Education
o Goal: lead the world in creativity, achievement, and success
o 21st century education- students able to lead the world
• Early Childhood
• K-12
 NCLB reform
o Higher Education
• College tuition credits

• Health Care
o All kids are insured
o Everyone can be covered even with pre existing condition
o Can keep old healthcare if you like it
o Save Americans money
o All Americans healthy if planet is healthy
• Energy
o Climate Change
• Petroleum Oil
• Pollution
• Inefficiency
• Solutions

US-Iraq Security Pact Poll

The US and Iraqi parliament have been debating on whether a joint US-Iraq Security Pact should be signed by December 31, when the UN mandate governing troops in Iraq expires.
Here is a run down of the 24 page pact:

Article 4: All military operations undertaken in Iraq must be conducted with the agreement of the Iraqi government and should be "fully coordinated" with Iraqi authorities through a joint U.S.-Iraqi committee. However, U.S. and Iraqi forces have the right to "legitimate self defence within Iraq" as defined by international law.

Article 12: Iraq will have the right to prosecute U.S. troops and associated civilians for "grave premeditated felonies" committed "outside agreed facilities and areas and outside duty status." Should they be arrested however, they must be handed over to U.S. custody for the duration of the investigation and trial, and U.S. forces are responsible for certifying whether the alleged crime took place while the individual was on "duty status."

No such immunity is extended to private security contractors, over whom the agreement grants Iraq the "primary right to exercise jurisdiction."

Article 15: The U.S. military must present Iraqi authorities with a list of all items being imported for the use of the troops or U.S. security contractors.

Iraqi authorities have the right to request that U.S. forces "open in their presence any container in which such items are being imported in order to verify its contents." But Iraq must "honor the security requirements" of U.S. troops and, if requested, conduct the inspections in U.S. facilities.

This does not extend to parcels imported by civilians or to U.S. mail, which will be "exempt from inspection, search, and seizure by Iraqi authorities, except for non-official mail that may be subject to electronic observation."

Article 22: U.S. forces cannot detain anyone, except for its own Soldiers and associated civilians, without Iraqi permission, and all detainees must be handed over to Iraqi authorities within 24 hours of their detention.

Once the agreement enters into force the U.S. military will turn over all the information it has on detainees being held in Iraq. Iraqi judges will then issue arrest warrants for those they suspect have committed crimes and they will be transferred to Iraqi custody. All other detainees will be released in a "safe and orderly manner," unless otherwise requested by the Iraqi government.

The agreement allows Iraqi authorities to "request assistance" from the United States in arresting or detaining wanted individuals.

U.S. forces will not be allowed to search houses or other "real-estate properties" without an Iraqi search warrant and "full coordination" with the Iraqi government, except in combat situations.

Article 24: All U.S. forces must withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than Dec. 31, 2011. The pact itself also expires at the end of that day.

All U.S. combat forces will withdraw from "Iraqi cities, villages, and localities" once Iraqi security forces assume "full responsibility for security" -- but no later than June 30, 2009.

Iraq can demand that all U.S. forces withdraw at any time, and the United States can unilaterally withdraw the troops at any time.

Article 26: Regarding Iraq's finances, the agreement recognizes the protections granted to the Development Fund of Iraq by an executive order from the U.S. president that prevents the funds from being awarded to anyone who files lawsuits against Iraq. The agreement says the United States will "remain fully and actively engaged" with the Iraqi government with respect to the continuation of the protections.

The United States also commits to helping Iraq secure an extension of UN Security Council protections granted to petroleum and natural gas revenues.

Article 27: "Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching pad or transit point for attacks against other countries."

Article 30: The agreement is effective for three years, but can be terminated by either party with one year's written notice.

The agreement can be amended "only with the official agreement of the parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."

Excuse my poor blogging etiquette...the last post was by Bennett and the title of the piece is "Media Madness"

Journalists and the media as a whole have independently assumed the role as “gate-keepers” (according to Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy). Yet strangely enough, for the most part, Americans have let the media outlets of the world attain this position of power. The influence of the media has evolved greatly over the years, but consequently with this evolution costs are almost as readily apparent as the benefits. Media, although it tries to remain unbiased, generally creates a fissure between the American people. As the proverb goes, “There are always two sides to a story,” and in many peoples’ opinions, one news source cannot effectively report both sides. Furthermore when this issue is compounded by the new waves of journalist who Sander Vanocur, a veteran ABC colleague, says express “the quality of the avenging angel” (Sabato, 575) and are too dominated by their own personal agendas, the democratic nature of the American people begins to scream. The opinions and the editorial pieces of the Joe Six-packs of the world need to be heard to…don’t they? Some people think that they do and therefore bloggomania has ensued. Whether or not you want to tune into what some (such as Boston Globe’s Alex Beam) refer to as “Blogistan, the Internet-based journalistic medium where no thought goes unpublished, no long-out-of-print book goes unhawked, and no fellow ‘blogger,’ no matter how outré, goes un-praised,” (Anderson, 602) (I just love the irony of bashing blogging while I’m writing a blog myself) or what others feel is the only medium of responsible journalism, blogs are quickly becoming the preferred mode of media in the United States. But even blogs have their own fair share of adverse effects. What I’m trying to get at is that media is an entirely flawed entity floating amidst the people of America. It has its occasional moments of brilliance and usefulness such as during the Watergate Scandal, yet additional successes of the media since that historic event have been few and far between, causing more turmoil than benefit. A trend seems to have been developed over the past thirty years, a trend which will be very interesting to research and see if it repeats itself. This cycle of which I speak is thus: an unbelievable triumph of media occurs (i.e. Watergate), attempted emulation of such a success fails miserably, failures continue to manifest themselves, then the common people need to resort to alternate forums for their unbiased information, the effect of entirely unbiased and unchallenged information isolates select Americans, finally resulting in a re-emergence of quality national media and the cycle that follows.

Katherine Graham was the owner of the iconic Washington Post newspaper. Her continued fame has been the result of her paper’s unwavering pursuit in uncovering what Graham believed to be “an unprecedented effort to subvert the political process. (Something she describes as) a pervasive, indiscriminate use of power and authority from an administration with a passion for secrecy and deception and an astounding lack of regard for the normal constraints of democratic politics.” (Graham, 571) This “something” was the Watergate scandal, and (pardon my French) but that is one hell of an accusation. It was this brooding intensity that propelled the staff of the Post, specifically the two young, budding journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to pursue the story with an unprecedented passion. Yet, as Graham describes, even with the paper upholding strict guidelines such as, “every bit of information attributed to an unnamed source had to be supported by at least one other, independent source,” (Graham, 565) people including a pretty important one, the President and his entire staff, still were pissed off. Attorney General John Mitchell was even quoted saying, “JEEEEEESUS…All that crap, you’re putting it in the paper?” (Graham, 564). The staff of the Washington Post persisted through various threats and subpoenas and with firm emphasis on accuracy; they published a series stories, clearly incriminating multiple White House representatives, which were so widely read that “people actually began waiting in the alley outside (the) building for the first edition of the paper,” (Graham, 569). This was the pinnacle of investigatory journalism. Woodward and Bernstein provided the foundation for a new breed of journalists: young and ruthless reporters who would go to far-reaching limits to turn a story. The interesting problem though is this: most situations since Watergate haven’t called for such qualities of in-your-face journalism. You see, the issue was (as Graham said) “the role of luck was essential in Watergate,” (Graham, 573). I find it difficult to ever declare the word “essential” an understatement, but this is one scenario in which I can make such an assertion. Luck was utterly vital and incomprehensibly available to The Washington Post in regards to Watergate. It was if God himself handcrafted the Watergate Scandal, placed it upon a golden platter and served it to The Washington Post for dinner (with a side of potatoes-why…I don’t know). I’m not trying to downplay the great amount of effort Bernstein and Woodward went through to turn the story but seriously they were unbelievably lucky. Literally a million different scenarios went the right way for the newspaper staff, beginning with the guard discovering the taped door at the Watergate building, the police sending an undercover cop car that was miraculously in the area, and listless more occurrences. Watergate was a rare glimpse of seamless media coverage by one agency, yet those who tried to emulate reporters such as Bernstein and Woodward failed to recognize the amazing amount of luck required for the “perfect story”, so this new breed of reporters attempted to turn out the same stories but they lacked all the content and accuracy of the Watergate stories, resulting in a phase Larry Sabato has termed the “Feeding Frenzy.”

Sabato has compared this new wave of journalists looking to land a Hollywood documentary (such as Bernstein and Woodward) to frenzied fools. Frenzy describes “some kind of disorderly, compulsive, or agitated activity that is muscular and instinctive, not cerebral and thoughtful,” (Sabato, 576) and, when applied to journalists, it critiques the fact that the press “has become obsessed with gossip rather than governance” (Sabato, 576). Basically, journalists enter a violent and aggressive mode in order to track down the most interesting and controversial, yet generally irrelevant stories. This mentality of “If it bleeds try to kill it” (Sabato, 577), in our “brave new world of omnipresent journalism” (Sabato, 577) has debased our journalists into to sharks who become so overwhelmed by the “kill” that the lose sight of all their inhibitions. The result of such maverick reporting exhibits a sad truth. Some of the people most qualified for leadership positions in the government simply do not run because of the prospect of getting torn apart by the media for any previous miss-steps. Furthermore, since the media has adopted the position of “gate-keeper”, the American public becomes restricted by these unfounded stories to the point that they don’t even realize the news they are listening to is completely irrelevant. In efforts to reverse this trend, we have become oh so fond of the blog.

Blogs provide the medium appropriate for all kinds of thoughts in any way, shape, or form. It is the mystery meat of the lunchroom—anything and everything is mashed together all in one place, the internet. The issues and opinions not so evident in the national media are readily abundant in many of the millions of blogs that exist today. But some people such as legal theorist Cass Sunstein believe the political blog-sites could lead to a “cyber-balkanization” (Anderson, 603). This means that since people can customize their own communications, they might only read the news that they care about. Conversely, some argue that this idea of “virtual cocooning” is irrelevant because the primary purpose of blogs is criticizing the opposing thoughts of others. This argument isn’t completely sound, though, because although people might see opposing viewpoints on some issues, they may avoid entire other issues that aren’t appealing, making the bloggers uninformed.

Media is a flawed necessity. We need it, but it can never fully fit our needs. Something will always be left out, some opinions will always overpower others, and the personal customization of news will always leave us ignorant. The Watergate scandal set a precedent for investigatory journalism when a precedent shouldn’t have been set. Instead the work of The Washington Post should have just been admired for what it was: a lot of skill, but even more luck. We can’t control luck; therefore we cannot control good stories, so all we are left with only the continuing cycle of unjust media reports and unsatisfied needs.

A New Transition in Media and its Influence

    The transition in the style in which new is presented through the media has changed its influence and involvement in politics. Beginning with the dramatic news coverage of the Watergate Scandal, led by the Washing Post, and continuing through the internet citizen-blogging phenomenon that sprung out of the turn of the century, the publishing voice has morphed into an information free-for-all in which the journalist becomes the “gatekeeper” (as mentioned in Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy) for politicians and the young, internet-browser becomes a publisher.


    Katharine Graham, the owner and publisher of the Washington Post during Watergate, in her Personal History, recounts what became the launch of a new wave for journalistic media. As Graham guides her reader through the edge-of-the-seat story of her two young and ambitious reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, from their pairing and coverage of the break-in trial all the way through President Nixon’s resignation, two qualities of the Post’s news coverage ring with importance: the required confirmation of sources and information and the ultimate influence the press acquired through such a publicized investigation.


    Graham was adamant in that “the role of the Post in all of this [Watergate Scandal] was simply to report the news” (Graham, 571). She knew that any misinformation would discredit both the paper and her reporters. The staff of the Post took a big chance investigating the case so deeply, especially with their growing enemies empowered by government, so it was vital to the paper that their news was accurate. For this reason, Graham instituted the “two-sources” policy where by checking every bit of information with at least a second source before it was printed the reporting team “handle[d] the story with more than the usual scrupulous attention to fairness and detail” (Graham, 565). The stories produced, although contradictory, were reliable, and became what Harry Rosenfeld described as “the longest-running newspaper stories with the least amount of errors that I have ever experienced or will ever experience” (Graham, 566). The accurate approach to reporting brought about a wave of new age, investigative journalism, and it also brought a strengthened voice to the media.


    The growing influence of the press in politics in Graham’s experience with Watergate is represented through both the demand for the paper and the threats from the government. The Post’s continuous articles and investigation of Watergate were confirmed with the discovery of President Nixon’s tapes. As soon as people were convinced of the paper’s credibility, its popular influence sky-rocketed: “After the discovery of the tapes, people actually began waiting the alley outside our building for the first edition of the paper, giving additional meaning to the phrase ‘hot off the presses’” (Graham, 569). The more convincing evidence of the press’s ultimate influence in politics, however, is portrayed through threats from government officials. First, Nixon made threats against the Post itself: “It’s going to have its problems…the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one. They have a television station…and they’re going to have to get it renewed…the game has to be played awfully rough” (Graham, 565). Then, the Attorney General at the time, John Mitchell, was on the phone with reporter Bernstein and physically threatened Katharine Graham, blaming her for the printings on Watergate: “All that crap you’re putting in the paper? It’s all been denied, Katie Graham’s gonna get her tit caught in a big fat wringer if that’s published. Good Christ!” (Graham, 564). The new and increasing influence of the press hanging over the shoulder of politicians that was ignited by the coverage of Watergate is represented in Graham’s increased fear for her paper. She remarks, “I’d lived with White House anger before, but I had never seen anything remotely like the kind of fury and heat I was feeling targeted at us now” (Graham, 567). Graham, in the moment, could feel the building influence of the media on politics. The Post’s integrity in its reporting and in not giving-in to threats shifted the paper away from government sway and towards an influential position.


    This shift in the media’s power to influentially critique politicians created a new and youthful attraction to the field of journalism. Graham hit it on the head when she commented, “the story [of Watergate] had all the ingredients for major drama: suspense, embattled people on both sides, right and wrong, law and order, good and bad” (Graham, 571). The Post’s accomplishments glorified the life of a reporter and, therefore, brought about even a further switch in the journalist’s voice.


    In Larry Sabato’s Feeding Frenzy, Sabato comments negatively on this transition. His argument centers around the irony in the shift from the carefully reported Watergate Scandal which sparked a movement into drama-based reporting with a youthful and unskilled mob-culture that is now associated with journalism, and also, that this style pushes good people away from politics. Sabato argues, “Ever since Watergate, government scandals have paraded across the television set in a roll call so lengthy and numbing that they are inseparable in the public consciousness” (Sabato, 576). His writing insists “gossip has always been the drug of choice for journalists” and, “without convincing proof,” journalists cover politics as “ ‘Entertainment Tonight’ reporters cover Hollywood” (Sabato, 576). His “feeding frenzy” refers to the intimidating media mob of the video age where “a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably,” not unlike piranhas set lose on a piece of meat (Sabato, 577). Sabato blames the press’s conduct on the impact of the Watergate Scandal. He claims, “Watergate shifted the orientation of journalism…toward prescription––helping to set the campaign’s (and society’s) agendas by focusing attention on the candidates’ shortcomings as well as certain social problems” (Sabato, 579). His concern is that because of the glorification of the newsroom and a new interest in investigating candidates’ personal lives, the media-politics relationship is getting out of hand. He fears that because the media has risen “the price of power…dramatically” (Sabato, 581), talented individuals are scared away from politics and only power-hungry leaders remain. Indeed journalists play an important new role in presenting political candidates and social issues to the public. Unelected and sometimes inaccurate, society has given much influence to these individuals.


    Recently, however, the concern has switched to the influence of even less-educated, less-qualified publishing individuals. In Brian Anderson’s article South Park Conservatives, he analyzes the new influence of the Internet on media and its influence on politics through the culture of blogging. Anderson describes blogs as having created a “brand-new media sphere” void of “the gatekeepers’ power to determine (a) what’s important and (b) the range of acceptable opinion” (Anderson, 600). It seems as though such blogs would not find a place in the world of influential media, but because they have become a more radical response to officially published, more left wing news, blogs have become the radical citizens means of discussion and expression. A veteran reporter from the Washington Post remarked, “If Hitler were alive today, he’d have his own blog” (Anderson, 602), for the purpose of commenting on blogs’ place as a tool for extreme radicals, especially right wing. Anderson also suggests the possibility of “virtual cocooning” (Anderson, 603). The possibility is that web browsers only access blogs and websites that agree only with their point-of-view, and, therefore, they become “intellectually lazy” (Anderson, 603) and avoid seeking unbiased reporting. In conclusion, Anderson is in favor of blogs because he believes that blogging has become the most democratic way of reporting.


    The recent progression of media’s impact on politics and society is both positive and negative. It would be hypocritical for me to argue that blogging is always done by unmindful and radical citizens whose agendas are to increase virtual cocooning because I am, in fact, blogging intellectually. However, the ability for slander and gossip to play such a dominating role in politics because of the emphasis given to it by the media is an issue. The recent election has again proven that the media’s endorsement of a political candidate is overwhelmingly influential. The youth has involved itself both in the media and in politics. I welcome and cherish a youthful, rebellious, and critical voice in the media, and it is just a matter of accuracy and credibility that could be addressed. As long as the Internet continues, so will blogs, and it is our job as a country to increase the quality of education so that all citizens understand their chosen point-of-view. We must embrace this new form of expression and use it wisely, to our advantage; however, these articles are a good reminder for us to pick up a newspaper as to not be deceived by the mass of information on our web browsers.

-Rachel Rosenberg

Palin Poll

With the Republican party suffering a major defeat in the recent election, many party leaders are starting to wonder about the future of the Republicans. Depending on who you ask, some consider Sarah Palin to be one of the few good things to emerge from the election- "good" meaning that she can excite Republican voters. Sarah Palin is indeed capable of this, the problem being that she only really excites the social conservatives (who are excited that someone "just like them" could be president). This means that Palin would have limited appeal for the mainstream voters that the Republicans are looking to win back. However, Palin was the key speaker at the recent Republican governors' convention, seeming to take on the role of a party leader. Palin herself has not specifically stated that she will run for president, preferring instead to say that it is an option she has not ruled out.

Cool article!

Hi all!  In thinking about (and reading) media, I found this article in the NYT really interesting.  I think Kristof captures the reasons I am so captured by our new President-Elect.  Click here to read it!

Dr. Berry

Shafer and Brooks: Public Opinion on the War in Iraq

The War in Iraq has been the main subject for public opinion for the past 5 years, soon to be 6. This has resulted in numerous theories on how the populace of the United States opinion on the war is being formed, and to what effect that is having. Two men, Greg Shafer and David Brooks, analyze the situation and its fallout on public opinion. In the end, it is obvious that Shafer’s thesis is correct, and Brooks essay only serves as an example of what happens when the public’s opinion is shifted through the media’s filtered coverage of the Iraq war.
Shafer’s essay revolves around the theory that the mass media is by and by the cheerleader of the United States’ foreign policy in Iraq. The result of this is a moral choice in which the citizens of America must choose to either support the war in Iraq or be un-American. Shafer is able to see the unjust way the American people have be treated with the ultimatum and blames it on media’s bias towards speaking out against the government. Instead of giving the people all of the information the news gives us a happier version of the war in which there are no casualties and America always comes out on top. But this perception of reality is false, and it ends up doing more damage than good. If the people do not get the full story then how will they be able to make decisions on important matters? They could never have full comprehension of what is going on around them and they are pointed in the direction that the media and the government want them to go. This is done because the United States understands the full power of the people’s public opinion on the actions of the government. It knows that without the support of the American people it cannot achieve its goals. So it has become custom for the media to work with the government to make it un-American and wrong to protest it. Those who spoke out against the war in Iraq were cast into the flames and labeled as anti-military. But is it not the Armed Forces job to ensure that the Constitution is protected and upheld? And the defining point of the Constitution is freedom of the people, including, and arguably most importantly, to argue with the government and speak out. So, it is not anti-military for public to speak out against the war, it is in fact utilizing the right that our heroes have fought and died for throughout American history.
Shafer brings up the issue of flag burning to exemplify the importance of protesting the government. He is not stating that we should have a constant grudge towards the government, but rather fights to make it better. To burn a flag is to cry out and reject the actions of that country because you believe them to be wrong. If it were illegal to do that then what does that say about the country? It shows that it is unwilling to here the vices against it and would rather shut up the protesters then address the problem. It makes the only other option to be to salute the flag. If this were the case the honor and significance of that act would be gone. If one cannot burn and reject the ideals of the nation, how could they take pride in pledging themselves to the nation? The core value of America states that everyone should have a choice, and to go against that is in fact an act of flag burning. What better way is there to dishonor your country then to take away its founding ideals?
Shafer shows how this is going on in the United States through a myriad of examples. There is the arrest of Stephen Downs for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. And the way the Peter Arnett was condemned for showing the bad side of American foreign policy, in this case a bombed Iraqi milk factory. The Patriot Act also infringes on the American public's ability to speak out against the government. With all these acts it is clear that there is an active force that is trying to keep the public in line and have the opinion of the people be consistently positive towards government actions. Though it is good to support the government and should always be something that should be worked towards, one should not support it based on false or incomplete information fed to them by the media that they think they know and trust. It is thoroughly undermining democracy.
David Brooks gives a different view on what the war in Iraq is producing. In his essay he describes three “dream palaces” that operate in accordance to the United States. These palaces are places of contempt towards American government and, according to Brooks, are forces that are misguided and wrong. The dream palaces are made up of there sects. The first is the Arab palace. In this world Brooks describes an angry Arab populace that in intent on destroying America and its freedoms for the apparent wrongs of the past. Then there is the European elitists palace, in which the European nations gaff at the United States and have unrealistic views on the American people and their values. Lastly Brooks describes the Bush hater dream palace. This palace is reserved for the small percentage of the American public that fight against Bush and his polices in an attempt to topple the President for the sole reason of undermining the Republican Party, regardless of the consequences.
Brooks theorizes that now that the Iraq war has ended (this essay was written when it was generally perceived that the war in Iraq was won and a Mission Accomplished was rendered by the President) these three dream palaces will begin to crumble and America will be, once again, proven right. Yet, unknown to Brooks, the coming years will cripple his thesis. Almost all of the planed fates that Brooks made up go awry and almost the exact opposite happens. The Arabs do not sag in their rage and in fact come back full force, trying the American military in Iraq and forcing them to realize that they are not fighting some disorganized enemy but instead a well organized force (even consisting of old men with AKs that shoot down Apaches, much to Brooks lament).
Europe did not go through its self-criticizing period, but instead responded with even more fervor towards the United States, including riots in France.
Lastly the Bush haters DID become more vociferous in their anger, but not for the reasons that Brooks foretold, but instead because the war continues to drag on for 5 plus years. Their numbers do not diminish, but instead grow, resulting in a 2008 presidential election in which the Democrats run the Executive office, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No, it seems Brooks was wrong on almost all accounts. This is not because he is stupid (well, maybe a little bit) but because he is one of the Americans that have been subjected to the biased teaching on the media, just as Shafer predicts.
Brooks is under the assumption that protesting the war is unpatriotic, just as the media has told him. In his essay he creates a fictitious character, Joey Tabula-Rosa. This character is reacting to what he sees happening in Iraq, and does a perfect job of reinforcing Shafer’s point. In the essay he states that Joey is “glued to the cable coverage of the war and is ready to form some opinions.” He sees the United States as the shining city of light upon the hill surrounded by the darkness of other evil nations. He sees the American military liberating people with aims to limit the civilian casualties. But Joey does not hear of the civilians that are hurt, displaced, and/or killed. Nor does he hear the reasons of why other countries stand against America, only that they are evil and want to dismantle our way of life. He sees stereotypical versions of other countries that he is suspicious of. And most importantly he sees those who support the government’s policies and those who protest against it. Those who support the government are bringers of freedom and democracy, while those that oppose it are Californian degree holders that are secluded in their own world and fail to realize that situation that besets the country.
All of these views are products of a media that supports the government and does not leave room for protest. It showed the public a war in which there were no casualties and we were the clear winners. It did not prepare them for the long insurgency to follow, even though it could have. The media could have reported that the Marines of MEUs were not only fighting the Iraqi Army but also insurgents from Saudi Arabia and Iran that had come to participate in the jihad. But instead of telling the people this vital fact on where the war would soon be heading, the media put forth the allusion that the war nearly over and that victory was guaranteed. Without are clear and unfiltered view at what is happening in the world the public’s opinion is fated to be warped and out of perception. Brooks is the evidence that this did in fact occur. The media and the American government vie to control the public’s opinion, and the result is an undemocratic United States.
Brooks speaks of regimes that are sadistic and evil. They torture their own people, ignore basic rules of warfare, put their own problems onto others, and have far reaching effects across the globe. But if one looks closely, this is precisely what America is becoming if it continues down this path. The citizens no longer have privacy because of the Patriot Act, and suspected terrorist can be detained and tortured in facilities in other countries, such as Guantanamo Bay. We have begun to covertly attack other countries such as Pakistan and Syria with out their knowledge. We routinely attack others for our problems that some may call unjust, as we did in Iraq. And most of all our actions affect people across the globe. The United States of America is the world’s most powerful nation, and countries around the world must first gain our approval before action is taken. But just because we are the most powerful does not mean that we are perfect. Shafer proves the point that if the media continues to undermined the public’s opinion then it will make America the very thing that we are fighting to bring down.

Poll: What is next for Joe Liberman

After the Election the Democratic Party has gained six seats in the senate, giving them a greater advantage, many democrats are pressing the senate majority leader Harry Reid to punish Joe Liberman (former democrat turn independent) for criticizing Barack Obama at the RNC and supporting John McCain. Liberman said "Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record.” For this many Democrats want him either ejected from the Democrat caucus, and/or stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, however Harry Reid still want to keep him because regardless of what Liberman did, he still gave the democrats the edge of the republicans prior to this election. Reid has said “Quite frankly, I don't like what he did." But he pointed out that Lieberman has supported Democrats on most issues, including an important budget vote earlier this year.” So with the new Democrat lead congress is Lieberman worth being lost to the other side?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aTrgURyMdP3o&refer=home

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/senate.lieberman/

— Angelo

Uninsured Poll

Last June Antonio Torres, a 19 year old uninsured citizen, was critically hurt in a car accident. Antonio Torres was comatose and connected to a ventilator, but because he was uninsured the hospital sent Antonio on a four-hour journey over the Mexican border to Mexicali. For days, Antonio's father searched for a hospital in the US that would treat his son. Finally, they found a hospital in California that would treat him. By the end of summer Antonia was recovering from his accident.

This case shows the ways in which American health care handles cases involving uninsured immigrants who are seriously injured or ill. Whether the patient will receive treatment or will be privately deported depends on what emergency room they initially visit. There is not much federal financing for these patients, and there is no governmental oversight of what happens to them. It is up to the individual hospitals to decide what will happen. Many hospitals see thimselves as "stranded at the crossroads of a failed immigration policy and a failed health care system."

The two hospitals that treated Antonia approached his case from different perspectives. The first hospital was focused on keeping down the cost of uncompinsated care, and send about 8 people a year over the border. The second hospital is more focused on the human being, and never sends a person over the border.

Hospitals have limited options when it comes to discharging a patient who needs continued care: keeping them indefinitely, with or without providing rehabilitation; finding them charity beds or sending them to a nursing home; or sending them home to relatives.

States closer to the Mexican border tend to act more hostile toward immigrants, and the state financing for their care tends to be low. Because of the system that the United States has now, states need to deicde between saving money or caring about the patient.

Christen

Brooks v. Shafer: the Iraq War and Public Opinion

The defining moment of the Bush presidency has been the Iraq War. Over the nearly six years of the conflict, public opinion has fluctuated widely both in support of it and against it. Greg Shafer and David Brooks, writing shortly after the initial invasion, examine the effects of the war on public opinion. Greg Shafer argues that most of the wide-spread sentiment against the war has been stifled while David Brooks counters that the public has actually become more supportive of the conflict. Recent events, however, tend to support Shafer’s thesis.

One of, if not the most, important factors determining public opinion is the media which is responsible for nearly all information a typical American has access to regarding politics.
However, while Brooks remains largely neutral on the subject, Shafer criticizes the media’s coverage of the war in Iraq. Shafer argues that the coverage in the lead up to the war was nowhere near as critical as it needed to be, serving as “cheerleaders” when the invasion began. Successes, according to Shafer, were overblown while accounts of civilian casualties were nearly non-existent. Shafer points to the case of Peter Arnett who was widely criticized for his efforts during the first Gulf War where he reported on the accidental American destruction of an Iraqi milk factory. This event epitomized the disdain felt towards those who reported the gruesome realities of conflict. Shafer’s concern with regard to the media can be summarized in this way: How can the American public be expected to make informed decisions on public policy if the media cannot be trusted to cover both sides of an issue equally?

David Brooks twice mentions the media directly. The first time, he mocks those with anti-war sentiments by declaring how ridiculous it would be for the U.S to fabricate images of celebrating Iraqis. Brooks later mentions the media with regard to his fictional character “Joey Tabula-Rasa”. Brooks creates Joey to show how young people will observe the political events unfolding in Iraq and formulate an opinion in favor of the conflict largely because of the well-disposed news reports of progress there. Curiously, both Brooks and Shafer agree on the fact that the media covers the Iraq War in a positive light. However, Brooks believes this is because the Iraq situation is, in fact, satisfactory while Shafer argues that the negative side to the war is not being reported.

According to Shafer, the media is part of a growing problem. That problem is that it has become less and less acceptable to criticize authority, especially in the context of the War on Terror. Shafer uses examples such as disk jockeys who called for un-wavering support for the war during the early part of the conflict and the man who was arrested at a mall for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. Shafer’s fear is that such events, combined with the powers granted to the government by the Patriot Act, have created an environment where dissent is not welcome and those who do not agree with the war are labeled as “un-patriotic“. Shafer then asks whether this un-questioning support for a war (a war that Shafer argues has suspect motives) actually fits with the original American ideology. After all, the freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Americans are supposed to question their government and not blindly follow despotic rulers like the ones left behind in the Old World. Democracy works best if people continuously scrutinize their government. Shafer asks, if the U.S. continues to quash internal dissent with the likes of the Patriot Act, and the media continues to feed the public biased information, what difference is there between the U.S. and the nations it seeks to “liberate”?

On the other end of the spectrum lies David Brooks whose argument is that the dwindling amounts of anti-war sentiment are the result of a realization by those opponents of the Iraq War that Bush was actually correct. Though a somewhat laughable notion with hindsight, it is important to note that Brooks wrote this piece after the large scale operations in Iraq had ended with Iraq’s government defeated and victory declared. Brooks categorizes the opponents of the Iraq War into three “dream palaces”. Each palace is supposed to represent an idealistic school of thought far-detached from reality. These three palaces are those of the Arabists, who (according to Brooks) fail to recognize all that is flawed in the Arab world, the European Elitists who have a negative stereotype of Americans, and Bush Haters who are so blinded by a dislike of Bush that they disapprove of his policies regardless of what they might be.

Brooks believes that the war will changes most people’s beliefs to some degree as a result of its “success”. Though the Europeans will refuse to change their stereotype, the Arabists will believe that some reform might be possible, and the Bush Haters’ numbers will shrink, the group effected the most will be the silent majority. Brooks illustrates this phenomenon through the creation of Joey Tabula-Rasa (mentioned earlier). Joey represents an average young person with limited world knowledge. Joey is just now beginning to form a world opinion based, in large part, on the events concerning the Iraq War. Joey will be put-off by the radicals who oppose the war and will instead be pleased with the war coverage that he sees on the television: images of celebrating Iraqi citizen and proud American soldiers. These observations will place Joey firmly in the camp supporting President Bush in his quest against worldwide tyranny. In this way, Brooks envisions millions of young people forming a new generation of Republicans, Republicans who view the world in a realistic sense.

Over five years after these articles were written, the Iraq War continues to drag on. Instead of inspiring a new generation of Republicans, the war, combined with Bush’s failed domestic policies, has done the exact opposite by creating the new Democratic movement which swept Barack Obama to the office of president in a landslide victory. Shafer’s argument that anti-war sentiment was stifled is largely supported by events like the large-scale denouncing of the Dixie Chicks after one of the members claimed to be embarrassed that Bush was from her home state. As the recent elections have shown, however, that un-wavering support has significantly tapered off, with the ruling Republicans suffering a significant defeat. The flaw in Brooks’ argument, ironically, is that he is the one who actually fails to have a grip on reality. Brooks mocks the Bush Haters as believing that Bush stole the election and rules with a group of corporate cronies. Actual evidence shows both allegations to be true. Investigations revealed voting fraud in Florida, and Cheney’s former company was rewarded substantial contract to rebuild oilfields in Iraq without having to bid on them. If Bush was truly interested in defeating tyranny, he would have taken more action with regard to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. The Joey Tabula-Rasas of America have observed Iraq and other Bush policies and rejected them. Bush did not help to solidify the Republican Party as Brooks believed he would. Bush destroyed it.

Election Blog by SLAGATHOR!!!!!!!!

The presidential election of 2008 has been one for the ages, and as it draws to its close it is apparent that it will make history. On the left side there is Barack Obama, a young Senator from Illinois who shook the nation as the first potential African-American President of the United States. On the right there is McCain, an experience veteran that thrives on his maverick views and styles. This campaign has been characterized by a thought of turning a new leaf and beginning anew, and with Obama’s tagline of “Hope”, “Change”, and “Yes We Can” it seems like that it is likely to happen soon.
This election is historic, for it contains many factors that have never been seen by the American public. It is the first time an African-American has been on the ticket for a major political party. It is also the first time that a woman has had a good chance to become president or vice-president of the United States of America. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin achieved this. When Clinton lost the primary the possibility for a female president was lost of the time being, but Sarah Palin still had a chance to become the first female vice president and, if anything happened to McCain, the President. Both would be a major step forward in respects to gender and race. Also, John McCain would be the oldest first term President in the history of the United States, and Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden is now the first Roman Catholic to be Vice President. Lastly, it is the first time that both of the Presidential candidates were both born outside of the continental United States. Obama was born in Hawaii and McCain in the Panama Canal Zone. This campaign is one of the most interesting campaign in recent years because it comes in a pivotal time in American history. Many, rather most Americans are displeased with the Bush Administration (his approval rating averages in at about 31%), and the new presidential candidates in the election are sure to present the nation with a new outlook on the future of America.
But Obama’s rise to the White House has been a long and hard road. The public has had their eye on Obama for the last two years as a potential candidate for President, and he made it a possibility when he announced his candidacy on February 10th, 2007. This made him one of the major candidates for the White House, along with Hilary Clinton. These two represented the candidates for the Democratic Party and John McCain was the candidate for the Republican Party. The Presidential Primaries for the Democrats was marked by a neck-to-neck race between Obama and Clinton. Even on Super Tuesday it was a virtual tie between the two, with 847 for Obama and 834 for Clinton. This set the tone for the whole primary, for it was an extremely close election and ended with Obama taking a lead in the polls towards the end of the primary season. As for McCain, it seemed that he was the only major candidate running for his party and he easily won the primary to become the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. The primary was a historic one because it was a win win situation when it came to electing a never before seen candidate. Barack Obama would be the first African American candidate and Hilary Clinton would be the first woman with an actual chance of wining. The race was also full of heated battles within the Democratic Party. On many occasions Obama and Clinton clashed and questioned each other about their policies. The battles became very heated between the two and it was thought that the fighting was doing more damage then good as it was dividing the party at a time when it needed to come together and run against the Republican Party and John McCain.
With the two presidential candidates for the major parties picked a long and drawn out campaign began. This campaign was characterized by an aggressive fundraising attempt by Obama, a series of attacks by McCain, the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate, and the rescission of the stock market in mid September. These events made the election one of discontent with the current Bush Administration and shows a yearn by the American public for a new president that will hopefully lead them out of these dark times. It also cast John McCain and the Republican Party in a bad light because of their close relationship with President Bush and his Administration. The people are tired of Bush, and McCain just being of the same party as him surly hurt him in the race. But throughout the campaign McCain continually tried to set himself apart from Bush, using the tag line of being a “maverick” to describe himself. Senator Obama countered this quality by bringing up the fact that McCain went along with Bush’s decisions 95% of the time. Obama also got another break by having been attack by Hilary during the primary elections. It was here that he was able to address his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his new policies. By the time the Presidential elections had rolled around, the American public had already heard the attacks on Obama, so they were less responsive to it when McCain tried to bring them up. It seems that the fighting between Hilary and Obama in fact helped him in the end to be more hardened and prepared for the face off with McCain.
Obama also used his obvious technological edge over McCain to gain huge funds towards his cause. In the end, he had almost a two to one lead over McCain, and this enabled him to put forth an oppressive media campaign that help spread his message and drown out McCain’s. He was also able to have a 30-minuet infomercial that rallied his supporters and explained his policies.
McCain also made the situation worse for himself by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate. The move was made with the effort to win over the conservative side of the vote, but also effectively alienated the left side of the vote that was thinking of supporting him. McCain made this selection because up until then he was a was walking the line with the Republican Party and it seemed he needed something to put himself back into their good graces.
Now the election is over and it is clear that Obama is the winner. It was predicted that the race would be extremely close, and from the look of the popular vote it was. At 12:49 a.m. Mountain Time about 87% of the vote has been counted and so far it appears that 47% went to McCain and 52% went to Obama. But this number does not really matter. What really matters in the number of electoral votes that each candidate receives. In order to win the presidency a candidate must win at least 270 of the electoral votes. So far, Obama has won 338 and McCain 163. This is a wide margin compared to the past to Presidential elections, in which President Bush one by just 271 the first time, and 286 the second.
With the election done and Barack Obama to be our new President the future remains unclear. Those opposed to his presidency fear that the change that Obama promotes will hurt the country more then help it. His supporters thrive on his vision of a new America and have faith that the future holds great things. One can be sure about one fact though. The race to the White House has been a historical one that showed that American was capable of electing a variety of different people from diverse backgrounds. This goes to show that the diversity that has been a characteristic of the United States of America since the beginning is still there, and it has begun to break the chains that have held it down for so long. It is now apparent that the White House is not just reserved for the rich white man, but also the rich black man.

US Security Poll

North Korea: North Korea is of course a communist country run by dictator Kim Jong-il. Since communism became a major government system, the United States has consistently opposed it. North Korea has criticized the United States for not lifting economic sanctions. While the United States has criticized North Korea for maintaining missile exports and has suspected them of secretly building a nuclear weapons program. However, despite their hostile rhetoric, both countries have maintained an agreement on famine relief and technical assistance programs.

Russia: Since the 1950's, the United States has had a major bias against Russia, mainly because of its former communist roots. However, recently many Americans have opposed former leader Putin. Officials within the United States have expressed their concern over Putin's "authoritarian" leadership and and reversal of democratic reforms. Recently, the United States has expressed more such concern over Russia with the war with Georgia in August as well as their launching of three test missiles.

Iran: In 1979, the Iran Revolution occurred which pushed out the pro-American Shah and placed in the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Since then, the United States and Iran have held a very hostile relationship. The Hezbollah, an anti-American terrorist organization, is very active in Iran, contributing to the hostility. Anti-American billboards can be found throughout the cities in the country, and the term "death to America" can even be heard in some prayers that are said with this country. Yet, some actually believe that Iran is the least Anti-American of all the Muslim countries which could be because many Iranians actually mourned for Americans after the 9/11 attacks. However, they are still a major concern regarding the United States National Security due to their desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction and their state sponsorship of international terrorism.

Cuba: While both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have attempted to make strides with the communist Cuba, the Bush administration has deemed the country to be one of the few "outposts of tyranny." Cuba was founded to be a state supporter of terrorism by the US Department of State, however Cuba has denied this fact and has called the US a supporter of terrorism against the country. However, the US does continue to run Guantanamo Bay within Cuba, which has been speculated to be shut down.

Venezuela: The United States and Venezuela used to have an close, solid friendship, however since the presidency of Hugo Chavez, this friendship has significantly worsened. This is for the most part due to Chavez's close relationship with former Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Also, because of Chavez's stance on OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), the price of oil has been raised in the US. Chavez still continues to use anti-American rhetoric.

-Emma

obama poll

Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, has been living illegally in the United States for the past four years. In 2004 she was ordered to leave the United States but remained here illegally living in Boston. Obama’s campaign spokesman said, “Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws [should] be followed.” Obama’s campaign is going to return $260 worth of contributions which she made.
-Harbhajan

OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Throughout the course of the current presidential election, the American voters have continuously heard terms such as “change”, “hope”, and “new direction”. True, if Obama were elected (and, as of now he is leading in the polls), the government will veer off the conservative Republican track of the last eight years. However, can this election be labeled as one of the most important in U.S. history as some have decided to call it? Could this election be as revolutionary as others have claimed? Or is this election part of the American cycle of recession and reform?
Democratic candidate Barack Obama currently leads Republican candidate John McCain 52% to 41% nationwide according to the most recent Gallup polls. Is this lead a testament to Obama’s campaigning ability? Is Obama simply riding dissatisfaction with the current administration? Is McCain self-destructing? The most obvious answer is a combination of the three. Obama’s lead, however, only started to widening to the point where it is now after mid-September. Of the several factors which created this lead, the most obvious is the financial crisis precipitated by the collapse of several Wall Street lending firms. Electors widely associated this crisis (probably correctly so) with the current administration who, true to its conservative values, deregulated much of Wall Street. The general downturn in the economy combined with the unpopular Iraq war have given president Bush an approval rating of 31% according to CNN. McCain’s task is made that much tougher simply because of the fact he is a Republican too. This cycle of a party gaining power, failing, and losing power is common throughout American history. Roosevelt, a Democrat, became president after the Republican Hoover administration failed to effectively combat the onset of the Great Depression. Eisenhower, a Republican won the Whitehouse after the Democratic president Truman was unable to prevent China turning communist. Republican Ronald Reagan won his presidential race against Democrat Jimmy Carter who had failed to resolve the Iran Hostage situation. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, captured the Whitehouse from George Bush Sr. during an economic recession. A Barack Obama victory would not be a revolutionary change of direction for the United States, but rather part of the continuous cycle in American Politics. Republicans tend to take charge from Democratic after ineffective foreign policy and Democrats tend to beat out Republicans who fail in domestic policy. Bush is perceived by a wide segment of the American population to have failed in both. Obama is swimming with the political current and McCain against it.
McCain, aside from having to deal with party association to Bush is also having to struggle through serious flaws in his own campaign. Sarah Palin, though well-received initially, has seen her favorability ratings steadily decline. When she was first introduced at the Republican National Convention, McCain was confident he had chosen someone who could fire-up conservatives, attract women voters disillusioned with Hillary Clinton’s primary defeat, and perhaps match Obama’s celebrity appeal. Initially, the pick worked, providing McCain with enough of a boost to give him a temporary lead over Obama following the Republican Convention. This lead faltered as more and more inquiry into Palin exposed her lack of experience and an inability to answer tough policy questions on the fly. Palin appealed to those in the electorate who could “identify” with her as an average “hockey mom” with conservative family values. While that image resonates with some voters who enjoy seeing someone like themselves as vice-president, it turns off others who question whether an average hockey mom would be qualified to run the most powerful nation on earth. Famous personalities have taken to mocking Palin. Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impression of Palin is probably the most famous example of this, but the actor Matt Damon is featured on a popular video ridiculing Palin’s supposed belief in creationism. Last week, Palin’s common woman image took a serious hit when it was revealed that the McCain campaign had charged the Republican Party $150,000 for a new wardrobe for Palin and a very highly-paid makeup artist. McCain, earlier in the campaign, had failed to remember during an interview how many houses he owned. Obama used this incident to attack McCain as “out of touch” with the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. The Palin wardrobe revelation simply added to the accusation.
Throughout the campaign, McCain’s disadvantageous position has forced McCain, in both advertising and debating, to take a more aggressive role in order to try and forcefully reverse the public’s trend towards Obama. Overall, the strategy has not been successful. Obama performed solidly in the three debates (he did not make any mistakes), and he has been drastically out-advertising McCain making it difficult for McCain to get out his message. It does not help McCain that most of the “dirt” available on Obama has already been used during the prolonged Democratic primary campaign.
Enthusiasm on the part of Obama’s supporters has been key in terms of fundraising. Small donations, many over the internet, have combined to give Obama a nearly two to one advantage in money raised. Obama has been able to allocate these resources into states which, until recently, were solidly in the Republican camp such as North Carolina and Missouri. Even in Arizona, McCain’s home state, the race is within five percentage points.
Obama is the first ever minority presidential candidate of a major political party. That distinction has given him a substantial popularity boost among African Americans and young people, excited by the novelty of a black president. If Obama were to be elected, what would be the racial implications? Most likely, they would not be profound. It would indeed be remarkable for an African American to reach the highest governmental position in the land, but there have been African Americans in high-ranking governmental positions for years, for example Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and Thurgood Marshall. Instead, race is seen as an important factor in the election in that it is seen as a possible hindrance to Obama among white voters. Racists have proven that they are still a visible force in American politics. Certain McCain supporters have cried out “Kill [Obama]!” at rallies, and recently a plot was discovered in Tennessee to kill Obama. On a less dramatic note, it is possible to purchase sock monkeys representing Obama. Most likely, a black president would do little to curb racist sentiment. As one you tube user put it, “I can’t wait ‘till all the old racists in this country are dead”. Unfortunately, racism will probably only die with the people who practice it.
After nearly two years of campaigning, the 2008 U.S. presidential election is finally drawing to a close. Obama has taken an ever-increasing lead, but this is due in large part to dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration and flaws within the McCain campaign. The 2008 presidential election has been called monumental for several reasons. The most often talked about are the perceived change of course that the nation will take, and the glass ceiling that would be broken with an African American president. Both of these assertions are somewhat overblown. The 2008 presidential election is simply just another election in the ongoing cycle of failure and reform.
BRYAN STILSON

Campaigning and Elections: How democratic is our democracy?

Running for office recently has become like just another Olympic sport but with less media coverage. The process of nomination and campaigning up until the actual Presidential election has become competitive, long, complicated, and increasingly insignificant. With each year critics continue to ask whether the process we have now is necessary, effective, or democtratic.
It all begins when a politician decides to run for office. This decision is the first step and potentially one of the most narrowing for running for President it a physically and mentally demanding race, which not ever politician is willing to endure. Once the decision is made the nomination game begins. Each nominee works to get the greatest number of delegates for the National Party Convention, where the Presidential candidate is chosen and the party platform written. Delegates are picked up from caucuses and primaries. In a caucus the delegates are chosen out of a state party leaders meeting whereas. In the primaries, where citizens vote for the candidate, a delegate is chosen who votes for a candidate and then must support that candidate at the National Convention. Along with the delegates are superdelegates. This position arose out of fear from the Democratic party that their leaders did not have a place in the National convention. Throughout the primary and caucus system nominees begin to drop out, often for lack of money, and by the end a candidate is chosen to represent each party in the Presidential election. Many critics have issues with the caucus and primary system. They believe it receives far to great attention and that states (Iowa, New Hampshire) with small populations are receiving the most media and voice. Also, because the system requires so much out of the nominee it becomes a challenge to maintain ones already governmental duties. Also, the percentage of voter participation is exceptionally low at about 5% of registered voters and thus the decisions made do not represent a large majority. One of the greatest criticisms that is seen in the entire election process is that money is too important and influential. The second great criticism is that the media has too much power. Some alternatives which have been proposed are having either a national primary or regional primary, the former would hold an election similar to the Presidential one but for each parties candidate, and the latter would hold a primary like those of the states but in general regions rather than each specific state.

Money and the media have become the two most influential aspects of the election at large. The last man standing from the primaries is usually the one who had the most money and used it most effectively. The system of receiving money is very complex. In 1974 the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed for “tightening reporting requirements for contributions and limiting overall expenditures.”(Government In America, Ch. 9, p.284) From this act came a number of reforms. The FEC, Federal Election Commission, is one of the most significant for it creates laws and enforcements restricting the money spent during campaigning. Also from the Act came the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, partial public financing which includes matching funds, an full public financing for the general election. If the candidate does not wish to receive these public finances he is still required to report how much money he spends and can only receive $2,000 from an individual. Of course politicians have found ways to receive more money than the FEC intended. Soft money, for a while, was a corrupt practice that brought in large amounts of money from large businesses to parties. Even when this was banned by the McCain-Feingold Act PACS were created. A PAC, political action committee, is either a corporation, union, or another special interest group which gives large sums of money to the candidate which they believe supports their interests. The PACs, just as soft money did, are in a sense corrupting the government in that there becomes a commitment on part of the candidate to support them.

The Media, as is growing in our day-to-day lives has grown in our elections. The Media has soon become one of the greatest forms of communication between a candidate and the people but also as a source of information. Despite the importance placed on media the national tv coverage of conventions has continuously declines since the 1950s. The media has its benefits. It allows for more people to be conscious of conventions and the candidates and it allows for easier access to information. The internet has become a huge component of a campaign. The internet, however, is probably the only form of media which in actually used for beneficial uses. Television and even newspapers have begun to report useless information and have focused on everything but the issues. As national coverage decreases so does the information it provides. The issue comes in with entertainment. Because the media is interested in entertaining the style and
celebrity like qualities of each candidate are discussed and critiqued. Even the debates have become so scripted that the words that come out of the candidates mouths are empty, where they stand on important issues is no longer as clear as it should be. The media has made campaigning and the election one big show. So the question is, with all the money put in and the effects of the media, is it worth it? Many critics and political scientist say no. They believe that campaigning only activates and reinforces but rarely converts. This means all the advertising and debating etc only make people vote more for who they would vote for anyone, rarely are people effected enough to change or reevaluate their point of view. Those select few, however, can make the difference in an election, so does that make it worth it? Another important aspect which political scientist have addressed is selective perception which means that people generally listen to what they already agree with and interpret it in the way they have already formed their opinion.

Along with the question of is it making a difference comes the question if is it even democratic. William E. Hudson compares our democracy with the origin of democracy, Athens. In comparison with Athenian democracy we are not very democratic. However, the switch of power and roles must be considered when comparing the two governments. In Athens elections were seen as very undemocratic, however they held assemblies in which the people could discuss their beliefs and make decisions about laws. That assembly system would be unreasonable in our country and so our system redefined the ways in which the Athenian values could be put in to practice. We are given the vote, as our voice in the assembly and by voting we are selecting the candidate we wish to speak for us. The seems to be a very good system if it were to work ideally. In Athenian democracy, public officials were for the sole purpose of executing the decisions made in assemblies. In our democracy elected officials do the debating which is done in the assembly for us. “Truly democratic elections must provide citizens a chance to join the public policy discussion and guide their representatives’ public policy decisions.”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 181) This does not occur consistently however and thus representation is the crucial factor. Hudson believes that for our elections to be democratic they must have equal representation for all citizens, they must be a device for the debate and contemplation of public issues, and they must actually control what government does. In the past few elections our country has not seemed to meet those requirements. Representation comes in to question with the Electoral College. Because of the Electoral College one person does not necessarily equal one vote and so in some states people’s votes are more influential skewing the ultimate democratic system. If it were a direct-election system every vote would count equally and each candidate could focus on addressing the nation rather than making promises to fifty different states. Also, because elections are becoming more candidate based rather than party based it is hard to vote for the beliefs you have because instead of voting for a system you are voting for a specific person, “This sort of candidate self-selection is harmful to equal representation because, without party involvement, individual voters have no influence on the candidate choices hey will confront at election time.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 187) Also due to fundraising candidates become committed to their greatest donors, such as the PACs, and so those who cannot give, find their voices overpowered by those fueling the candidates campaign. Elections now, greatly due to the media, do not show deliberation on public issues because our main source of information does not focus on the issues and thus the candidates themselves begin to not show how they stand on the issues, “Voters cannot even be sure that candidates actually believe what they say in debates or speeches.” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 209) So, instead pointless factors are analyzed, such as with the Horton mug shot, and one could argue that close to nothing substantial is learned. The last place where our democracy fails to be democratic is even if the last two faults did not exist who we vote for in the end does not make a lot of the decisions. Important decisions made in our government are made in legislation, bureaucracy, and the courts.
As stands now, it seems our elections have swayed far from Athenian democracy and even has swayed far from what we value and define as democracy. Even so, does our undemocratic system work? Should we let this flaw in our government slip or is there a way in which we can reform and turn back to the way a democracy should be run.

-Isabella

Elections: A Citizen's Contribution

Elections have always been regarded as the means by which citizens get their voice heard. It is a way of participating in government and therefore a way of promoting democracy. Elections provide equal representation and equal opportunity among all citizens and therefore elections instill the idea of democracy in the United States government. However, in order for elections to continue being a place of democracy, attention needs to be brought back and re-centered around the main purpose of an election, which is for citizens to be heard and for policy to be implemented.

In an ideal world, all citizens would be able to actively participate in democracy and have a prominent role in government decision-making. Hudson makes many references to the ideal democracy resembling what the Athenians used to have. Considering the large scale of the current United States population, it would be impossible to participate and be as active as the Athenians were. Elections remain the main way a citizen can participate in their government and promote the idea of democracy. Elections provide and equal opportunity for representation among all citizens, which make elections seem like the best way to continue democracy. Unfortunately, over time the main focus of elections has shifted away from democracy and is causing citizens to lose their voice in government. Hudson strongly believes that citizens are slowing losing rights and the government is becoming less democratic due to four major influences in elections: new campaigning strategies, the Electoral College, Media Coverage, and a lack of knowledge among citizens.

Campaigning strategies or what Hudson would refer to as the “Hidden Election” has moved the main focus of elections from being about policy and issues to being about winning. Having the focus of elections be candidate centered has taken away from the real purpose of elections. Hudson states what he believes should be required of a candidate to win an office. He believes that a candidate should have prior political experience in order to win. Ideally that would be nice, and while it is still mostly true today, it takes much more than just experience to win an election in modern times. Hudson says, “the candidates sell themselves,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril,185). What he means is that it doesn’t matter what a candidates pre-requisite looks like but what matters is how well they present themselves.

An enormous amount of effort goes into the election process. After a candidate decides they are running for office, they must immediately begin fund-raising. Nowadays large sums of money are necessary in order to run a successful campaign. In order to run for an office, especially an office like the presidency, a great deal of money is needed to even begin campaigning. Hudson wants it to be known that the election process is “hidden.” There is so much that goes on that most citizens are not aware of. For example, most Americans are not equally represented like we should be in elections, “the hidden elections biases the election process in favor of the very small and wealthy portion of the electorate that contributes to political campaign,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 188). Hudson wants it to be known that money is a major factor in elections today. Those who are not able to contribute money to the campaign of a candidate they favor automatically have a disadvantage. If someone is not financially capable of aiding in the funding of a campaign and they cannot support their candidate, they do not have the same equal representation if a candidate they don’t want wins.

Hudson truly believes that there is even more to the Hidden Election that most voters don’t see. After a candidate raises the amount of money they need to continue their campaign, a large team of professional campaign consultants are hired. This team has the important job of figuring out the best strategies for their candidate to win. The main goal of campaigning is to be bigger and better then their opponent. The team of consultants make sure that their candidate is seen in the best way they can be seen. Hudson strongly thinks that these new methods of campaigning, raising money, and “selling” a candidate take away from voter representation, “Nowhere in the marketing approach to campaigning is there a concern for or need to develop a strategy for representing voters,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 195). The new techniques applied to campaigning only brain wash voters. They disable voters from being able to see a candidate’s true stance on an issue. Strategies of polling, marketing, and advertising have become the new face of election campaigns and by doing so lessen the representation of voters in the election process.

The Electoral College is the next major concept, which Hudson argues has an impact on the equality and democracy of recent elections. The Electoral College was set up and designed by the Constitution in order to “fairly” elect the president. The Electoral College is was made similar to the way Congress is organized. Each state has equal representation and proportional representation. It is a winner-take-all system so whichever candidate receives the most votes in a certain state wins the state and takes all the electoral votes.

Hudson discusses how the current United States Electoral College system is not democratic in two ways. One is that citizens who live in a more populous state count for less in the big picture. He says that in a smaller state citizens have more of a chance to participate and be represented. Secondly he thinks that the winner-take-all system leaves much room for error. For example, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush won more electoral votes than Al Gore, but Al Gore won the popular vote. Even though Al Gore won the popular vote, George W. Bush would be president because he won the Electoral vote. Hudson believes that the 2000 election is proof that the Electoral College system is not democratic, “This result made Bush the legal winner of the presidential election but not the democratic choice of the electorate,”(Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 200). This issue that was brought up in the 2000 election proves that the Electoral College system needs to be reformed because even though there was a consensus among the American people who wanted Al Gore, he didn’t win based on the Electoral system. Another reason that Hudson briefly brings up is that many candidate begin to only center their campaign on swing states. Those states are visited much more frequently by candidates and get more much media attention than states that are clearly going red or blue.

Media is the third point which Hudson deems to be ruining the election process. The amount of media coverage has become enormous and the media is involved in almost every aspect of the campaign except the important part, the policy. Hudson discussed how the media, especially television, has been pressured to condense election information. Because of this, less emphasis has been place on policy, “The pressure on television news organizations to concentrate information into smaller and smaller bites prevent communications much more than slogans,” (Trivialized Elections, American Democracy in Peril, 204). Television has become a crucial aspect to campaign strategy and is influencing voters in the wrong ways. No longer are voters receiving the information that need to be well educated citizens but instead they are becoming less knowledgeable about elections due to media coverage.

Media is influencing what citizens know about elections and by doing this making the general public clueless on the main campaign platforms. Ways of doing this are through television commercial adds. Campaign Advisors are mainly concerned with making their candidate look good and portray their character and personality more than their policy. Hudson uses the example of how a candidate who wants to show they care about the elderly will shoot a commercial in a nursing home. What most viewers don’t realize though is that this commercial says nothing about the candidates actually policy or what they are going to do if elected. This form of campaigning influences voters to think falsely about candidates and never really understand what they are voting for. Hudson wants voters to be educated about what they are voting for so that they can be represented fairly.

Throughout this chapter Hudson has continually viewed the current election process as somewhat corrupt. Hudson is right to say that the system as it stands needs reform. He continually discusses an Athenian way of conducting government as ideal. Although the Athenian way of government worked long ago, with the population the size it is today it would be impossible to expect the United States to be “like” the Athenians. Hudson does make interesting points though about why our elections are becoming useless. In order for democracy to stay alive in the United States, elections have to express policy and issues more and stop dwelling on the idea of winning.

-Ellie

Parties (Political Style)

Political parties have always been a controversial issue, even since their immediate inception. James Madison believed, “that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority,” (Federalist 10, Woll, 174). Nevertheless, political parties have persisted through the years and remained to be a staple in the United States’ governmental institutions, yet the American people continue to struggle to find the right role the party system should play. This is largely due to the immense number of variables within the system and their inherent incompatibilities with our complicated and multi-component government.

There is a fine line between anti-party and pro-party sentiment. The most basic argument can be defined paradoxically. The authors of the Constitution, bound by their obligation to uphold the liberties upon which parties originate, “the right to agitate and to organize,” (Document 31, Woll, 179), were unable to suppress the party system, so through the enactment of constitutional separation of powers, the authors attempted to passively squash any party enthusiasm. Yet when people began to realize that parties perhaps had the potential of being effective tools of popular government, this discrepancy between the Constitution and the parties’ fundamental values quickly became an issue.

As mentioned above, the combination of conflicting political ideologies has created the situation where, “The Constitution made the rise of parties inevitable yet was incompatible with party government,” (Document 31, Woll, 179). Thus these two political entities have constantly been in contention with one another, which E.E. Schattschneider has characterized as an “unhappy marriage” where one is an “immovable object and the other is an irresistible force,” (Document 31, Woll, 180) resulting in a permanently dysfunctional partnership. This partnership is further compounded, though, by the conflicts present within the political party system itself in terms of bipartisan representation. The party platform boils down to concentrations of specific interests. Yet as Schattschneider points out, no clear dichotomy of completely opposing interests exists (nor agreeing for that matter). Rather “every individual is torn by the diversity of his own interests,” (Document 31, Woll, 181). Therefore for the party system to operate, emphasis must be constantly placed on the raw materials, or common interests that are not anti-social. In doing so the “common possessions of the people become the most durable cause of unity,” (Document 31, Woll, 180). In this respect, the party system has grown over the years, but it has continued to be carefully monitored. During the 1950’s when parties imposed upon democratic progress, the APSA (American Political Science Association) circulated a report channeling the system towards more responsible means.

Document 32 excerpts part of this propagandist report, redefining the party system’s purpose: “The party system thus serves as the main device for bringing into continuing relationship those ideas about liberty, majority rule and leadership which Americans are largely taking for granted,” (Document 32, Woll, 183). In response to Government continually gaining more responsibilities, APSA felt the need to stress the democratic importance and dependence placed on parties. Yet in doing so, the party system needed to be reformed and funneled through the appropriate measures as to prevent “dangerous outcomes”. More than anything the report stresses the importance of internal party cohesion and the need for effective opposition, providing the productivity and accountability necessary to function properly. With that being said, though, the operation of the two-party system has its consequences on other spheres of national influence when run improperly. Ultimately the system is regarded as essential in the sense that it keeps all differences within bounds- a guardian of free political choice. Although this thought is democratically pleasing, it isn’t necessarily true. If specific interests are constrained, then the result would just be an increasingly polarized ideology in which the extremist views of each party will keep expanding until the platform becomes self-defeating. The two parties will surrender their common grounds, resulting in a legislation dead-lock.

Arthur Paulson and David Mayhew attempt to refine the arguments between divided and unified parties and their influence in terms of their Executive and Legislative occupancy as well as the way we ultimately define the role of the party system. Paulson holds that a responsible party model is a government party. While Britain’s parliamentary government, with the fused coalition between the prime minister and parliament, is the pinnacle of responsibility and stability, U.S. fails to reach such standards. Certain issues “couched in social and cultural terms” (Document 33, Woll, 189) lend to the further advancement towards the polarization of parties and away from responsible platforms. Additionally the inseparable relationship between liberal interest groups and conservative interest groups to the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, has led to increased “interest articulation” within the parties rather than programmatic alternatives. Therefore, Paulson summarizes that American party system will continually be confined by its irresponsible and divided nature.

Mayhew, on the other hand, serves to cast a murky shadow upon the distinctions of divided and unified parties by remarking that “Democracy, according to some leading models, can function well enough as a n assortment of decentralized, unconnected incursions into public affairs,” (Document 34, Woll, 194). He further demonstrates historically that the party division of Executive and Legislative branches has been able to accomplish similar feats when compared to unified branches. Mayhew admires the United States’ resiliency to conform to the party leaders and reiterates the party purpose not as an overpowering governmental influencer.

The intricate workings of the American party system are subject to double standards. The concept of a party contradicts the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, while the internal contention between unified and divided factions serve to further complicate the entire process. Being on the eve of the election, political parties will become an issue of great importance and the potential realignment of the Executive and Legislative parties will lend to the excitement. It will by all means be interesting to watch the progression of the party system continue to develop and see if it can expand its scope to encompass a greater governmental impact.

Obama as a Target for Assassins Poll

On Monday, it became known that two white supremacists had a plan to rampage across the country, killing black people and ultimately targeting Barack Obama. Two men described as Neo-Nazi skinheads planned to kill 88 black people, 14 by beheading. These numbers are significant to white supremacists, 88 stands for HH or Heil Hitler, and 14 refers to a famous quote "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Officials are continuing to investigate, but at present there is no evidence that there were any others involved in the plot, or indeed a formal assassination plan. "They didn't believe they would be able to do it, but that they would get killed trying," says Jim Cavanaugh, one of the investigators. Even so, this raises concerns over possible future attempts on Obama's life if he is elected to the Presidency.
-Ellen

Political Parties in US Government: An Examination of the Transition from the Downs Modl to "Ideological Polarization" in American Politics

The political parties in the United States began as factions and have swelled and subsided in their platforms, representatives, funding, and organization since. James Madison predicted the development of ideological divides in government when he described factions as “sown in the nature of man” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175). However, he could have never predicted the evolution and changing influence of political parties on his beloved Constitutional government. It is therefore the responsibility of political scientists to analyze political parties’ role the constitutional republic of the United States. Beginning with James Madison’s Federalist 10 and continuing through David R. Mayhew’s contemporary analysis, this group of documents becomes an examination of political parties after 1950; after setting the historical basis, they represent the transition from The Downs Model of political parties to divided government marked by what Arthur Paulson refers to as “ideological polarization” in American politics.

The Downs Model was created by Anthony Downs to describe the relationship among citizens, political parties, and policy in United States government. Downs argues that voters hope to maximize the chance that the policies they favor will be enacted in government policy and that political parties want to win office. With this theory along with public opinion Downs interprets a relevant strategy for political parties. Because the majority of the electorate (voters) are moderate in their views, both the Democratic and Republican Parties set their ideology close to moderate views, the Democratic Party just to the left of moderate and the Republican Party just to the right. Neither party strays far from the midpoint of public opinion.

To interpret the ways in which political parties have changed and affected government, it is important to know their original relationship with government. Although political parties play an important role in the United States’ democratic system, the Founding Fathers’ based their limitations of politically-involved factions [political parties] in fear. James Madison defined factions as “the mortal disease under which popular governments have everywhere perished” (Federalist 10, Woll, 174). They intended to weaken the influence of factions to their greatest ability. In Federalist 10, Madison justifies the system of the American constitutional republic with its ability to control the negative effects of factions through separation of powers and a large electorate. First he explains that there are “two methods of removing the mischiefs of faction,” either by “removing its causes” or “controlling its effects” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175). However, he admits that divided interests are inherent to man, especially with divisions in class and possessions, and as a result, so are factions. He writes that to remove these factions would be to “abolish Liberty” (Federalist 10, Woll, 175), so relief from a majority’s ability “to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens” (Federalist 10, Woll, 176) could only come from controlling its effects. Madison’s solution is an extensive government in which power is delegated to patriotic citizens who will prevent the majority interests from overpowering those of the minority, a large electorate where the interests are varied among citizens, and finally a complex separation of power. All three, he writes, will “make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (Federalist 10, Woll, 178). The theme in his writing is that factions are a malady, not positive for government, and that US government is designed to prevent them from gaining power.

The advantage of great numbers that Madison associates with successful government, E. E. Schattschneider refers to as “labyrinthine framework” and inviting political parties to “strangle themselves in the machinery of government” (Document 31, Woll, 179). In Schattschneider’s analysis of the positive aspects of political parties, he develops the idea of the Downs Model. He criticizes the Constitution as having a “dual attitude” (Document 31, Woll, 179), being both pro-party and anti-party. He goes on to describe that the authors of the Constitution did not consider that “parties might be used as beneficent instruments of popular government” (Document 31, Woll, 179). In Schattschneider’s argument for political parties’ rightful place in government, he makes a distinction between common and special interests. He argues that political parties also mobilize common interests and therefore connect government policy to a “body of agreement” of society (Document 31, Woll, 180). He says because many people engage in both common and conflicting interests, “the divisions are not so clearly marked, and the alignment of people according to interests requires an enormous shuffling back and forth from one side to the other” (Document 31, Woll, 181). The Downs Model originates in common interest. Because the majority of the electorate agrees on many issues, political parties must situate themselves not far from moderate in order to both attract and represent their citizens. Political parties, according to the Downs model, have to account for this ‘enormous shuffling.’

With a basis of political parties original relationship with government and then the growth of political parties as a connection for American citizens to the republican interworkings of government policy through common interests, the next documents evaluate the transition of political party nature in the United States. During the 20th century, political scientists argued that a weak party system was a barrier to effective democratic leadership, so The American Political Science Association (APSA) formed a committee on political parties and wrote and report in 1950 called Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. Document 32 is taken from the “Role of the Political Parties” section of this text. Because the committee considered political parties as “indispensable instruments of government…which provide the electorate with a proper range of choice between alternatives of action” (Document 32, Woll, 183) and anticipated the decline in political parties in the US, it sought to improve upon the political party. The members of the committee called it the Responsible Party System. They defined the system: “An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs,” and that they have “an Effective Opposition Party” (Document 32, Woll, 184). This responsible party system sets the standard for modern political party analysis.

Many political scientists would agree that the decay that APSA predicted in 1950 became a reality and that the second half of the century was marked by the decline of political parties and by split government void of realignment. Arthur Paulson disagrees. He interprets the transition away from a Downs model “umbrella party” (Document 33, Woll, 187) trend where each party shines it shade on a number of ideologies as a shift towards the responsible party system: “nonideological coalitions of factions with diverse interests” (Document 33, Woll, 189). He redefines political parties as shifting towards an “ideological polarization” in politics where parties are increasingly engaged in “interest articulation” (Document 33, Woll, 189). Is this positive? He says yes: “What is emerging is a party system featuring two ideologically homogenized political parties offering the electorate much more polarized choices than has generally been the American experience” (Document 33, Woll, 189). Although Paulson rationalizes the transition away from the Downs model, he admits that the danger in this system is political “gridlock” (Document 33, Woll, 188). If the two parties are so ideologically different and the legislative and the executive branches are engaged in split government (they are governed by the opposite party), then the government becomes stuck in legislative paralysis. Paulson’s argument for encouraging interest-driven, polarized political parties is unconvincing. His constant use of examples from England’s Parliamentary party system where one party rules in both the executive and the legislative seems irrational. His love of English government and interest in unified party government leads back to Madison’s original fears for US government. Although a more “national articulation of more distinct interests and issue alternatives” (Document 33, Woll, 190) is appealing, Madison would tear his hair out at the idea of encouraging faction-driven party government.

In the last document, Mayhew, like Paulson, sees the change in political parties simply as a transition and not as decay; however, Mayhew takes the opposite stance to Paulson’s. While Paulson advocates unified government and believes that divided government means unsuccessful government, Mayhew goes to all levels to disprove Paulson’s view. Mayhew writes “Unified versus divided control has probably not made a notable difference during the postwar era” (Document 34, Woll, 193). He argues that unified party government leads to “seriously defective legislation,” “programmatic [in]coherence,” and decreased individual power because the proper checks and balances are overlooked (Document 34, Woll, 196). Mayhew concludes that there is a “strong pluralist component” with checks and balances broken by party loyalty, that this is “a matter of political culture¬¬––perhaps a survival of republicanism,” and that “British style governing by party majorities does not have much of a chance” (Document 34, Woll, 199).

After Mayhew’s and Paulson’s disagreement, the transition of political parties takes full circle. It returns to the issue of one political party ruling both in the majority and in government, Madison’s fear and Paulson’s ideal. This year’s election is a critical election; there is a good chance that both the Presidency and the Congress will become realigned in the same political party. We must then ask ourselves, now that political parties have strayed away from the Downsian model and identify with polarized ideals, does unified government hand too much political power to the party? Or is Paulson right and it has rightfully influential sway? Or is Mayhew right, does it not really matter? It would be a significant change in US government if the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by the Democratic Party, for not only might it mean sweeping change in policy, but it would be the first time in over a decade. Maybe the question is really whether or not the electorate still falls under the Downsian model or if politics have led us into an era of split ideology and polarized society.

-Rachel Mary Rosenberg